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

[iceberg]

The fact is they are using algorithms to monitor content and are censoring content the commiecrats don't like. And the commies are pushing for more of it. Of course Zuckerberg proved his bias during the 2016 elections.

.

the fact S230 says they are not legally liable for what i post means they are not monitoring and censoring for "legal" reasons.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

why? so you can LOL and say im pouting cause they are being mean?

No, I asked you that because using your definition of a publisher no such thing as a platform exist.

if you get right down to it - facebook *is* a platform. but a platform by nature is more open for all and doesn't care who does what. it simply provides a service, do with it as you will. break a law, worry about that. say something someone else doesn't like, don't give a shit.

FB is pretty fucking wide open. The fun thing about FB is that both sides pretty much complain equally they are being treated wrong by FB.

that is a "pure" platform.

Which is just a myth, none actually exist.

now, facebook and social media moderates the hell out of shit and not because of a "legal" sense, but a moral one. when you get to the point of fact checking memes you are way past legal responsibility and now dictating what is true and a lie.

no "platform" or "publisher" has that "right" now do they?

Well, yes they all have that "right" since they are not the Govt.

Is that not what 90% of the news stories out there do? Is that not what people like Hannity and Tucker on the right and Maddow or Reid on the left do night after night? Is anyone trying to stop them from doing so?

you keep implying that if *I* am right about S230, the media can dictate away what can be said and all free conversation will be killed.

If any and every site can be held liable for anything posted on it, then yes it will kill all but the largest sites.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

the fact S230 says they are not legally liable for what i post means they are not monitoring and censoring for "legal" reasons.

But sites have been found to be liable for things posted.

 

[iceberg]

But sites have been found to be liable for things posted.

and im sure there have have been. but that still isnt the point of s230 now is it?

windows or any OS is a pure platform. it just exists to let you get work done regardless of what it is. a website can also be a platform as well until you start dictating how it can be used.

in any event, gone in this circle long enough.

 

[Curried Goats]

and im sure there have have been. but that still isnt the point of s230 now is it?

windows or any OS is a pure platform. it just exists to let you get work done regardless of what it is. a website can also be a platform as well until you start dictating how it can be used.

in any event, gone in this circle long enough.

You continue to misunderstand s230. You should probably read the entire thing.

 

[OKTexas]

Because a publisher pre-approves everything before it is post to a site/paper

FB, Twitter and others us their algorithms to preapprove content, and will block it if it contains certain key words. And that key word list gets longer every day.

.

 

[OKTexas]

the fact S230 says they are not legally liable for what i post means they are not monitoring and censoring for "legal" reasons.

Try posting hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are effective covid treatments and see if it makes it to your page.

.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

FB, Twitter and others us their algorithms to preapprove content, and will block it if it contains certain key words. And that key word list gets longer every day.

Nothing is pre-approved. Their algorithms cannot see it till I post it on their site.

 

[Curried Goats]

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker.
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph.

---

This is the relevant portion that deals with the issue iceberg keeps misinterpreting. Specifically section A. It doesn't say that sites like Facebook aren't publishers until they start moderating content, it in fact protects their right to determine what they find offensive and punish accordingly. Its why we have different rules for debating on different political forums.

 

[tshrimp]

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

.

Here is an instance where the government is censoring speech.

Opposing biological males in women's sports cost me my job as Austin's fire chaplain, now I'm suing​

Unfortunately, I’m writing in the past tense because I’m no longer a chaplain for the Austin Fire Department. I was fired from my volunteer role because I shared my religious views on my personal blog — views which city officials could not tolerate. The controversial viewpoint that extinguished my career? Writing about my religious and commonsense view that men and women are biologically different, and men should not compete on women’s sports teams.

When city officials demanded that I recant and apologize for the harm my blog post allegedly caused, I explained that my intent was to foster discussion, not cause offense. And I apologized if anyone was offended. I could not, however, recant my beliefs or apologize for my faith. But my simple apology wasn’t enough. City officials fired me from the volunteer chaplaincy I created. For eight years, I served every firefighter with consistent, compassionate care and equal treatment, no matter who they were, including those in the LGBT community. For eight years, I answered every call — voluntarily — because I consider it a tremendous honor to support those who sacrifice so much for their community. But all of that meant nothing when I expressed a religious view the city wanted to censor.

 

[OKTexas]

Nothing is pre-approved. Their algorithms cannot see it till I post it on their site.

It takes nanoseconds to identify key words and block a post.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Here is an instance where the government is censoring speech.

Opposing biological males in women's sports cost me my job as Austin's fire chaplain, now I'm suing​

Censorship, NOPE. That's punishing protected speech. Typical commie woke BS.

.

 

[multivita-man]

The fact is they are using algorithms to monitor content and are censoring content the commiecrats don't like. And the commies are pushing for more of it. Of course Zuckerberg proved his bias during the 2016 elections.

So I guess that's why Zuckerberg privately met with conservatives.

Inside Mark Zuckerberg's private meetings with conservative pundits

The lengthy, off-the-record gatherings were held at one of the Facebook founder’s homes in California. They come as the social-media giant fends off accusations of liberal bias.

www.politico.com

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been hosting informal talks and small, off-the-record dinners with conservative journalists, commentators and at least one Republican lawmaker in recent months to talk about issues like free speech and discuss partnerships.

“The discussion in Silicon Valley is that Zuckerberg is very concerned about the Justice Department, under Bill Barr, bringing an enforcement action to break up the company,” said one cybersecurity researcher and former government official based in Silicon Valley. “So the fear is that Zuckerberg is trying to appease the Trump administration by not cracking down on right-wing propaganda.”

Facebook has been criticized in recent days, including by Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, for its ad policy, which exempts politicians from third-party fact-checking and arguably facilitates the spread of disinformation.

 

[multivita-man]

It takes nanoseconds to identify key words and block a post.

A post that violates their terms of service, which is a legally-binding contract that you and every other user on the platform agreed to when you signed up. Businesses have various motives for making users sign these agreements. The obvious purpos is to cut down on frivolous litigation, but they have other reasons, such as protecting the reputability and consumer favorability of its products.

Some products like Cabela's or Remington firearms probably couldn't give two shits if liberals get outraged over something they say or do that's offensive, but FB is a different beast in that it is trying to appeal to a broad cross-section of the population. So it has to walk a fine line between allowing a lot of the far-right rhetoric that conservatives use to trigger and troll the libs while simultaneously not letting it go too far (i.e, potentially crossing over into hate speech outright).

As I said in another post, I think the problem that Facebook, Twitter, and others created for themselves is that they were not consistently enforcing their TOS, so it's actually understandable (to a certain extent) that conservatives would claim they or those they follow were canceled. In the case of Trump, for instance, he had said all kinds of things over the years that were borderline judgment calls. And to be completely objective, the very post(s) that got him sent into Twitter exile were relatively tame. It's pretty clear that it was the timing of Trump's tweets - in conjunction with their tone-deafness - that ultimately got him shit-canned from the platform.

I would be willing to have a truly bipartisan review of social media legislative/regulatory policy such that it puts greater emphasis on social media companies demonstrating consistency in applying their standards. These companies collect data - that's their core business, so there's surely a way that can compile data that shows the degree to which they are applying their own standards. They just have to have the desire to do it.

 

[OKTexas]

So I guess that's why Zuckerberg privately met with conservatives.

Inside Mark Zuckerberg's private meetings with conservative pundits

The lengthy, off-the-record gatherings were held at one of the Facebook founder’s homes in California. They come as the social-media giant fends off accusations of liberal bias.

www.politico.com

A three year old article, and Zuckerberg was trying to cover his ass. He was scared shitless Barr might bring an antitrust action. Then a year later he spread more than 400 million in commiecrat areas to effect the election. Now he knows he's golden for at least another 2.5 years.

.

 

[OKTexas]

A post that violates their terms of service, which is a legally-binding contract that you and every other user on the platform agreed to when you signed up. Businesses have various motives for making users sign these agreements. The obvious purpos is to cut down on frivolous litigation, but they have other reasons, such as protecting the reputability and consumer favorability of its products.

Some products like Cabela's or Remington firearms probably couldn't give two shits if liberals get outraged over something they say or do that's offensive, but FB is a different beast in that it is trying to appeal to a broad cross-section of the population. So it has to walk a fine line between allowing a lot of the far-right rhetoric that conservatives use to trigger and troll the libs while simultaneously not letting it go too far (i.e, potentially crossing over into hate speech outright).

As I said in another post, I think the problem that Facebook, Twitter, and others created for themselves is that they were not consistently enforcing their TOS, so it's actually understandable (to a certain extent) that conservatives would claim they or those they follow were canceled. In the case of Trump, for instance, he had said all kinds of things over the years that were borderline judgment calls. And to be completely objective, the very post(s) that got him sent into Twitter exile were relatively tame. It's pretty clear that it was the timing of Trump's tweets - in conjunction with their tone-deafness - that ultimately got him shit-canned from the platform.

I would be willing to have a truly bipartisan review of social media legislative/regulatory policy such that it puts greater emphasis on social media companies demonstrating consistency in applying their standards. These companies collect data - that's their core business, so there's surely a way that can compile data that shows the degree to which they are applying their own standards. They just have to have the desire to do it.

Inconsistent enforcement is the least of their worries, their genuflecting and sucking the ass cheese out of the regime that will put them in front of the republican congress explaining themselves.

.

 

[Curried Goats]

Inconsistent enforcement is the least of their worries, their genuflecting and sucking the ass cheese out of the regime that will put them in front of the republican congress explaining themselves.

.

Every time that happens, Short Bus riding Republicans in Congress show us on CSPAN that they don't understand how the internet works.

 

[multivita-man]

A three year old article, and Zuckerberg was trying to cover his ass.

I don't disagree that Zuckerberg was trying to deflect some of the heat the Pubs were putting on him - on that we agree.

He was scared shitless Barr might bring an antitrust action.

But the heat was manufactured. Bill Barr was threatening to abuse the powers of his office with a non-sense anti-trust claim. Since when did Republicans give a single drop of ant piss about anti-trust violations? Like never.

Then a year later he spread more than 400 million in commiecrat areas to effect the election. Now he knows he's golden for at least another 2.5 years.

Zuckerberg is a plutocrat first, a democrat second. I'm not about to sit here and defend the bastard, only to point out that there's nothing that says Facebook couldn't ban people from its platform. They absolutely can. Free speech has nothing to do with it. If conservatives want to regulate social media more or push a legitimate anti-trust action, I'm all for it provided it's not done in a purely partisan manner.

 

[dblack]

If conservatives want to regulate social media more or push a legitimate anti-trust action, I'm all for it provided it's not done in a purely partisan manner.

Sinking their teeth into social media may be the one thing Democrats and Republicans agree on.

 

[multivita-man]

Inconsistent enforcement is the least of their worries, their genuflecting and sucking the ass cheese out of the regime that will put them in front of the republican congress explaining themselves.

Inconsistent enforcement of terms and the ability to just change these terms out of the blue is the issue, not free speech. That's the point, and I fully agree with conservatives that there needs to be more consistency instead of just banning/suspending accounts on a whim. In fact this is an issue that impacts a lot of users not only on Facebook, but also Google and their services like YouTube. People get demonetized or de-platformed on a whim, so I agree there needs to be consistency and transparency.

But conservatives don't seem to understand that the First Amendment doesn't prevent other entities from regulating what you or I say. If I violate the rules of this forum and get suspended or banned, I can't just run to the FCC and cry "They took muh freedumz away." Why? Because I signed a legally binding contract saying I'd abide by the rules here. It's the same with you and Facebook. Sorry, but thems the facts.

Your employer can abridge your free speech, too. If you get caught on camera embarrassing yourself and in kind, bringing unwanted attention to your place of work, they can distance themselves from you - i.e., shit-can you. You have free speech, and you're also free to deal with the consequences. And as one Trump protester apparently learned, it cuts both ways:

Woman who gave Donald Trump the middle finger fired from her job

Juli Briskman, a 50-year-old mother of two, said marketing company bosses called her in and fired her for ‘obscene’ gesture

www.theguardian.com

A woman whose picture went viral after she raised her middle finger at Donald Trump as his motorcade passed her on her bicycle has been fired from her job.