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

[Coyote]

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.

Fox and MSNBC can be sued. It doesn't need to be made into a utility, just a publisher, rather than platform.

The difference (well, one of them) is that the networks employ those who create the content and those are the people whose words are subject to lawsuits. Social media platforms are not employing those who post. Calling social sites "publishers" is one hell of a stretch, unless someone they employ or pay posts something in their name.

Informative...I wasn't aware of that difference.

 

[Faun]

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 action did Impeached Trump take?

<crickets>

 

[ThisIsMe]

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

Exactly. Any protections they receive because they call themselves a content provider should be eliminated when they start choosing which speech they are going to allow.

This is how cable companies stay protected from things posted using their service, they don't prohibit you from expression of opinion.

 

[Coyote]

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.

I do think a reasonable argument can be made for monopolies though.

I use FB to keep in contact. I just don't see any real purpose in twitter.

 

[Levant]

Well for one, Obama being born in Kenya was not true; whereas it is true that Russia hacked us.

Actually, you're wrong on both points. He was born in Kenya, his wife admitted it. And Russia didn't hack us; they purchased some... wait for it..FACEBOOK ads. Oh, and they provided fake opposition research to THE HILLARY CLINTON campaign in an effort to keep Trump from being elected...

According to Obama, himself, no voting machines were hacked.

 

[Coyote]

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

Don't they HAVE a defacto monopoly?

 

[Coyote]

Well for one, Obama being born in Kenya was not true; whereas it is true that Russia hacked us.

Actually, you're wrong on both points. He was born in Kenya, his wife admitted it. And Russia didn't hack us; they purchased some... wait for it..FACEBOOK ads. Oh, and they provided fake opposition research to THE HILLARY CLINTON campaign in an effort to keep Trump from being elected...

According to Obama, himself, no voting machines were hacked.

Oh God...Birtherism is still alive and kicking.

The Russians did hack us - the fact that voting machines were not hacked is irrelevant. They hacked and attempted to hack both political parties and who knows what else.

 

[Billy000]

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.​

Ugh you’re such an idiot. If Trump never whines about this, you wouldn’t even give a shut.

More importantly, the fact that you think letting these companies censor content is a violation of the 1st amendment is so fucking stupid. NO ONE IS BEING CHARGED WITH A CRIME INVOLVING FREE SPEECH IDIOT. It’s their goddamn platform. Funny how you support regulations that fit your narrative.

Trump isn't asking them to censor content, moron. He's asking them not to censor it.

They have been protected by the law, so it's not "their goddamn platform."

I sure do enjoy watching you have a royal hissy fit when your game is over.

Yeah idiot. I know. He doesn’t want his completr bullshit censored. It’s so moronic how you think their censorship ON THEIR PLATFORM is a violation of his 1st amendment rights. I can’t get over how fucking stupid that is lol

Trump gets censored for the truth, yet idiots like you cheer as the PROVEN BULLSHIT Russia hoax crap get so to remain up. As well as true hate speech from the Ayatollah and the Democrat Party. When it’s only conservatives getting removed, that’s censorship and illegal. We can’t get over how stupid you are. Lol.

I wouldn’t give two shits if they censored anything. Because, I’m you know, an adult.

Bullshit. If a conservatives run site removed Obozo or Biden’s posts you’d be here screaming censorship or racism. Because you’re, you know, a raving loon libtard.

Your desperation to defend this pure stupidity by claiming the left would do it is so incredibly lame lol. It’s not like you can even defend this with any reasoned, intelligent argument otherwise.

 

[colfax_m]

You'd first have to demonstrate that facebook was aware of this illegal content, knew it was illegal content and decided to do nothing about it.

Given the massive amount of information on facebook, there's no conceivable way they could know everything on their servers.

So you're creating an impossible situation for them, which I suspect is the intent all along.

Nothing at all impossible about the situation: All they need do is to quit censoring political debate. Quit deleting medical information about which they know nothing in order to cause the deaths of thousands to support a political agenda.

But that has nothing to do with presence and legal liability from illegal content.

This smacks of pretext.

 

[Coyote]

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.

It's funny to see the right pro-regulation all of a sudden.

That said, I think some changes in the laws are needed. The legal framework for these tech giants is outdated.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well for one, Obama being born in Kenya was not true; whereas it is true that Russia hacked us.

Actually, you're wrong on both points. He was born in Kenya, his wife admitted it. And Russia didn't hack us; they purchased some... wait for it..FACEBOOK ads. Oh, and they provided fake opposition research to THE HILLARY CLINTON campaign in an effort to keep Trump from being elected...

According to Obama, himself, no voting machines were hacked.

Oh God...Birtherism is still alive and kicking.

The Russians did hack us - the fact that voting machines were not hacked is irrelevant. They hacked and attempted to hack both political parties and who knows what else.

How did they hack us, by putting ads on Facebook?

 

[Shelzin]

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.

Me either.

But, this means that they could be sued for the content that is published.

Not if they are a platform. If they are a platform they really don't ban ANYTHING unless it's illegal. They keep their "immunity".

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.

If they continue as they are and are made a publisher instead of a platform.. Yes. If you regulate yourself to the point that you are a publisher, like any news source, then you should be able to be sued when you wrong an entity.

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.

Explained above.

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 don't believe that. I think this is the first step to separating publishers from platforms.

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

I don't have a problem with them doing that as well.

 

[Coyote]

Well for one, Obama being born in Kenya was not true; whereas it is true that Russia hacked us.

Actually, you're wrong on both points. He was born in Kenya, his wife admitted it. And Russia didn't hack us; they purchased some... wait for it..FACEBOOK ads. Oh, and they provided fake opposition research to THE HILLARY CLINTON campaign in an effort to keep Trump from being elected...

According to Obama, himself, no voting machines were hacked.

Oh God...Birtherism is still alive and kicking.

The Russians did hack us - the fact that voting machines were not hacked is irrelevant. They hacked and attempted to hack both political parties and who knows what else.

How did they hack us, by putting ads on Facebook?

I have no idea how. I'm not a hacker But they hacked Podesta, the DNC, individual Republican targets, and the Illinois RNC as some examples.

 

[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.

I do think a reasonable argument can be made for monopolies though.

I use FB to keep in contact. I just don't see any real purpose in twitter.

Parler is alternative to Facebook and Twitter. No, not nearly as popular or large as the two, but it's an alternative. I don't think a monopoly means to have the largest or best.

 

[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

Don't they HAVE a defacto monopoly?

hmmm. . .

 

[Shelzin]

It's funny to see the right pro-regulation all of a sudden.

That said, I think some changes in the laws are needed. The legal framework for these tech giants is outdated.

Negative... The government isn't regulating anything with this. It's taking the first step to removing a immunity from publishing whatever they want, to allow the people to sue for wrongs done to them.

That that said... I could say in response that it's funny to see left pro-corporation advantages all of a sudden.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Me either.

But, this means that they could be sued for the content that is published.

Not if they are a platform. If they are a platform they really don't ban ANYTHING unless it's illegal. They keep their "immunity".

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.

If they continue as they are and are made a publisher instead of a platform.. Yes. If you regulate yourself to the point that you are a publisher, like any news source, then you should be able to be sued when you wrong an entity.

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.

Explained above.

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 don't believe that. I think this is the first step to separating publishers from platforms.

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

I don't have a problem with them doing that as well.

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.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well for one, Obama being born in Kenya was not true; whereas it is true that Russia hacked us.

Actually, you're wrong on both points. He was born in Kenya, his wife admitted it. And Russia didn't hack us; they purchased some... wait for it..FACEBOOK ads. Oh, and they provided fake opposition research to THE HILLARY CLINTON campaign in an effort to keep Trump from being elected...

According to Obama, himself, no voting machines were hacked.

Oh God...Birtherism is still alive and kicking.

The Russians did hack us - the fact that voting machines were not hacked is irrelevant. They hacked and attempted to hack both political parties and who knows what else.

How did they hack us, by putting ads on Facebook?

I have no idea how. I'm not a hacker But they hacked Podesta, the DNC, individual Republican targets, and the Illinois RNC as some examples.

I don't know what Podesta or the DNC actually had to do with the election. Plus those were pretty controversial anyway. Podesta's email password was actually P-A-S-S-W-O-R-D, and it's been said that the DNC server had no trace of online transfers, suggesting that whoever stole that information did it from the inside--not the outside.

 

[Coyote]

It's funny to see the right pro-regulation all of a sudden.

That said, I think some changes in the laws are needed. The legal framework for these tech giants is outdated.

Negative... The government isn't regulating anything with this. It's taking the first step to removing a immunity from publishing whatever they want, to allow the people to sue for wrongs done to them.

That that said... I could say in response that it's funny to see left pro-corporation advantages all of a sudden.

True.

I'm pro some regulation, I oppose unfettered capitalism - but I think the more important problem is their defacto monopoly status. It will be interested to see what comes out of the House hearings.

 

[Shelzin]

The difference (well, one of them) is that the networks employ those who create the content and those are the people whose words are subject to lawsuits. Social media platforms are not employing those who post. Calling social sites "publishers" is one hell of a stretch, unless someone they employ or pay posts something in their name.

No it's not... They are choosing what can be published on their site even if it's not illegal. Whither or not anyone is paid is irrelevant as far as I'm aware.