HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users’ Free Speech

[Erinwltr]

Facebook is overbearing in their censorship of Christianity, conservatism and standard traditional values.

Pure delusion. Right-wing stories dominate all the major social media outlets. You're just upset becasue you can't censor every left-wing voice. What, you thought your censorship crusade wasn't obvious?

What's happening? The left doesn't mass-spam and lie. The right does. Therefore, the left has less of a presence. Moral people willingly penalize themselves. We recognize that's how it has to be. We on the left won't stoop to doing what the right does, so we will always have less of an online presence.

Nope....totally inaccurate

Not upset about anything at all. Once again the stack of legal opinions is piling up and steadily building abridge to the virtual world. Your positions are
Juxtaposed. It is the left that practices censorship and cancel culture not the right. You cannot offer a platform service on the one hand and then tell certain groups you will not support their offerings because you don't like them.
Social media is no longer just a private commodity.... it has in fact grown into the status of public utility and will eventually be reclassified as such......

Maybe, maybe not. Especially since a lot of public utilities have been privatized. Will be interesting to see.

Public utility - Wikipedia

 

[busybee01]

Trump went even further than I expected. The SJWs will be livid.

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users' Free Speech - Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users’ Free Speech – Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

This Is Big!​

​

On Wednesday Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sundar Pichai and Apple’s Tim Cook testified before Congress in the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust.​

​

Since 2016 and the election of Donald Trump the tech giants have been censoring and banning conservative voices online. The Gateway Pundit has been a huge target of these liberal tech giants.​

​

Of course, the CEOs dismissed allegations that they are targeting and censoring conservative users despite ALL of the evidence to the contrary.​

Trump has no power to do this. Free speech rights only apply to governments. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this.

A Supreme Court Decision Could Have Implications for Social Media Free Speech

The court ruled that First Amendment protections don't apply to a corporation that operates a public access channel in New York.

psmag.com

Did you read the EO? He has the authority to instruct the FCC, which is in the Executive Branch. He is not trying to impose anything on private companies. They can censor all they want, but if they do, they scan also be held liable for their content.

No they will not be. The federal government has no power to do anything. Social media is not bound by free speech. The FCC has no statutory authority to regulate the internet nor do I want them doing so. Why don't you clowns start your own social media company. Then you can do anything you want.

If you think the FCC has no authority over the Internet then you are woefully uninformed. Plenty of legislation has been past by Congress, decades ago, that does just that.

You are the one who is uninformed. The FCC has no statutory authority to regulate the internet, Also the Supreme Court has ruled that free speech does not apply to private companies.

 

[busybee01]

They CAN ban if people violate their ToS, and regardless they ARE private entities. Even publishers like the media are not required to publish everything. They pick and choose.

Can bakers refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding?

They cannot refuse to bake a cake. They are a public accomodation. I don't necessarily believe they have to bake a wedding cake but they have to bake a cake.

That law is pure idiocy and unconstitutional. The commerce clause does not give the federal government to run every business in the United States.

They do not have the right to discriminate. If they do then they can be sued.

 

[busybee01]

You are the one who is mistaken. The platform has every right to censor material they find objectionable. Free speech rights bind the government not private entities.

They cannot refuse to bake a cake. They are a public accomodation. I don't necessarily believe they have to bake a wedding cake but they have to bake a cake.

Do you see what's wrong with those two posts? Seriously, just how stupid are you? At least if you're going to make two completely opposite claims, proving that you and the truth, and that you and ethics, are not even acquainted, let alone friends, then be smart enough to separate the two with a response or two from someone else so your two opposite claims aren't posts 294 and 295.

You are the one who is stupid. Free speech rights do not apply to private companies. As long as they pay for the platform then they can censor. Companies that sell to the public cannot discriminate. Those are facts. You and the truth are in 2 different worlds. They are not opposite claims. They are in 2 different industries where the rules are different.

 

[busybee01]

They CAN ban if people violate their ToS, and regardless they ARE private entities. Even publishers like the media are not required to publish everything. They pick and choose.

Can bakers refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding?

They cannot refuse to bake a cake. They are a public accomodation. I don't necessarily believe they have to bake a wedding cake but they have to bake a cake.

You make posts back to back. One saying a business can operate as they please, the other saying they are a public accommodation and have to adhere to certain rules of operation...

They operate in two different business environments. Social media companies do not sell to the public. They are not bound by free speech rules. A bakery that sells directly to the public is different with a different set of rules.

 

[Erinwltr]

They CAN ban if people violate their ToS, and regardless they ARE private entities. Even publishers like the media are not required to publish everything. They pick and choose.

Can bakers refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding?

They cannot refuse to bake a cake. They are a public accomodation. I don't necessarily believe they have to bake a wedding cake but they have to bake a cake.

That law is pure idiocy and unconstitutional. The commerce clause does not give the federal government to run every business in the United States.

Tisk tisk. Pick and choose your laws now, I see patty.

Commerce Clause

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[bripat9643]

Trump went even further than I expected. The SJWs will be livid.

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users' Free Speech - Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users’ Free Speech – Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

This Is Big!​

​

On Wednesday Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sundar Pichai and Apple’s Tim Cook testified before Congress in the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust.​

​

Since 2016 and the election of Donald Trump the tech giants have been censoring and banning conservative voices online. The Gateway Pundit has been a huge target of these liberal tech giants.​

​

Of course, the CEOs dismissed allegations that they are targeting and censoring conservative users despite ALL of the evidence to the contrary.​

Isn't his gold digger wife suppose to end bullying online? Why is he still going strong bullying people virtually?

Who did he bully?

Everyone, name calling , insulting, belittling and intimidating everyone that disagrees with him. If you approve of that, it tells us what kind of person you are.

How do you bully everyone? If name calling was bullying, then wouldn't all you Trump haters be guilty of it?

You douchebags don't have a problem with any of those behaviors when Democrats do it, why should anyone give a damn about Trump doing it?

 

[bripat9643]

They CAN ban if people violate their ToS, and regardless they ARE private entities. Even publishers like the media are not required to publish everything. They pick and choose.

Can bakers refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding?

They cannot refuse to bake a cake. They are a public accomodation. I don't necessarily believe they have to bake a wedding cake but they have to bake a cake.

That law is pure idiocy and unconstitutional. The commerce clause does not give the federal government to run every business in the United States.

Tisk tisk. Pick and choose your laws now, I see patty.

Commerce Clause

www.law.cornell.edu

Most laws that Dims have passed in the last 70 years are unconstitutional, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

They CAN ban if people violate their ToS, and regardless they ARE private entities. Even publishers like the media are not required to publish everything. They pick and choose.

Can bakers refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding?

They cannot refuse to bake a cake. They are a public accomodation. I don't necessarily believe they have to bake a wedding cake but they have to bake a cake.

You make posts back to back. One saying a business can operate as they please, the other saying they are a public accommodation and have to adhere to certain rules of operation...

They operate in two different business environments. Social media companies do not sell to the public. They are not bound by free speech rules. A bakery that sells directly to the public is different with a different set of rules.

They bound themselves to free speech rules when they asked for government protection from lawsuits, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

They CAN ban if people violate their ToS, and regardless they ARE private entities. Even publishers like the media are not required to publish everything. They pick and choose.

Can bakers refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding?

They cannot refuse to bake a cake. They are a public accomodation. I don't necessarily believe they have to bake a wedding cake but they have to bake a cake.

That law is pure idiocy and unconstitutional. The commerce clause does not give the federal government to run every business in the United States.

They do not have the right to discriminate. If they do then they can be sued.

They do have that right in the Constitution, but liberal judges overruled the Constitution.

 

[ThisIsMe]

They CAN ban if people violate their ToS, and regardless they ARE private entities. Even publishers like the media are not required to publish everything. They pick and choose.

Can bakers refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding?

They cannot refuse to bake a cake. They are a public accomodation. I don't necessarily believe they have to bake a wedding cake but they have to bake a cake.

You make posts back to back. One saying a business can operate as they please, the other saying they are a public accommodation and have to adhere to certain rules of operation...

They operate in two different business environments. Social media companies do not sell to the public. They are not bound by free speech rules. A bakery that sells directly to the public is different with a different set of rules.

Where does it say they operate on two different sets of rules?

Also, I think some are saying that, yes, if Facebook or Google doesn't want to allow certain views on their platform, they have that right, as they are indeed private companies. What that also means, however, is that when theydo that, they forfeit protection from being sued. If they are going to cherry pick what content is allowed on their sites, then they become a publisher, and the laws state that as a publisher, they are responsible for anything posted on their platform, even if they were unaware that it was there.

 

[bripat9643]

They CAN ban if people violate their ToS, and regardless they ARE private entities. Even publishers like the media are not required to publish everything. They pick and choose.

Can bakers refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding?

They cannot refuse to bake a cake. They are a public accomodation. I don't necessarily believe they have to bake a wedding cake but they have to bake a cake.

You make posts back to back. One saying a business can operate as they please, the other saying they are a public accommodation and have to adhere to certain rules of operation...

They operate in two different business environments. Social media companies do not sell to the public. They are not bound by free speech rules. A bakery that sells directly to the public is different with a different set of rules.

Where does it say they operate on two different sets of rules?

Also, I think some are saying that, yes, if Facebook or Google doesn't want to allow certain views on their platform, they have that right, as they are indeed private companies. What that also means, however, is that when theydo that, they forfeit protection from being sued. If they are going to cherry pick what content is allowed on their sites, then they become a publisher, and the laws state that as a publisher, they are responsible for anything posted on their platform, even if they were unaware that it was there.

That's been said 10,000 times already, but the TDS morons always pretend like they haven't heard it.

 

[colfax_m]

What that also means, however, is that when theydo that, they forfeit protection from being sued. If they are going to cherry pick what content is allowed on their sites, then they become a publisher, and the laws state that as a publisher, they are responsible for anything posted on their platform, even if they were unaware that it was there.

No, that’s not true. The law is 100% clear, that a company running a website is not to be treated as a publisher for content submitted by their users.

If an employee of that company writes the content, they are publishers for that content. If the company alters substantively the content of a user, they are publishers for that content.

Otherwise, they are not held as liable for any content.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What in the world are you going on about? You know damned well that I'm vehemently opposed to the whole "bake the cake" bullshit. Are you suggesting otherwise?

I'm suggesting that in general I can't tell your posts from those of Synthaholic. If you ever had any principles you sold them out for TDS long ago.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You are the one who is uninformed. The FCC has no statutory authority to regulate the internet, Also the Supreme Court has ruled that free speech does not apply to private companies.

Comrade traitor, you're dumb as dogshit - which is why you're a Communist.

The only ones to ever try and regulate the internet are you Communists with your Net Brutality bullshit, which EVERY SINGLE Bolshevik propaganda outlet pimped and demanded that the FCC has full authority to regulate the internet.

Net Neutrality: Make Congress Treat the Internet Like a Utility

Make Congress treat the internet like a utility.

www.inverse.com

The Debate Over Net Neutrality Has Its Roots in the Fight Over Radio Freedom

Today's epic battle has been fought before, when radio took to the air a century ago

www.smithsonianmag.com

As I said, you're dumb as brick with far less integrity - your hypocrisy abounds.

Obviously what the president proposed is revoking SPECIAL PROTECTION from internet PUBLISHERS that other publishers don't enjoy.

Look, you're a Communist, equal treatment under the law is anathema to everything the hive imprints into your central nervous system (I don't accept that democrat drones in fact have brains.) What the president is proposing is that rule 230 only protects open platforms - like this one. When the Twazis or Fascistbook determine the CONTENT, they are not a forum but a publisher.

 

[Crixus]

Trump went even further than I expected. The SJWs will be livid.

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users' Free Speech - Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users’ Free Speech – Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

This Is Big!​

​

On Wednesday Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sundar Pichai and Apple’s Tim Cook testified before Congress in the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust.​

​

Since 2016 and the election of Donald Trump the tech giants have been censoring and banning conservative voices online. The Gateway Pundit has been a huge target of these liberal tech giants.​

​

Of course, the CEOs dismissed allegations that they are targeting and censoring conservative users despite ALL of the evidence to the contrary.​

what haplens if they dont stop?

 

[Shelzin]

They do not have the right to discriminate. If they do then they can be sued.

Dude... Right now that is NOT TRUE. If it was true, we would be able to sue. We cannot. That's the whole point. Well, it's my point. Read up on Section 230.. Passed in 1996 I think it was.

Edit: You are in the boat that I was in several years ago. Thinking it was one way, when it's actually another. Right now you can not sue Facebook, Twitter, ext.. ext... for discrimination.

 

[dblack]

What in the world are you going on about? You know damned well that I'm vehemently opposed to the whole "bake the cake" bullshit. Are you suggesting otherwise?

I'm suggesting that in general I can't tell your posts from those of Synthaholic.

Then you're very obtuse and should read more carefully. I've always been opposed to civil rights legislation that forces people to do business with others against their will. The government should never have the power to order businesses around in the name of social engineering. That's exactly the same reason I oppose Trumps attempts to force businesses to host his stupidity.

 

[dblack]

He claims to be a libertarian, but he's always on the same side as the TDS morons.

For years he was a Chomsky type libertarian - or posted like one, but TDS has destroyed his integrity, his only principle is blind rage against the usurper who is fucking up the power structure of our rulers.

Ahhh.... TDS? Already? Don't you usually wait until you've lost an argument before you whip that out? Or... oh, I see... nevermind.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Then you're very obtuse and should read more carefully. I've always been opposed to civil rights legislation that forces people to do business with others against their will. The government should never have the power to order businesses around in the name of social engineering. That's exactly the same reason I oppose Trumps attempts to force businesses to host his stupidity.

So, revoking special protections for a particular class of favored businesses is wrong then? I mean, without favors, what does Washington have to sell, right?