Deleted tweet detection is currently running at reduced
capacity due to changes to the Twitter API. Some tweets that have been
deleted by the tweet author may not be labeled as deleted in the PolitiTweet
interface.
Showing page 102 of 257.
Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC
Getting dropped by @NathanLeamerDC 🚲 https://t.co/ZHHotn7r6m — PolitiTweet.org
Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC
@jmrybnicek @ProfWrightGMU @matthewstoller @AjitPaiFCC This combo is unimpeachable. 🤞 — PolitiTweet.org
Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC
@dominos https://t.co/jRXE1POQ9F — PolitiTweet.org
Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC
https://t.co/Q7G4s1qTBL — PolitiTweet.org
Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC
@WorldWideWillJo https://t.co/WkYIj0SwmK — PolitiTweet.org
Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC
The repack is over. Long live the repack! https://t.co/rkWOfARDWJ — PolitiTweet.org
Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC
🙌🏻 Congratulations to new dad @TomMJohnsonJr Life will never be the same. — PolitiTweet.org
Tom Johnson @TomMJohnsonJr
🎵 The radio and the telephone And the movies that we know May just be passing fancies And in time may go. But oh m… https://t.co/MJWAlUYzyy
Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC
Less speech means more power for established gatekeepers. — PolitiTweet.org
Senator Ted Cruz @SenTedCruz
This would be a mistake. Banning political ads would: ✅Silence the free speech of candidates, groups, & Americans ✅… https://t.co/V6eJM…
Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC
Can confirm that’s a solid tower. đź‘Ť — PolitiTweet.org
VIKOR @VIKORInc
We're flashing back to 1998 and construction of the 2,000 (yes 2,000!) foot KDLT-TV tower in Rowena, SD. It's fun t… https://t.co/AemVXMJ5Nx
Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC
The sheer scale of China’s past IP theft confirms that America is now on the right path. We must continue to show the strength needed to address the threats posed by Communist China. — PolitiTweet.org
National Review @NRO
From the Chartroom: The Cost of China’s Intellectual-Property Theft | https://t.co/Dl3XKApXT3 via Joseph W. Sullivan https://t.co/sXxWe34U6G
Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC
Need! — PolitiTweet.org
Megan Brown @megbrownlawyer
Attention also @BrendanCarrFCC https://t.co/GAjitxvQob
Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC
@TakesmanPAC @jack Look, if this does not convince you of the need for 230 reform, then I’m out of arguments. — PolitiTweet.org
Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC
@senatorshoshana Everyone is for free speech until it comes to ugly feet. — PolitiTweet.org
Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC
“New normal” https://t.co/5FSXCIzWRv — PolitiTweet.org
Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC
Kudos to U.K. Member of Parliament @GregClarkMP on the questioning during a hearing on Huawei’s role in the U.K. 5G network. — PolitiTweet.org
Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC
Huawei: We’re no CCP puppet. Also Huawei: https://t.co/Nx7J02G2cQ — PolitiTweet.org
Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC
Telehealth is proving its value during Covid-19, and I expect the momentum for delivering care remotely will continue to build. Glad to see that so many health care heroes have benefited from the FCC’s Emergency Covid-19 Telehealth Program. https://t.co/Pof1z2n3GE — PolitiTweet.org
Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC
2020: free speech labeled as a threat to civil rights. https://t.co/nrM3WyeLgn — PolitiTweet.org
Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC
@mmasnick If there’s a 1A problem w/ “good faith” vs bad faith, that problem exists today b/c that language is in the statute. One idea thats been offered is to look at terms of service or legally binding commitments. If your moderation violates those, the argu goes, then not good faith. — PolitiTweet.org
Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC
@mmasnick By “all others” I mean all other speakers, not just websites. I think we’re agreeing that 230 can be reformed w/o violating 1A, and I’ve offered ideas that I believe would do just that, including more clarity around the “good faith” language that Congress included in 230. — PolitiTweet.org
Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC
@burro_rabia @mmasnick Rage Donkey, if your argument is that 230 does no more than codify First Amendment law, then you should have no objection to reforming or revoking 230 because doing so would, in your view, not change the legal status quo - those 1A protections would live on. — PolitiTweet.org
Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC
@AtlantaLiberal @mmasnick Some have the view that 230 was a deal — act like a platform (and get 230 protections) or act like a publisher (and don’t). That view isn’t right. 230’s text basically eliminates the platform - publisher distinction and says, in (c)(2), good faith conduct gets 230 protections. — PolitiTweet.org
Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC
@mmasnick I’ve been clear that all persons have 1A rights that cannot be infringed. Section 230 confers on one set of speakers (ICSs) statutory protections that go above & beyond those 1A rights that all others have. So those statutory rights can be reformed w/o violating the 1A. — PolitiTweet.org
Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC
@mmasnick Big if true! Of course, it’s not. I have not said that a website should lose First Amendment protections. You’re conflating Section 230 with the First Amendment. There is no First Amendment right to Section 230. So Section 230 can be reformed without infringing any 1A rights. — PolitiTweet.org
Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC
Indeed, Justice Breyer’s main point — that free speech must give way to the democratically expressed views of the people — rejects the very point of the First Amendment, which is to protect the minority from the majority. — PolitiTweet.org
Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC
The idea that the government (or a majority acting through it) can judge some speech as more valuable or deserving of First Amendment protections than other speech is not, as Breyer suggests, enshrined in the First Amendment, it is rejected by it. — PolitiTweet.org
Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC
But that distinction can be illusory at best because the line between “non-core” and “core” political speech will be drawn by people in political power, at least in the first instance. — PolitiTweet.org
Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC
One can argue, as Breyer appears, that this intrusion on First Amendment rights is no big deal because he is not talking about limits on core political speech. — PolitiTweet.org
Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC
At that point, Breyer writes, the majority of the people can, acting through the government, abridge the speech of a minority of the people or those holding unpopular views. — PolitiTweet.org
Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC
Justice Breyer argues that the First Amendment protects a robust and free exchange of ideas but only until the government decides to weigh in and end that debate. — PolitiTweet.org
