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

[Ray From Cleveland]

These rats are censoring conservatives.

It is also an in-kind donation to the Democratic Party. Therefore in violation of campaign finance laws.

Interesting. I've kinda toyed around with that idea. The fact that these online giants are suppressing opposing viewpoints, and considering how big and influential they have become, it could be tantamount to influencing an election. And as you said, an "in kind" donation to the democratic candidate.

Having said that, I struggle with this, because I believe private business should be free to operate, legally, without interference from the government. These big companies should be allowed to operate as they see fit, no? If they want to only allow one viewpoint, should they be denied that? If the other side doesn't like it, then they should create a competing company to allow their viewpoints. As long as those other companies do not throw obstacles in their way that is.

Of course, if those companies are receiving some kind of benefit from the government because they claim to be arbiters of free speech and fair expression of different views, and they are not doing that, then the benefit needs to be removed.

While I agree with you in theory, most of those huge corporations that dominate the top of silicon valley's food chain and monopolize the industry, were made possible by the tax payer, and are in bed with the government and the intelligence agencies.

. . . thus, should they have a monopoly over propaganda and influencing the debate?

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

How the CIA made Google

Inside the secret network behind mass surveillance, endless war, and Skynet — part 1

medium.com

Meet In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s Venture Capital Firm (Preview) | The Corbett Report

www.corbettreport.com

This is why I struggle with an answer to this. As we can see, this is what happens when a company gets too close to the government. This is what happens when a company is given benefits by a government.

Here we have these giants who have been built as private companies, but have, in some cases, worked so closely with the government, and may have been given benefits by that government that have helped them grow, and they have become so very influential in everyone's lives.

On one hand, one would say that they should be allowed to run their business as they see fit, on the other hand, they have been allowed to become so powerful that they could, in fact, steer an election. How does one reconcile that? I have a hard time with that, as one who wants maximum freedom and liberty to exceed. It is a contradiction, and a paradox.

I'm not an extremist, but I am a right-leaning Republican. Even I'm not real keen on this.

People can boycott whatever they like. It's been done so many times in the past. When Chick-Fil-A took a religious stance on gay marriage, the left countered by telling it's ilk to boycott the restaurant chain. At the same time, people on the right flooded their restaurants. They had lines out the door and surrounding the building. That's what I'm for.

The US Constitution gives us the right to free speech, but you can't go into your bosses office tomorrow and tell him his wife and kids are the ugliest people you've ever seen. You will get fired. The Constitution does not give you the right of free speech from everybody, it gives you the right to free speech by any government.

On the other hand, you can't sign an agreement protecting you from liability because you're a platform - not a content provider, have the government help you grow your platform by protecting you while you swallow or eliminate the competition, then suddenly act like a provider, not a platform

I don't care what they categorize it as, it's social media and not a necessity to life or information. I've never been on Twitter and probably never will. I am on Facebook, but if they do something that's out of line in my book, I can always sign up on Parler which guarantees freedom of any political speech. However most of my friends and family are conservative and post conservative stories and opinions. So far, nobody has complained about being censored.

 

[jwoodie]

And it's exactly what tRump is trying to do.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

These rats are censoring conservatives.

It is also an in-kind donation to the Democratic Party. Therefore in violation of campaign finance laws.

Interesting. I've kinda toyed around with that idea. The fact that these online giants are suppressing opposing viewpoints, and considering how big and influential they have become, it could be tantamount to influencing an election. And as you said, an "in kind" donation to the democratic candidate.

Having said that, I struggle with this, because I believe private business should be free to operate, legally, without interference from the government. These big companies should be allowed to operate as they see fit, no? If they want to only allow one viewpoint, should they be denied that? If the other side doesn't like it, then they should create a competing company to allow their viewpoints. As long as those other companies do not throw obstacles in their way that is.

Of course, if those companies are receiving some kind of benefit from the government because they claim to be arbiters of free speech and fair expression of different views, and they are not doing that, then the benefit needs to be removed.

While I agree with you in theory, most of those huge corporations that dominate the top of silicon valley's food chain and monopolize the industry, were made possible by the tax payer, and are in bed with the government and the intelligence agencies.

. . . thus, should they have a monopoly over propaganda and influencing the debate?

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

How the CIA made Google

Inside the secret network behind mass surveillance, endless war, and Skynet — part 1

medium.com

Meet In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s Venture Capital Firm (Preview) | The Corbett Report

www.corbettreport.com

This is why I struggle with an answer to this. As we can see, this is what happens when a company gets too close to the government. This is what happens when a company is given benefits by a government.

Here we have these giants who have been built as private companies, but have, in some cases, worked so closely with the government, and may have been given benefits by that government that have helped them grow, and they have become so very influential in everyone's lives.

On one hand, one would say that they should be allowed to run their business as they see fit, on the other hand, they have been allowed to become so powerful that they could, in fact, steer an election. How does one reconcile that? I have a hard time with that, as one who wants maximum freedom and liberty to exceed. It is a contradiction, and a paradox.

I'm not an extremist, but I am a right-leaning Republican. Even I'm not real keen on this.

People can boycott whatever they like. It's been done so many times in the past. When Chick-Fil-A took a religious stance on gay marriage, the left countered by telling it's ilk to boycott the restaurant chain. At the same time, people on the right flooded their restaurants. They had lines out the door and surrounding the building. That's what I'm for.

The US Constitution gives us the right to free speech, but you can't go into your bosses office tomorrow and tell him his wife and kids are the ugliest people you've ever seen. You will get fired. The Constitution does not give you the right of free speech from everybody, it gives you the right to free speech by any government.

On the other hand, you can't sign an agreement protecting you from liability because you're a platform - not a content provider, have the government help you grow your platform by protecting you while you swallow or eliminate the competition, then suddenly act like a provider, not a platform

I don't care what they categorize it as, it's social media and not a necessity to life or information. I've never been on Twitter and probably never will. I am on Facebook, but if they do something that's out of line in my book, I can always sign up on Parler which guarantees freedom of any political speech. However most of my friends and family are conservative and post conservative stories and opinions. So far, nobody has complained about being censored.

My brother is banned every other month on The Facebook, which I all but stopped visiting about 2 years ago

 

[Juicey Omelette]

Just another reason to vote for Trump come November.

 

[Coyote]

They haven’t figured out that Trump is not, in fact, an emperor.

Negative... This is the first step to allow the people to sue current "platforms". First, you need to know WHY you were banned, and by what procedures were used.

Can people sue yet? No... But once this information is known, it can be shown that it was not implemented the same for everybody.

Edit: Publisher vs Platform argument again essentially. If they don't implement the same rules for everybody, then they are going to lose their Platform status, and they are now publishers that can be sued. Just like CNN or Washington Post. I hope this forum has gone over the Publisher vs Platform debate so I don't have to explain that all.

I don't think people have really thought this through.

I don't have a particular issue with them being sued. I really never liked the idea of platform "immunity" because it allows for almost criminal behavior in content posted.

But, this means that they could be sued for the content that is published. That means if it's defamatory, untrue, or dangerous hoaxes (like Alex Jones and Sandy Hook, or Pizzagate) - they could be sued by the victims. I would think that means they will have to have more control over WHAT gets posted if they are held responsible for it. Think about what that means.

I also don't see how that would alter people being banned. They have terms of service and those can be what ever they choose. They are a private entity, they don't have to publish everything or even be "equal" in viewpoints. They do not have to post hate speech, as they define it, and they don't have to allow their property to be used for perpetrating hoaxes.

I think this is just a bone being tossed to Trump's base, so they think they are getting something for perceived grievances that really doesn't change much EXCEPT it might clean the content up some.

I'm more behind Congress' efforts right now - investigating the tech giants for anti-trust activities.

 

[MisterBeale]

These rats are censoring conservatives.

It is also an in-kind donation to the Democratic Party. Therefore in violation of campaign finance laws.

Interesting. I've kinda toyed around with that idea. The fact that these online giants are suppressing opposing viewpoints, and considering how big and influential they have become, it could be tantamount to influencing an election. And as you said, an "in kind" donation to the democratic candidate.

Having said that, I struggle with this, because I believe private business should be free to operate, legally, without interference from the government. These big companies should be allowed to operate as they see fit, no? If they want to only allow one viewpoint, should they be denied that? If the other side doesn't like it, then they should create a competing company to allow their viewpoints. As long as those other companies do not throw obstacles in their way that is.

Of course, if those companies are receiving some kind of benefit from the government because they claim to be arbiters of free speech and fair expression of different views, and they are not doing that, then the benefit needs to be removed.

While I agree with you in theory, most of those huge corporations that dominate the top of silicon valley's food chain and monopolize the industry, were made possible by the tax payer, and are in bed with the government and the intelligence agencies.

. . . thus, should they have a monopoly over propaganda and influencing the debate?

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

How the CIA made Google

Inside the secret network behind mass surveillance, endless war, and Skynet — part 1

medium.com

Meet In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s Venture Capital Firm (Preview) | The Corbett Report

www.corbettreport.com

This is why I struggle with an answer to this. As we can see, this is what happens when a company gets too close to the government. This is what happens when a company is given benefits by a government.

Here we have these giants who have been built as private companies, but have, in some cases, worked so closely with the government, and may have been given benefits by that government that have helped them grow, and they have become so very influential in everyone's lives.

On one hand, one would say that they should be allowed to run their business as they see fit, on the other hand, they have been allowed to become so powerful that they could, in fact, steer an election. How does one reconcile that? I have a hard time with that, as one who wants maximum freedom and liberty to exceed. It is a contradiction, and a paradox.

I'm not an extremist, but I am a right-leaning Republican. Even I'm not real keen on this.

People can boycott whatever they like. It's been done so many times in the past. When Chick-Fil-A took a religious stance on gay marriage, the left countered by telling it's ilk to boycott the restaurant chain. At the same time, people on the right flooded their restaurants. They had lines out the door and surrounding the building. That's what I'm for.

The US Constitution gives us the right to free speech, but you can't go into your bosses office tomorrow and tell him his wife and kids are the ugliest people you've ever seen. You will get fired. The Constitution does not give you the right of free speech from everybody, it gives you the right to free speech by any government.

This is EXACTLY my position.

If we start regulating the tech giants, then we give them a de-facto monopoly, sort of like state governments do with power companies, and the FEDS did with ATT back in the 60's and 70's.

Then NO ONE will like that. IMO, the major players have purposely been pushing folks to try to get a reaction from conservative politicians and the public for this very reason.

Instead, IMO, we should diversify and just start up more options. This forum could start, by helping us to be able to embed from the sites where folks are posting informational videos, like Bitchute, Brighteon, and LBRY.

This video is from the summer of 2018, but that just goes to show how long they have been pushing folks and how long this problem has been ongoing.




SHOW NOTES
Daniel McAdams and Scott Horton Have Been Suspended By Twitter

How/Why Big Oil Conquered the World

Social Media Alternatives on The Corbett Report

The Weaponization of Social Media

40 Percent of Social Media Users Delete Accounts Over Privacy Concerns

The Weird DARPA/Facebook “Coincidence” You Never Heard About

Episode 325 – The Information-Industrial Complex

 

[MisterBeale]

These rats are censoring conservatives.

It is also an in-kind donation to the Democratic Party. Therefore in violation of campaign finance laws.

Interesting. I've kinda toyed around with that idea. The fact that these online giants are suppressing opposing viewpoints, and considering how big and influential they have become, it could be tantamount to influencing an election. And as you said, an "in kind" donation to the democratic candidate.

Having said that, I struggle with this, because I believe private business should be free to operate, legally, without interference from the government. These big companies should be allowed to operate as they see fit, no? If they want to only allow one viewpoint, should they be denied that? If the other side doesn't like it, then they should create a competing company to allow their viewpoints. As long as those other companies do not throw obstacles in their way that is.

Of course, if those companies are receiving some kind of benefit from the government because they claim to be arbiters of free speech and fair expression of different views, and they are not doing that, then the benefit needs to be removed.

While I agree with you in theory, most of those huge corporations that dominate the top of silicon valley's food chain and monopolize the industry, were made possible by the tax payer, and are in bed with the government and the intelligence agencies.

. . . thus, should they have a monopoly over propaganda and influencing the debate?

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

How the CIA made Google

Inside the secret network behind mass surveillance, endless war, and Skynet — part 1

medium.com

Meet In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s Venture Capital Firm (Preview) | The Corbett Report

www.corbettreport.com

This is why I struggle with an answer to this. As we can see, this is what happens when a company gets too close to the government. This is what happens when a company is given benefits by a government.

Here we have these giants who have been built as private companies, but have, in some cases, worked so closely with the government, and may have been given benefits by that government that have helped them grow, and they have become so very influential in everyone's lives.

On one hand, one would say that they should be allowed to run their business as they see fit, on the other hand, they have been allowed to become so powerful that they could, in fact, steer an election. How does one reconcile that? I have a hard time with that, as one who wants maximum freedom and liberty to exceed. It is a contradiction, and a paradox.

I'm not an extremist, but I am a right-leaning Republican. Even I'm not real keen on this.

People can boycott whatever they like. It's been done so many times in the past. When Chick-Fil-A took a religious stance on gay marriage, the left countered by telling it's ilk to boycott the restaurant chain. At the same time, people on the right flooded their restaurants. They had lines out the door and surrounding the building. That's what I'm for.

The US Constitution gives us the right to free speech, but you can't go into your bosses office tomorrow and tell him his wife and kids are the ugliest people you've ever seen. You will get fired. The Constitution does not give you the right of free speech from everybody, it gives you the right to free speech by any government.

On the other hand, you can't sign an agreement protecting you from liability because you're a platform - not a content provider, have the government help you grow your platform by protecting you while you swallow or eliminate the competition, then suddenly act like a provider, not a platform

I don't care what they categorize it as, it's social media and not a necessity to life or information. I've never been on Twitter and probably never will. I am on Facebook, but if they do something that's out of line in my book, I can always sign up on Parler which guarantees freedom of any political speech. However most of my friends and family are conservative and post conservative stories and opinions. So far, nobody has complained about being censored.

My brother is banned every other month on The Facebook, which I all but stopped visiting about 2 years ago

Yeah, I have a friend that likes get into political shit on FB. He made two accounts back in the day when you didn't have to have them necessarily verified? I don't know much about FB, not on there very much.

Ever since the virus, he has had them alternately banned. . . .

 

[MisterBeale]

They haven’t figured out that Trump is not, in fact, an emperor.

Negative... This is the first step to allow the people to sue current "platforms". First, you need to know WHY you were banned, and by what procedures were used.

Can people sue yet? No... But once this information is known, it can be shown that it was not implemented the same for everybody.

Edit: Publisher vs Platform argument again essentially. If they don't implement the same rules for everybody, then they are going to lose their Platform status, and they are now publishers that can be sued. Just like CNN or Washington Post. I hope this forum has gone over the Publisher vs Platform debate so I don't have to explain that all.

I don't think people have really thought this through.

I don't have a particular issue with them being sued. I really never liked the idea of platform "immunity" because it allows for almost criminal behavior in content posted.

But, this means that they could be sued for the content that is published. That means if it's defamatory, untrue, or dangerous hoaxes (like Alex Jones and Sandy Hook, or Pizzagate) - they could be sued by the victims. I would think that means they will have to have more control over WHAT gets posted if they are held responsible for it. Think about what that means.

I also don't see how that would alter people being banned. They have terms of service and those can be what ever they choose. They are a private entity, they don't have to publish everything or even be "equal" in viewpoints. They do not have to post hate speech, as they define it, and they don't have to allow their property to be used for perpetrating hoaxes.

I think this is just a bone being tossed to Trump's base, so they think they are getting something for perceived grievances that really doesn't change much EXCEPT it might clean the content up some.

I'm more behind Congress' efforts right now - investigating the tech giants for anti-trust activities.

While I mostly agree with you?

The TOS are meaningless.

Just ask Dan Dicks about his fourteen years worth of work that YouTube deleted with out warning, no reason given, no violations, nothing.

These firms are nakedly political and looking to make themselves into government sanctioned monopolies.



. . and who the hell determines what a "hoax" is?

 

[satrebil]

I've said this before but I'll say it again: I generally abhor government intrusion into private business but Big Tech has proven it cannot operate as a neutral party and it's beyond time for the Feds to step in, for several reasons.

1) I don't buy the "private business" argument when it comes to the likes of Facebook, Google, etc. Why? Because these companies are PUBLICLY traded on a PUBLIC stock market. What sense does it make that I can literally own a share of Facebook but be restricted from sharing my thoughts on the platform itself?

2) Social media has become the defacto public square in the 21st century that in my opinion rises to the level of a public utility. Verizon is a private company but they cannot terminate your phone service because they don't like what you say on their "private" lines.

3) These corporations have become so large that they serve as the gatekeepers of income to millions. From artists, to independent journalists, to ecommerce retailers, to media outlets - these companies can destroy your livelihood with the proverbial push of a button. This is a dangerous position that undermines democracy by making people beholden to the whims of corporate power.

Big Tech MUST be reigned in.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

These rats are censoring conservatives.

It is also an in-kind donation to the Democratic Party. Therefore in violation of campaign finance laws.

Interesting. I've kinda toyed around with that idea. The fact that these online giants are suppressing opposing viewpoints, and considering how big and influential they have become, it could be tantamount to influencing an election. And as you said, an "in kind" donation to the democratic candidate.

Having said that, I struggle with this, because I believe private business should be free to operate, legally, without interference from the government. These big companies should be allowed to operate as they see fit, no? If they want to only allow one viewpoint, should they be denied that? If the other side doesn't like it, then they should create a competing company to allow their viewpoints. As long as those other companies do not throw obstacles in their way that is.

Of course, if those companies are receiving some kind of benefit from the government because they claim to be arbiters of free speech and fair expression of different views, and they are not doing that, then the benefit needs to be removed.

While I agree with you in theory, most of those huge corporations that dominate the top of silicon valley's food chain and monopolize the industry, were made possible by the tax payer, and are in bed with the government and the intelligence agencies.

. . . thus, should they have a monopoly over propaganda and influencing the debate?

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

How the CIA made Google

Inside the secret network behind mass surveillance, endless war, and Skynet — part 1

medium.com

Meet In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s Venture Capital Firm (Preview) | The Corbett Report

www.corbettreport.com

This is why I struggle with an answer to this. As we can see, this is what happens when a company gets too close to the government. This is what happens when a company is given benefits by a government.

Here we have these giants who have been built as private companies, but have, in some cases, worked so closely with the government, and may have been given benefits by that government that have helped them grow, and they have become so very influential in everyone's lives.

On one hand, one would say that they should be allowed to run their business as they see fit, on the other hand, they have been allowed to become so powerful that they could, in fact, steer an election. How does one reconcile that? I have a hard time with that, as one who wants maximum freedom and liberty to exceed. It is a contradiction, and a paradox.

I'm not an extremist, but I am a right-leaning Republican. Even I'm not real keen on this.

People can boycott whatever they like. It's been done so many times in the past. When Chick-Fil-A took a religious stance on gay marriage, the left countered by telling it's ilk to boycott the restaurant chain. At the same time, people on the right flooded their restaurants. They had lines out the door and surrounding the building. That's what I'm for.

The US Constitution gives us the right to free speech, but you can't go into your bosses office tomorrow and tell him his wife and kids are the ugliest people you've ever seen. You will get fired. The Constitution does not give you the right of free speech from everybody, it gives you the right to free speech by any government.

On the other hand, you can't sign an agreement protecting you from liability because you're a platform - not a content provider, have the government help you grow your platform by protecting you while you swallow or eliminate the competition, then suddenly act like a provider, not a platform

I don't care what they categorize it as, it's social media and not a necessity to life or information. I've never been on Twitter and probably never will. I am on Facebook, but if they do something that's out of line in my book, I can always sign up on Parler which guarantees freedom of any political speech. However most of my friends and family are conservative and post conservative stories and opinions. So far, nobody has complained about being censored.

My brother is banned every other month on The Facebook, which I all but stopped visiting about 2 years ago

Yeah, I have a friend that likes get into political shit on FB. He made two accounts back in the day when you didn't have to have them necessarily verified? I don't know much about FB, not on there very much.

Ever since the virus, he has had them alternately banned. . . .

How do you know my brother Anthony?

 

[MisterBeale]

Censorship is fascist. Right, ANTIFA??

And it's exactly what tRump is trying to do.

Uhh... An executive order against censorship is censorship? What?

And Antifa is an anti-fascist group....

The logic on the left is just nuts.

It's not the logic of the left, it is the logic of totalitarians.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

These rats are censoring conservatives.

It is also an in-kind donation to the Democratic Party. Therefore in violation of campaign finance laws.

Interesting. I've kinda toyed around with that idea. The fact that these online giants are suppressing opposing viewpoints, and considering how big and influential they have become, it could be tantamount to influencing an election. And as you said, an "in kind" donation to the democratic candidate.

Having said that, I struggle with this, because I believe private business should be free to operate, legally, without interference from the government. These big companies should be allowed to operate as they see fit, no? If they want to only allow one viewpoint, should they be denied that? If the other side doesn't like it, then they should create a competing company to allow their viewpoints. As long as those other companies do not throw obstacles in their way that is.

Of course, if those companies are receiving some kind of benefit from the government because they claim to be arbiters of free speech and fair expression of different views, and they are not doing that, then the benefit needs to be removed.

While I agree with you in theory, most of those huge corporations that dominate the top of silicon valley's food chain and monopolize the industry, were made possible by the tax payer, and are in bed with the government and the intelligence agencies.

. . . thus, should they have a monopoly over propaganda and influencing the debate?

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

How the CIA made Google

Inside the secret network behind mass surveillance, endless war, and Skynet — part 1

medium.com

Meet In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s Venture Capital Firm (Preview) | The Corbett Report

www.corbettreport.com

This is why I struggle with an answer to this. As we can see, this is what happens when a company gets too close to the government. This is what happens when a company is given benefits by a government.

Here we have these giants who have been built as private companies, but have, in some cases, worked so closely with the government, and may have been given benefits by that government that have helped them grow, and they have become so very influential in everyone's lives.

On one hand, one would say that they should be allowed to run their business as they see fit, on the other hand, they have been allowed to become so powerful that they could, in fact, steer an election. How does one reconcile that? I have a hard time with that, as one who wants maximum freedom and liberty to exceed. It is a contradiction, and a paradox.

I'm not an extremist, but I am a right-leaning Republican. Even I'm not real keen on this.

People can boycott whatever they like. It's been done so many times in the past. When Chick-Fil-A took a religious stance on gay marriage, the left countered by telling it's ilk to boycott the restaurant chain. At the same time, people on the right flooded their restaurants. They had lines out the door and surrounding the building. That's what I'm for.

The US Constitution gives us the right to free speech, but you can't go into your bosses office tomorrow and tell him his wife and kids are the ugliest people you've ever seen. You will get fired. The Constitution does not give you the right of free speech from everybody, it gives you the right to free speech by any government.

This is EXACTLY my position.

If we start regulating the tech giants, then we give them a de-facto monopoly, sort of like state governments do with power companies, and the FEDS did with ATT back in the 60's and 70's.

Then NO ONE will like that. IMO, the major players have purposely been pushing folks to try to get a reaction from conservative politicians and the public for this very reason.

Instead, IMO, we should diversify and just start up more options. This forum could start, by helping us to be able to embed from the sites where folks are posting informational videos, like Bitchute, Brighteon, and LBRY.

This video is from the summer of 2018, but that just goes to show how long they have been pushing folks and how long this problem has been ongoing.




SHOW NOTES
Daniel McAdams and Scott Horton Have Been Suspended By Twitter

How/Why Big Oil Conquered the World

Social Media Alternatives on The Corbett Report

The Weaponization of Social Media

40 Percent of Social Media Users Delete Accounts Over Privacy Concerns

The Weird DARPA/Facebook “Coincidence” You Never Heard About

Episode 325 – The Information-Industrial Complex

One of the best features (to me) about the internet is there was very little government oversight. Then DumBama rode in on his horse with Net Neutrality. I used to belong to a free webcam service called WebCamNow. When net neutrality became law, they closed their service and there was never anything like it since.

 

[Richard-H]

Censorship is fascist. Right, ANTIFA??

Is calling "FIRE!" in a crowded auditorium censorship?
Or shouting "BOMB" IN an airplane?I
Free speech cannot cause damage or injury to others.
Fake news and outright lies are damaging to rational communications, especially when ignorant people like you are involved.

No.

But banning people on a platform for having the wrong opinion IS internet censorship.

You conflate it to shouting bomb in an airplane because your have a very, very low IQ.

No. This social media sites are privately owned and can choose what they allow up to the point of anything that would be damaging to the American people - like fake news and out right false information posed as correct information. In other words the entire portfolio of Conservative opinions.

It is not internet censorship since anyone that is censored can open their own social media site and post whatever they'd like - up to the point of anything that would be damaging to the American people - like fake news and out right false information posed as correct information. In other words the entire portfolio of Conservative opinions.

 

[bripat9643]

Censorship is fascist. Right, ANTIFA??

And it's exactly what tRump is trying to do.

Uhh... An executive order against censorship is censorship? What?

And Antifa is an anti-fascist group....

The logic on the left is just nuts.

It's not the logic of the left, it is the logic of totalitarians.

The left, in other words.

 

[bripat9643]

Censorship is fascist. Right, ANTIFA??

Is calling "FIRE!" in a crowded auditorium censorship?
Or shouting "BOMB" IN an airplane?I
Free speech cannot cause damage or injury to others.
Fake news and outright lies are damaging to rational communications, especially when ignorant people like you are involved.

No.

But banning people on a platform for having the wrong opinion IS internet censorship.

You conflate it to shouting bomb in an airplane because your have a very, very low IQ.

No. This social media sites are privately owned and can choose what they allow up to the point of anything that would be damaging to the American people - like fake news and out right false information posed as correct information. In other words the entire portfolio of Conservative opinions.

It is not internet censorship since anyone that is censored can open their own social media site and post whatever they'd like - up to the point of anything that would be damaging to the American people - like fake news and out right false information posed as correct information. In other words the entire portfolio of Conservative opinions.

They are government protected monopolies. What is "damaging to society" shouldn't be left up to them. I think liberalism is damaging to society. You only proved why the government should regulate them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Bake my cake, Facebook!!

 

[theHawk]

I

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.​

Ya illegal and unconstitutional.

It will.go no-where. Particularly not in the few months he has left.

Wrong. Those social media sites use the law as “platforms” to shield themselves from liability of what users post. If they sensor, they aren’t a platform anymore, and don’t get those protections, they become publishers that can be held liable for the content posted.

so if they have rules, or Moderate.... like USMB does on this site.... then the owners of the site,
CAN BE sued and held responsible for what their users post???

IS THAT what you are saying? That the owners of USMB can be sued for what we may post, because they moderate the site?

The law in question gives protection from being sued, for providers. Taking away that protection doesn’t necessarily mean they can easily be sued. All liable suits are very difficult to prove, but it can be done. And yes, USMB can be sued, you can attempt to sue anyone you want, it doesn’t mean you’ll be successful. So good luck proving USMB caused you to lose a lot of money or infringed on your free speech. But a professional YouTuber that makes money via YouTube will have grounds to sue if he was unfairly shadow banned, demonetized, flagged, or censored for political views (as opposed to something pornographic or morbid).

 

[theHawk]

Censorship is fascist. Right, ANTIFA??

And it's exactly what tRump is trying to do.

Hey, they love their big, centralized government, authoritarian strongman. This is what they want.

I don't see that as an argument in good faith. Requiring a company to be open about it's procedures for banning doesn't seem like a overreach at all, or some kind of hostile government take over.

The company can do as it pleases, just like Facebook. It can be as ideologically closed or biased as it wants to be. If people don't like it, there are other options, as small as they may be.

Unless and until it's officially made a utility, it can operate as it sees fit under the law, and the market will decide.

FOX and MSNBC can, too.

Funny how these supposed "constitutionalists" don't seem to understand how it actually works.

Yea, how dare we think people shouldn’t be punished for political views.

 

[Levant]

No. This social media sites are privately owned and can choose what they allow up to the point of anything that would be damaging to the American people - like fake news and out right false information posed as correct information. In other words the entire portfolio of Conservative opinions.

It is not internet censorship since anyone that is censored can open their own social media site and post whatever they'd like - up to the point of anything that would be damaging to the American people - like fake news and out right false information posed as correct information. In other words the entire portfolio of Conservative opinions.

Suddenly the left supports free markets. Can you prove your bona fides by posting a link to your similar post about bakers refusing to participate in homosexual weddings?

I support free markets, too. But these companies were founded with federal dollars. They were built on the backs of slaves, remember? All of America was? Oh, wait. Only republican businesses were built on the backs of slaves.

But these companies get special protection as providing the service and not the content - but then they filter the content... Strip their protections and arrest them for child ponography... or give them protections and ban them from interfering with legal content.

 

[BlindBoo]

President Trump’s Executive Order targeting social media companies is an assault on free expression online and a transparent attempt to retaliate against Twitter for its decision to curate (well, really just to fact-check) his posts and deter everyone else from taking similar steps. The good news is that, assuming the final order looks like the draft we reviewed on Wednesday, it won’t survive judicial scrutiny. To see why, let’s take a deeper look at its incorrect reading of Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230) and how the order violates the First Amendment

Trump Executive Order Misreads Key Law Promoting Free Expression Online and Violates the First Amendment

This post based its initial analysis on a draft Executive Order. It has been updated to reflect the final order, available here.President Trump’s Executive Order targeting social media companies is an assault on free expression online and a transparent attempt to retaliate against Twitter for its...

www.eff.org