META (Facebook) Banning Conservatives over their opinions.....

[busybee01]

Oh, every country nationalizes somethings, some more, some less. Nationalizing is done a lot more in leftwing countries! If it functions as a public utility, it should be made one.

What about Russia? Social media does not function as a public utility so it should not be made one.

 

[busybee01]

But if publishers and platforms are private companies also, why do they have responsibilities? I mean private company n all.

why does social media get a pass on defining the business to avoid any responsibility at all?

They have no responsibilities except those defined as a public interest such as child porn.

 

[busybee01]

It's not a business when they become a quasi government agency. Are they filing with the FEC for in kind contributions to the commiecrats? And the whole point of sec 302 is to keep dialog open, where all opinions can be heard, we're talking about the internet, not some bar.

.

No it is not. You have no free speech rights with social media. Only government is bound by free speech rights.

 

[iceberg]

They have no responsibilities except those defined as a public interest such as child porn.

Yet publishers and platforms, have rules of engagement.

Funny how people don't want the same for social media.

 

[tshrimp]

No it is not. You have no free speech rights with social media. Only government is bound by free speech rights.

Yet they (The leftist arm of the government) tried to implement the "Ministry of Truth" to censor those that disagree with them.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yet they (The leftist arm of the government) tried to implement the "Ministry of Truth" to censor those that disagree with them.

This is a lie – in addition to being ignorant and wrong.

“Under the government speech doctrine, the government has its own rights as speaker, immune from free speech challenges. It can assert its own ideas and messages without being subject to First Amendment claims of viewpoint discrimination.”

Government Speech Doctrine

Under the government speech doctrine, the government has its own rights as speaker that can assert its own messages, immune from challenges of viewpoint discrimination.

mtsu.edu

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's not a business when they become a quasi government agency. Are they filing with the FEC for in kind contributions to the commiecrats? And the whole point of sec 302 is to keep dialog open, where all opinions can be heard, we're talking about the internet, not some bar.

.

Another lie – and likewise ignorant and wrong.

At least conservatives are consistent at being ignorant, wrong, liars, and dishonest.

Social media in no manner function as ‘government agencies’ – ‘quasi’ or otherwise.

The First Amendment applies solely to government, placing restrictions on government alone in how it regulates speech – not private persons or entities, such as social media.

 

[iceberg]

Another lie – and likewise ignorant and wrong.

At least conservatives are consistent at being ignorant, wrong, liars, and dishonest.

Social media in no manner function as ‘government agencies’ – ‘quasi’ or otherwise.

The First Amendment applies solely to government, placing restrictions on government alone in how it regulates speech – not private persons or entities, such as social media.

Well when it comes to ignorant and wrong, I do think of you.

 

[tshrimp]

This is a lie – in addition to being ignorant and wrong.

“Under the government speech doctrine, the government has its own rights as speaker, immune from free speech challenges. It can assert its own ideas and messages without being subject to First Amendment claims of viewpoint discrimination.”

Government Speech Doctrine

Under the government speech doctrine, the government has its own rights as speaker that can assert its own messages, immune from challenges of viewpoint discrimination.

mtsu.edu

Not sure you know what I was talking about. Remember earlier this year when the left wing, lead by Biden, tried to censor right wing speech under the guise of "misinformation"

Fearing Free Speech, Biden Admin. Creates “Ministry of Truth”​

Biden’s federal government has created a “Disinformation Governance Board” (DGB); this entity is designed to monitor Americans’ speech for “lies,” which, critics fear, will simply mean anything the government disagrees with.

DeSantis Vows To Challenge Biden Administration’s ‘Ministry Of Truth’​

Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis vowed Friday to challenge President Joe Biden’s proposed “Disinformation Governance Board,” comparing it to an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth.”

“They want to be able to put out false narratives without people being able to speak out and fight back,”

“They want to be able to say things like ‘Russian collusion’ and perpetuate hoaxes and have people like us be silenced.”

Edit: The below isn't a great article by any means, but it does get some things right....

The Disinformation Governance Board Is Dead​

the Board was doomed from the moment it was named. The name itself suggests illegal government activity that the American people would never tolerate, regardless of their partisan affiliation. Legally, it is rarely permissible for the U.S. government to be the arbiter of truth.

Given this history, it is no surprise that the American public would not support a “Disinformation Governance Board.” Indeed, “governing disinformation” itself may have been illegal. U.S. law permits few circumstances where the government is permitted to be the arbiter of what is true and what is false.

 

[OKTexas]

What is section 302 - section 302 of what?

Did you mean section 230?

Yep, my bad, it is 230. But that alters nothing else I said.

.

 

[OKTexas]

If someone sends hate mail then should the post office be held accountable for someone sending you a nasty letter? Publishers pay authors for their contribution. Social media companies do not so they are not publishers.

Really, tell me how many people do you know that were paid for letters to the editor or an op-ed? Aren't social media posts the equivalent of an op-ed, and the social media outlets sell ads to pay their costs and a very handsome profit. How is that different from any other commercial media outlet?

.

 

[OKTexas]

No it is not. You have no free speech rights with social media. Only government is bound by free speech rights.

Not when the social media outlets are taking direction from the government. And there is ample proof they are. The latest big example is social media killing the Hunter Biden laptop story just prior to the election, all coordinated with the commiecrats and their supporters. The story was very real but pushed aside as dis/misinformation to bolster xiden.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Yet they (The leftist arm of the government) tried to implement the "Ministry of Truth" to censor those that disagree with them.

Oh, it's not a dead concept, it was just moved to DHS.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Another lie – and likewise ignorant and wrong.

At least conservatives are consistent at being ignorant, wrong, liars, and dishonest.

Social media in no manner function as ‘government agencies’ – ‘quasi’ or otherwise.

The First Amendment applies solely to government, placing restrictions on government alone in how it regulates speech – not private persons or entities, such as social media.

FOAD commie, there is more than adequate evidence of the government pressuring social media to do it's bidding, and they are compliant little lap dogs of you commies.

.

 

[candycorn]

Wow, that must be frustrating.

 

[multivita-man]

Yep, my bad, it is 230. But that alters nothing else I said.

Yeah, no problem - I mean I've certainly flubbed references like that and will no doubt do so again.

However, that said, I think that 230 doesn't mean what you think it means. The main reason 230 exists isn't to give posters/users 'free speech'; it was inserted into the law to protect internet service providers, to effectively hold them harmless from harmful content. More specifically, it says that internet service providers, which was later interpreted to include social media companies, cannot be treated as "publishers".

Why is that important, you ask?

Because whereas service providers or social media companies cannot be sued for harmful content that exists in their domain, "publishers" can.

As an example, suppose that person A says person B is a "drunken, whoring, lying, cheating, embezzling scumbag" on Facebook. Person B says that's not true and I'm going to sue your ass person B, and I'm also gonna sue Facebook for 'publishing' that content, since they allowed it on their website/app. Facebook's defense is, "Well we didn't know - we can't possibly police everything that's on our service." Section 230 protects Facebook. It doesn't protect person A of course, who is later found liable and has to pay person B damages. But Facebook only has to pay its lawyer to get the lawsuit tossed.

Now if Facebook weren't some massive platform but were instead some small website or blog that allows Person A and Person B to post public messages to each other, that could be completely different, especially if person B emails the site owner and tells him that Person A is saying nasty, untrue things about him and that you remove the content immediately. Assuming the worst, that the website/blog doesn't take it down, the courts could conclude that the website/blog owner had editorial control over the content , and that they are also a "publisher", which makes them liable for a lawsuit.

That's what Section 230 is all about. It was not intended to protect "free speech" - the Constitution already does that. In fact the law predates Facebook and social media. The powers that be have said that social media companies enjoy protection and privileges under 230 because that is likely the most logical way to treat these platforms. They are so large and provide service to so many users, they can't realistically police everything that's on their servers.

As with anything, legal privileges can be abused. Regulators and lawmakers could at any time decide that Facebook is abusing its privileged protections under the law and take that protection away. That's why they have content moderators who monitor their site actively to flag illegal behavior (i.e., depictions of violence, physical or sexual abuse, child abuse, etc) and then report it to authorities. If social media companies didn't do that, they'd face torrents of criticism that they're hiding behind their legal protection, and they'd probably have that protection modified or even cut outright.

If anything that has been the criticism of social media companies for most of their existence: that Facebook, Twitter, and others have used Section 230 to basically allow harmful content, such as hate speech. And that criticism has come mostly from the left, not the right.

Which brings me to my last and most important point: MAGA's complaints about social media's suppression of "free speech" and the threat to remove protection under Sec 230 of the federal statute are completely bogus, because they have absolutely no connection to the law in the first place. Republicans hold 230 over their heads because they want to intimidate them into allowing the very kinds of things that Section 230 was intended to prevent: abuses of their platform.

 

[sparky]

~S~

 

[Hellbilly]

View attachment 686080

~S~

I guess that would explain every time I go on Facebook I have to block a minimum of 10 Facebook 'suggestions' which are all pages of trumpers.

 

[The Duke]

Actually, the left is being censored as much or more by FB, et al.

Any examples of that?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yet publishers and platforms, have rules of engagement.

Funny how people don't want the same for social media.

Correct we do not since social media is not pre-approve every post before it can be seen.

Why do you so desperately want this to become the norm?