Censorship is Wrong

[AzogtheDefiler]

Section 230 is a provision of the Communications Decency Act, which was passed in 1996. A number of tech industry observers say it's the most important law protecting free speech online.

The provision essentially protects companies that host user-created content from lawsuits over posts on their services. The law shields not only internet service providers, like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, but also social media platforms, like Facebook, Twitter and Google.

I agree. It's the most important law protecting free speech online.

You're a Brit. We'll see how America decides. I disagree with you. You're not protecting my free speech if you censor me.

 

[colfax_m]

You're a Brit. We'll see how America decides. I disagree with you. You're not protecting my free speech if you censor me.

Social media companies would hardly exist without Section 230. How's the freedom of speech protected if very few people have a platform on which to express it? Far, far more peopled have gained ability to express themselves on social media platforms since the law was enacted. The success speaks for itself.

Although I was trying not to be personal, you're acting more paranoid and delusional.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You're a Brit. We'll see how America decides. I disagree with you. You're not protecting my free speech if you censor me.

Social media companies would hardly exist without Section 230. How's the freedom of speech protected if very few people have a platform on which to express it? Far, far more peopled have gained ability to express themselves on social media platforms since the law was enacted. The success speaks for itself.

Although I was trying not to be personal, you're acting more paranoid and delusional.

How? They banned a story from a major and well regarded paper because it was an expose against Biden. If it were Don Jr. and Trump, zero chance it gets flagged. They banned the press secretary to the President. You cannot see the forest through the trees. Go and drink your tea and crumpets. I am not an expert on regulatory law but Congress believes they have a case. Maybe it will go to the Supreme Court...wonder which way they will be leaning....?

 

[colfax_m]

How? They banned a story from a major and well regarded paper because it was an expose against Biden. If it were Don Jr. and Trump, zero chance it gets flagged. They banned the press secretary to the President. You cannot see the forest through the trees. Go and drink your tea and crumpets. I am not an expert on regulatory law but Congress believes they have a case. Maybe it will go to the Supreme Court...wonder which way they will be leaning....?

Well regarded paper? They're publishing opposition research direct from the Trump campaign. A story which has a million red flags and directly coincides with the Russian misinformation attempts to interfere in our election. I think if Twitter and Facebook hadn't gotten so whacked by this in 2016, they would have never reacted this way.

If this were Don Jr or Trump, this wouldn't have been published by a right wing tabloid. It also wouldn't have ever been published by the legitimate media either because it's so shady. You're attempt to create a hypothetical to prove your point is not a strong argument since it cannot be proven or disproven, it's just an opinion which in my mind is unsupported by facts.

Congress will do whatever they do. Republicans are just annoyed because they're so inundated with conspiracy theories on the right in this country that attempts to combat conspiracy theories disproportionately affect them.

 

[Moonglow]

Censorship is wrong, but when you're part of the leftwing tribe, it's okay.
I know, I don't understand it either.

Unless it's cake for a gay wedding.

The gays shouldn't have asked the couple to go against their religious beliefs, but you knew that.

Yes, they should have known better than to think a person would not judge them based on their life, since Christ said that wasn't right because we all sin. But maybe they had a different Jesus...

 

[Moonglow]

You're a Brit. We'll see how America decides. I disagree with you. You're not protecting my free speech if you censor me.

Social media companies would hardly exist without Section 230. How's the freedom of speech protected if very few people have a platform on which to express it? Far, far more peopled have gained ability to express themselves on social media platforms since the law was enacted. The success speaks for itself.

Although I was trying not to be personal, you're acting more paranoid and delusional.

How? They banned a story from a major and well regarded paper because it was an expose against Biden. If it were Don Jr. and Trump, zero chance it gets flagged. They banned the press secretary to the President. You cannot see the forest through the trees. Go and drink your tea and crumpets. I am not an expert on regulatory law but Congress believes they have a case. Maybe it will go to the Supreme Court...wonder which way they will be leaning....?

It twas a Russian October surprise dump....Right comrade?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

How? They banned a story from a major and well regarded paper because it was an expose against Biden. If it were Don Jr. and Trump, zero chance it gets flagged. They banned the press secretary to the President. You cannot see the forest through the trees. Go and drink your tea and crumpets. I am not an expert on regulatory law but Congress believes they have a case. Maybe it will go to the Supreme Court...wonder which way they will be leaning....?

Well regarded paper? They're publishing opposition research direct from the Trump campaign. A story which has a million red flags and directly coincides with the Russian misinformation attempts to interfere in our election. I think if Twitter and Facebook hadn't gotten so whacked by this in 2016, they would have never reacted this way.

If this were Don Jr or Trump, this wouldn't have been published by a right wing tabloid. It also wouldn't have ever been published by the legitimate media either because it's so shady. You're attempt to create a hypothetical to prove your point is not a strong argument since it cannot be proven or disproven, it's just an opinion which in my mind is unsupported by facts.

Congress will do whatever they do. Republicans are just annoyed because they're so inundated with conspiracy theories on the right in this country that attempts to combat conspiracy theories disproportionately affect them.

NYP is not a credible newspaper? They had actual emails and pictures? You are off the rails. Wow. Fewer crumpets.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You're a Brit. We'll see how America decides. I disagree with you. You're not protecting my free speech if you censor me.

Social media companies would hardly exist without Section 230. How's the freedom of speech protected if very few people have a platform on which to express it? Far, far more peopled have gained ability to express themselves on social media platforms since the law was enacted. The success speaks for itself.

Although I was trying not to be personal, you're acting more paranoid and delusional.

How? They banned a story from a major and well regarded paper because it was an expose against Biden. If it were Don Jr. and Trump, zero chance it gets flagged. They banned the press secretary to the President. You cannot see the forest through the trees. Go and drink your tea and crumpets. I am not an expert on regulatory law but Congress believes they have a case. Maybe it will go to the Supreme Court...wonder which way they will be leaning....?

It twas a Russian October surprise dump....Right comrade?

What was not factual about it? Again, stop derailing my thread. Last warning.

 

[colfax_m]

NYP is not a credible newspaper? They had actual emails and pictures? You are off the rails. Wow. Fewer crumpets.

No, it's a right wing tabloid.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

NYP is not a credible newspaper? They had actual emails and pictures? You are off the rails. Wow. Fewer crumpets.

No, it's a right wing tabloid.

People disagree. You do realize that you're entitled to your opinions but not your own facts. This thread alone has many agreeing with me. Would you please go back to the UK? Sooner the better.

 

[colfax_m]

People disagree. You do realize that you're entitled to your opinions but not your own facts. This thread alone has many agreeing with me. Would you please go back to the UK? Sooner the better.

Not all opinions are equal.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Twitter, Facebook censor Post over Hunter Biden exposé

Both Twitter and Facebook took extraordinary censorship measures against The Post on Wednesday over its exposés about Hunter Biden’s emails — with Twitter baselessly charging that &#822…

nypost.com

Facebook And Twitter Limit Sharing 'New York Post' Story About Joe Biden

The social media companies said they wanted to slow the spread of possibly false information. But their actions drew charges of censorship from President Trump and his allies.

www.npr.org

While censoring Hunter Biden story, Twitter allows China, Iran state media

Twitter is allowing Chinese and Iranian state media to push content while blocking a New York Post article that purports to show emails from Hunter Biden linking his father to his Ukraine business dealings.

www.foxnews.com

This is nuts. Now we are censoring the NYP? A major newspaper? Meanwhile Twitter allows Chinese and Iranian anti American propaganda? Twitter argues they are just a disseminator of information not a contact provider. I beg to differ. Twitter and FB should be regulated as content providers.

Censorship has no place in America. I hope Congress is watching.

Freedom of Political Speech is an AMERICAN PRINCIPLE. Only the left looks for opportunities to excuse this

 

[colfax_m]

A well regarded newspaper, just FYI:

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

People disagree. You do realize that you're entitled to your opinions but not your own facts. This thread alone has many agreeing with me. Would you please go back to the UK? Sooner the better.

Not all opinions are equal.

Indeed not. It’s a fact that you’re a Brit and ashamed to Admit it. Why?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

A well regarded newspaper, just FYI:
View attachment 402001

And? I can find many a weird stories from the NYT doesn’t mean NYT isn’t credible

 

[lantern2814]

Twitter, Facebook censor Post over Hunter Biden exposé

Both Twitter and Facebook took extraordinary censorship measures against The Post on Wednesday over its exposés about Hunter Biden’s emails — with Twitter baselessly charging that &#822…

nypost.com

Facebook And Twitter Limit Sharing 'New York Post' Story About Joe Biden

The social media companies said they wanted to slow the spread of possibly false information. But their actions drew charges of censorship from President Trump and his allies.

www.npr.org

While censoring Hunter Biden story, Twitter allows China, Iran state media

Twitter is allowing Chinese and Iranian state media to push content while blocking a New York Post article that purports to show emails from Hunter Biden linking his father to his Ukraine business dealings.

www.foxnews.com

This is nuts. Now we are censoring the NYP? A major newspaper? Meanwhile Twitter allows Chinese and Iranian anti American propaganda? Twitter argues they are just a disseminator of information not a contact provider. I beg to differ. Twitter and FB should be regulated as content providers.

Censorship has no place in America. I hope Congress is watching.

Tabloid garbage and you should know better. When it's BS it should be censored. Misinformed, disinformed, etc, etc, etc. Get it?

Bullshit. The Post published exactly how they got their FACTS nimrod. You are misinformed, uninformed, a liar, etc. Got it?

 

[TheParser]

Let's be fair.

Censorship is necessary.

We censor ourselves every day. At work, for example, we would love to tell off our boss or obnoxious colleagues.

On the Internet, there are certain things that we simply cannot say. For example, we cannot threaten violence against any group that we do not like. We cannot use unkind epithets for groups that we fear.

The problem is: What should be censored and what shouldn't?

A few years ago, the Los Angeles Times's "Travel Section" printed two readers' letters that downplayed the injustice of putting California's Japanese Americans in relocation camps during World War II. The next week, the "Travel" section begged forgiveness for having let those two letters get through the editing process and printed. Personally, if I had been the editor of the "Travel" section, I would have allowed those two letters,

The same newspaper some years ago declined to print the ethnicity of "young men" who were robbing people on the side streets of a fashionable shopping district. After a lot of irate reaction from readers, the paper relented. I suspect that today the paper would stand its ground, especially since more and more staff members feel that it is not covering people of color with enough sensitivity.

In the case of Mr. Biden's son, I feel that those platforms were wrong to censor that report. Of course, we do not know whether it is true or not. And I realize that with the election being held in two weeks, maybe Twitter felt it would be unfair to unload such "news" at this point, But Twitter is being disingenuous, I feel. It knows full well that nothing will stop Biden voters from voting for him. I can think of only one thing that would scandalize the nation if he were to do it, but -- of course -- I am going to censor myself and not mention it.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

You're a Brit. We'll see how America decides. I disagree with you. You're not protecting my free speech if you censor me.

Social media companies would hardly exist without Section 230. How's the freedom of speech protected if very few people have a platform on which to express it? Far, far more peopled have gained ability to express themselves on social media platforms since the law was enacted. The success speaks for itself.

Although I was trying not to be personal, you're acting more paranoid and delusional.

Paranoid and delusional?
So google,twitter and facebook aren't silencing Conservatives and anything that would damage dems?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

How? They banned a story from a major and well regarded paper because it was an expose against Biden. If it were Don Jr. and Trump, zero chance it gets flagged. They banned the press secretary to the President. You cannot see the forest through the trees. Go and drink your tea and crumpets. I am not an expert on regulatory law but Congress believes they have a case. Maybe it will go to the Supreme Court...wonder which way they will be leaning....?

Well regarded paper? They're publishing opposition research direct from the Trump campaign. A story which has a million red flags and directly coincides with the Russian misinformation attempts to interfere in our election. I think if Twitter and Facebook hadn't gotten so whacked by this in 2016, they would have never reacted this way.

If this were Don Jr or Trump, this wouldn't have been published by a right wing tabloid. It also wouldn't have ever been published by the legitimate media either because it's so shady. You're attempt to create a hypothetical to prove your point is not a strong argument since it cannot be proven or disproven, it's just an opinion which in my mind is unsupported by facts.

Congress will do whatever they do. Republicans are just annoyed because they're so inundated with conspiracy theories on the right in this country that attempts to combat conspiracy theories disproportionately affect them.

NYP is not a credible newspaper? They had actual emails and pictures? You are off the rails. Wow. Fewer crumpets.

And they have the fourth largest readership in the country.

 

[lantern2814]

How? They banned a story from a major and well regarded paper because it was an expose against Biden. If it were Don Jr. and Trump, zero chance it gets flagged. They banned the press secretary to the President. You cannot see the forest through the trees. Go and drink your tea and crumpets. I am not an expert on regulatory law but Congress believes they have a case. Maybe it will go to the Supreme Court...wonder which way they will be leaning....?

Well regarded paper? They're publishing opposition research direct from the Trump campaign. A story which has a million red flags and directly coincides with the Russian misinformation attempts to interfere in our election. I think if Twitter and Facebook hadn't gotten so whacked by this in 2016, they would have never reacted this way.

If this were Don Jr or Trump, this wouldn't have been published by a right wing tabloid. It also wouldn't have ever been published by the legitimate media either because it's so shady. You're attempt to create a hypothetical to prove your point is not a strong argument since it cannot be proven or disproven, it's just an opinion which in my mind is unsupported by facts.

Congress will do whatever they do. Republicans are just annoyed because they're so inundated with conspiracy theories on the right in this country that attempts to combat conspiracy theories disproportionately affect them.

You have just shown you have ZERO knowledge of this case. The Post published exactly where their FACTS came from. Going back to Russia shows your complete ignorance. See dimwit, those FACTS were on Cokehead Hunter’s laptop and phone. Oops. Your statements false and totally destroyed by the facts.