Trump considers panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media

[Crepitus]

If you've had any bias, let the WH know. Social media is clearly biased. It's insulting to ones intelligence for them to suggest otherwise. Whether conservative, a supporter of Trump or just "controversial' (especially if it is against the alt-left mantra), social media is silencing you in one form or another if you start to become popular.

Trump considers panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media

WASHINGTON — President Trump is considering establishing a panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media, according to people familiar with the matter, in a move that would likely draw pushback from technology companies and others.


The plans are still under discussion but could include the establishment of a White House-created commission that would examine allegations of online bias and censorship, these people said. The administration could also encourage similar reviews by federal regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission, they said.

“Left-wing bias in the tech world is a concern that definitely needs to be addressed from our vantage point, and at least exposed [so] that Americans have clear eyes about what we’re dealing with,” a White House official said.

Mr. Trump has long expressed that viewpoint, and in a recent Twitter post indicated that a plan to address complaints of bias is in the works.

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump


The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation. Stay tuned, and send names & events. Thank you Michelle! https://twitter.com/af_clips/status/1261331113102004226 …
102K
7:56 AM - May 16, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

57.2K people are talking about this


Facebook Inc., which also owns Instagram, defended its practices when asked for a response to the nascent proposal.

“People on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions we’ve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,” the company said.

Social media censorship is a difficult one for me. I find censorship abhorrent but I also value the rights of a private business - so where do you draw the line?

I would propose a law that any publicly traded company who's primary purpose is to operate as a social media platform be held to 1st Amendment standards. If you want to censor people you don't like then get off the stock market and self-fund.

They don't remove folks for their political views, they remove the for hate speech and/or false information (lies).

According to Joe Biden they do not and their protections needs to be repealed.

Sure, sure.

I'm sure that's exactly what Joe said.

Lol

“Biden appears to have his sights set on Section 230 because of an October 2018 scuffle with Facebook. The Biden campaign wrote a letter to Facebook asking it to remove an ad, posted by an independent Political Action Committee (PAC), claiming that Biden was blackmailing a Ukrainian official to keep them from prosecuting his son, Hunter Biden. Facebook declined to remove the ad, answering that it will not monitor political ads based on whether the information they present is true or false. “

Lol, you realize you just undercut your whole position, right?

If you've had any bias, let the WH know. Social media is clearly biased. It's insulting to ones intelligence for them to suggest otherwise. Whether conservative, a supporter of Trump or just "controversial' (especially if it is against the alt-left mantra), social media is silencing you in one form or another if you start to become popular.

Trump considers panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media

WASHINGTON — President Trump is considering establishing a panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media, according to people familiar with the matter, in a move that would likely draw pushback from technology companies and others.


The plans are still under discussion but could include the establishment of a White House-created commission that would examine allegations of online bias and censorship, these people said. The administration could also encourage similar reviews by federal regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission, they said.

“Left-wing bias in the tech world is a concern that definitely needs to be addressed from our vantage point, and at least exposed [so] that Americans have clear eyes about what we’re dealing with,” a White House official said.

Mr. Trump has long expressed that viewpoint, and in a recent Twitter post indicated that a plan to address complaints of bias is in the works.

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump


The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation. Stay tuned, and send names & events. Thank you Michelle! https://twitter.com/af_clips/status/1261331113102004226 …
102K
7:56 AM - May 16, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

57.2K people are talking about this


Facebook Inc., which also owns Instagram, defended its practices when asked for a response to the nascent proposal.

“People on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions we’ve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,” the company said.

Social media censorship is a difficult one for me. I find censorship abhorrent but I also value the rights of a private business - so where do you draw the line?

I would propose a law that any publicly traded company who's primary purpose is to operate as a social media platform be held to 1st Amendment standards. If you want to censor people you don't like then get off the stock market and self-fund.

They don't remove folks for their political views, they remove the for hate speech and/or false information (lies).

According to Joe Biden they do not and their protections needs to be repealed.

Sure, sure.

I'm sure that's exactly what Joe said.

Lol

“Biden appears to have his sights set on Section 230 because of an October 2018 scuffle with Facebook. The Biden campaign wrote a letter to Facebook asking it to remove an ad, posted by an independent Political Action Committee (PAC), claiming that Biden was blackmailing a Ukrainian official to keep them from prosecuting his son, Hunter Biden. Facebook declined to remove the ad, answering that it will not monitor political ads based on whether the information they present is true or false. “

You do realize you just undercut your whole argument, right?

Did I say I agreed with him? No. I asked someone else what they thought about his stance on this issue.

Well that's not true.

You told me that Joe Biden thought they should have their protections removed because they didn't, that is did not, censors an anti Biden ad.

That kinda undermines your whole premise of political censorship.

Well...he obviously thought he could get them to remove it with just an email from a staffer. Wonder why that is?

You don't even know if Biden was involved, and you've still undercut you whole political bias argument because they refused to remove it.

You've contradicted your own point so thoroughly it's ceased to exist.

 

[colfax_m]

I don't follow why he cannot comprehend this. He is either trolling or stupid.

Why can't it be both? Someone who continuously repeats an argument that has it's entire basis in a lie
is both a troll and stupid for supporting a blatant lie.

And yet the law and legal precedent are all on my side.

Im not trolling. I’m just saying something you don’t want to be true.

How can there be precedent when Twitter was founded 10 yrs after the law was passed?

Because precedent is set when people are taken to court and there are decisions. Twitter has been sued a lot. It wins a lot.

I am not saying it should be sued. I am asking if it has changed as a platform. Twitter is no longer just a distributor of real-time content but is now a publisher. Site has changed.

How has it changed exactly?

Is Twitter a publisher or a distributor? There’s a crucial difference – Old GigaOm

gigaom.com

Read it for yourself. You are not very informed but are still making an argument. Odd.

Twitter has always had policies to remove content it deemed problematic for whatever reason.

 

[colfax_m]

I don't follow why he cannot comprehend this. He is either trolling or stupid.

Why can't it be both? Someone who continuously repeats an argument that has it's entire basis in a lie
is both a troll and stupid for supporting a blatant lie.

And yet the law and legal precedent are all on my side.

Im not trolling. I’m just saying something you don’t want to be true.

How can there be precedent when Twitter was founded 10 yrs after the law was passed?

Because precedent is set when people are taken to court and there are decisions. Twitter has been sued a lot. It wins a lot.

Let me explain it this way. Since for some reason you cannot comprehend simple English.

Twitter is currently defined as a “distributors” or carriers of information — much like a phone company — and the idea is that a carrier can’t possibly read or listen to every message and check it for potentially offensive or illegal content.

If the company is filtering and selecting messages, however, and possibly letting certain parties know when a legally questionable one shows up, that is much more like what publishers do — and in many jurisdictions, publishers like newspapers are held to a different standard.

I understand your argument really well. I don't think you're listening or reading up on the issue.

There used to be a distinction between "distributors" and publishers in online forums like Twitter. But that turned out to be a bad situation which is what Section 230 of CDA was put in to rectify.

Section 230: Legislative History

Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230) was Congress' response to two court cases decided in New York in the early 1990's that had conflicting results.Cubby and Stratton OakmontThe first case involved CompuServe, which in the early days of the Internet hosted "an on-line general information service"...

www.eff.org

This explains the history.

In brief, there were two lawsuits in the 90s, both suing the companies that hosted forums for defamatory material that was put on those forums by users. In the first case, CompuServe did not moderate their forum so they were considered a distributor. In the second case, Prodigy lost because they did moderate their forum.

This created a perverse incentive for websites to avoid moderation. Any moderation at all made them liable for all content posted on the website. Not a lot of people wanted that. So they passed a law that said you aren't held liable for content posted on your website by users even if you moderate the website and delete content that you don't want.

It's incredibly simple. From the article: "The amendment specifically made sure that "providers of an interactive computer service" would not be treated as publishers of third-party content. Unlike publications like newspapers that are accountable for the content they print, online services would be relieved of this liability."

Websites, apps or whatever you want to call them are not newspapers. They shouldn't be regulated like them.

And I think we should have a 2nd look. I am not sure why you are not OK with that? Law was passed 10 yrs before Twitter was even founded. What is wrong with a 2nd look?

I'd say the law has worked great. Twitter wouldn't exist at all if not for that law. So what's your goal?

 

[colfax_m]

Zuckerberg could claim that they’re a Dairy Queen. It’s irrelevant. They are what they are no matter what Zuckerberg claims.

You've finally gotten one thing right. Zuckerberg can claim whatever he wants.
The fact remains Facebook publishes the content of other people and Zuckerberg has no legal
basis on which he can simply censor other people's content...IF he wants to continue to claim FB is
not a a merely like a phone book but a content creator which it seems he wants to do.

He actually want things both ways. And all ways. Congress needs to revoke whatever privileges they've handed over to this imperious jackass.

Facebook is a private company funded by private money. It owns the servers that the content is published on. It has every legal right to remove whatever it wants from it's property.

The last sentence is a tell. You see, you wouldn't want Congress to revoke privileges if you actually believed Zuckerberg didn't have legal basis to remove content. You're own post is self-contradictory.

 

[colfax_m]

If you've had any bias, let the WH know. Social media is clearly biased. It's insulting to ones intelligence for them to suggest otherwise. Whether conservative, a supporter of Trump or just "controversial' (especially if it is against the alt-left mantra), social media is silencing you in one form or another if you start to become popular.

Trump considers panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media

WASHINGTON — President Trump is considering establishing a panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media, according to people familiar with the matter, in a move that would likely draw pushback from technology companies and others.


The plans are still under discussion but could include the establishment of a White House-created commission that would examine allegations of online bias and censorship, these people said. The administration could also encourage similar reviews by federal regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission, they said.

“Left-wing bias in the tech world is a concern that definitely needs to be addressed from our vantage point, and at least exposed [so] that Americans have clear eyes about what we’re dealing with,” a White House official said.

Mr. Trump has long expressed that viewpoint, and in a recent Twitter post indicated that a plan to address complaints of bias is in the works.

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump


The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation. Stay tuned, and send names & events. Thank you Michelle! https://twitter.com/af_clips/status/1261331113102004226 …
102K
7:56 AM - May 16, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

57.2K people are talking about this


Facebook Inc., which also owns Instagram, defended its practices when asked for a response to the nascent proposal.

“People on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions we’ve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,” the company said.

They can consider all they want. They can't do anything about private platforms.

You wouldn't want them to anyway. If they did you could kiss most of your "news" sources goodbye in fairly short order.

Yes they can. They can take away their platform status and all protections they garner from the government with that status. They want to edit content...they are a publisher.

Publisher or not is debatable.

The point you kids are missing is that they aren't censoring political views points.

They are simply removing hate speech and misinformation.

Are your political views based on lies and hate?

It is debatable when they are taking a side politically and censoring based on that political stance. They feel they can skirt the law by deeming anything they don’t like as “ hateful” and “ misinformation”.

But according to section 230 they can not censor political speech no matter how extreme. And they clearly do engage in selective censorship.

Nothing in section 230 prevents them from removing any political speech. Especially extreme political speech. The platform is owner and operated by private individuals and there are no laws preventing them from deleting content on those platforms.

They can’t be both a platform and a publisher and continue to get government protections while skirting the rules. They need to pick one or the other. If they are a publisher fine...then they are liable for content on their forums. If they are a platform they need to stop censoring content that is against their political views. They can’t have it both ways.

They aren't censoring for political views.

They are removing hate speech and false information.

That is all.

Even if they were censoring for political views, it's still legal. The law does not require them to be neutral arbiters in order to maintain protection from legal liability for the content of their user's posts.

We really don't want the government deciding these issues.

 

[Jitss617]

Charlie Kirk made a good point about these sites are the public square for online speech and something needs to be done.

 

[Jitss617]

Zuckerberg could claim that they’re a Dairy Queen. It’s irrelevant. They are what they are no matter what Zuckerberg claims.

You've finally gotten one thing right. Zuckerberg can claim whatever he wants.
The fact remains Facebook publishes the content of other people and Zuckerberg has no legal
basis on which he can simply censor other people's content...IF he wants to continue to claim FB is
not a a merely like a phone book but a content creator which it seems he wants to do.

He actually want things both ways. And all ways. Congress needs to revoke whatever privileges they've handed over to this imperious jackass.

Facebook is a private company funded by private money. It owns the servers that the content is published on. It has every legal right to remove whatever it wants from it's property.

The last sentence is a tell. You see, you wouldn't want Congress to revoke privileges if you actually believed Zuckerberg didn't have legal basis to remove content. You're own post is self-contradictory.

Unfortunately they are advertised as a public forum online.. you don’t think speech should be protected?

 

[WEATHER53]

I don't follow why he cannot comprehend this. He is either trolling or stupid.

Why can't it be both? Someone who continuously repeats an argument that has it's entire basis in a lie
is both a troll and stupid for supporting a blatant lie.

And yet the law and legal precedent are all on my side.

Im not trolling. I’m just saying something you don’t want to be true.

How can there be precedent when Twitter was founded 10 yrs after the law was passed?

Because precedent is set when people are taken to court and there are decisions. Twitter has been sued a lot. It wins a lot.

I am not saying it should be sued. I am asking if it has changed as a platform. Twitter is no longer just a distributor of real-time content but is now a publisher. Site has changed.

How has it changed exactly?

Is Twitter a publisher or a distributor? There’s a crucial difference – Old GigaOm

gigaom.com

Read it for yourself. You are not very informed but are still making an argument. Odd.

Twitter has always had policies to remove content it deemed problematic for whatever reason.

So incredibly ill defined and arbitrary. Just like hate speech, conjured up by liberals who find facts uncomfortable.

 

[Jitss617]

A lot of people make a living destroying Democrats on Twitter and Facebook to have all their stuff deleted, because their feelings are hurt. Something needs to be done to protect

 

[WEATHER53]

Zuckerberg could claim that they’re a Dairy Queen. It’s irrelevant. They are what they are no matter what Zuckerberg claims.

You've finally gotten one thing right. Zuckerberg can claim whatever he wants.
The fact remains Facebook publishes the content of other people and Zuckerberg has no legal
basis on which he can simply censor other people's content...IF he wants to continue to claim FB is
not a a merely like a phone book but a content creator which it seems he wants to do.

He actually want things both ways. And all ways. Congress needs to revoke whatever privileges they've handed over to this imperious jackass.

Facebook is a private company funded by private money. It owns the servers that the content is published on. It has every legal right to remove whatever it wants from it's property.

The last sentence is a tell. You see, you wouldn't want Congress to revoke privileges if you actually believed Zuckerberg didn't have legal basis to remove content. You're own post is self-contradictory.

There you are again with the private companies can do whatever they want myth

 

[BlueGin]

If you've had any bias, let the WH know. Social media is clearly biased. It's insulting to ones intelligence for them to suggest otherwise. Whether conservative, a supporter of Trump or just "controversial' (especially if it is against the alt-left mantra), social media is silencing you in one form or another if you start to become popular.

Trump considers panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media

WASHINGTON — President Trump is considering establishing a panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media, according to people familiar with the matter, in a move that would likely draw pushback from technology companies and others.


The plans are still under discussion but could include the establishment of a White House-created commission that would examine allegations of online bias and censorship, these people said. The administration could also encourage similar reviews by federal regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission, they said.

“Left-wing bias in the tech world is a concern that definitely needs to be addressed from our vantage point, and at least exposed [so] that Americans have clear eyes about what we’re dealing with,” a White House official said.

Mr. Trump has long expressed that viewpoint, and in a recent Twitter post indicated that a plan to address complaints of bias is in the works.

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump


The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation. Stay tuned, and send names & events. Thank you Michelle! https://twitter.com/af_clips/status/1261331113102004226 …
102K
7:56 AM - May 16, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

57.2K people are talking about this


Facebook Inc., which also owns Instagram, defended its practices when asked for a response to the nascent proposal.

“People on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions we’ve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,” the company said.

Social media censorship is a difficult one for me. I find censorship abhorrent but I also value the rights of a private business - so where do you draw the line?

I would propose a law that any publicly traded company who's primary purpose is to operate as a social media platform be held to 1st Amendment standards. If you want to censor people you don't like then get off the stock market and self-fund.

They don't remove folks for their political views, they remove the for hate speech and/or false information (lies).

According to Joe Biden they do not and their protections needs to be repealed.

Sure, sure.

I'm sure that's exactly what Joe said.

Lol

“Biden appears to have his sights set on Section 230 because of an October 2018 scuffle with Facebook. The Biden campaign wrote a letter to Facebook asking it to remove an ad, posted by an independent Political Action Committee (PAC), claiming that Biden was blackmailing a Ukrainian official to keep them from prosecuting his son, Hunter Biden. Facebook declined to remove the ad, answering that it will not monitor political ads based on whether the information they present is true or false. “

Lol, you realize you just undercut your whole position, right?

If you've had any bias, let the WH know. Social media is clearly biased. It's insulting to ones intelligence for them to suggest otherwise. Whether conservative, a supporter of Trump or just "controversial' (especially if it is against the alt-left mantra), social media is silencing you in one form or another if you start to become popular.

Trump considers panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media

WASHINGTON — President Trump is considering establishing a panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media, according to people familiar with the matter, in a move that would likely draw pushback from technology companies and others.


The plans are still under discussion but could include the establishment of a White House-created commission that would examine allegations of online bias and censorship, these people said. The administration could also encourage similar reviews by federal regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission, they said.

“Left-wing bias in the tech world is a concern that definitely needs to be addressed from our vantage point, and at least exposed [so] that Americans have clear eyes about what we’re dealing with,” a White House official said.

Mr. Trump has long expressed that viewpoint, and in a recent Twitter post indicated that a plan to address complaints of bias is in the works.

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump


The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation. Stay tuned, and send names & events. Thank you Michelle! https://twitter.com/af_clips/status/1261331113102004226 …
102K
7:56 AM - May 16, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

57.2K people are talking about this


Facebook Inc., which also owns Instagram, defended its practices when asked for a response to the nascent proposal.

“People on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions we’ve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,” the company said.

Social media censorship is a difficult one for me. I find censorship abhorrent but I also value the rights of a private business - so where do you draw the line?

I would propose a law that any publicly traded company who's primary purpose is to operate as a social media platform be held to 1st Amendment standards. If you want to censor people you don't like then get off the stock market and self-fund.

They don't remove folks for their political views, they remove the for hate speech and/or false information (lies).

According to Joe Biden they do not and their protections needs to be repealed.

Sure, sure.

I'm sure that's exactly what Joe said.

Lol

“Biden appears to have his sights set on Section 230 because of an October 2018 scuffle with Facebook. The Biden campaign wrote a letter to Facebook asking it to remove an ad, posted by an independent Political Action Committee (PAC), claiming that Biden was blackmailing a Ukrainian official to keep them from prosecuting his son, Hunter Biden. Facebook declined to remove the ad, answering that it will not monitor political ads based on whether the information they present is true or false. “

You do realize you just undercut your whole argument, right?

Did I say I agreed with him? No. I asked someone else what they thought about his stance on this issue.

Well that's not true.

You told me that Joe Biden thought they should have their protections removed because they didn't, that is did not, censors an anti Biden ad.

That kinda undermines your whole premise of political censorship.

Well...he obviously thought he could get them to remove it with just an email from a staffer. Wonder why that is?

You don't even know if Biden was involved, and you've still undercut you whole political bias argument because they refused to remove it.

You've contradicted your own point so thoroughly it's ceased to exist.

he called out Zuckerberg by name in a New York Times article and again on Twitter ...

”The idea that it’s a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms,” Biden said. “It should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false.”

And he is using the same basic argument. That they are not a platform but a publisher.

Didn’t say I agree with his logic...or lack there of.

Zuckerberg states FB is neither a platform or a publisher ,but a little of both. So he knows he is in the wrong to begin with.

So..no I am not wrong. They do need to establish better guidelines for Publishers vs Platforms Seeing as how they had no idea these companies would get this big.

 

[BlueGin]

If you've had any bias, let the WH know. Social media is clearly biased. It's insulting to ones intelligence for them to suggest otherwise. Whether conservative, a supporter of Trump or just "controversial' (especially if it is against the alt-left mantra), social media is silencing you in one form or another if you start to become popular.

Trump considers panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media

WASHINGTON — President Trump is considering establishing a panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media, according to people familiar with the matter, in a move that would likely draw pushback from technology companies and others.


The plans are still under discussion but could include the establishment of a White House-created commission that would examine allegations of online bias and censorship, these people said. The administration could also encourage similar reviews by federal regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission, they said.

“Left-wing bias in the tech world is a concern that definitely needs to be addressed from our vantage point, and at least exposed [so] that Americans have clear eyes about what we’re dealing with,” a White House official said.

Mr. Trump has long expressed that viewpoint, and in a recent Twitter post indicated that a plan to address complaints of bias is in the works.

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump


The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation. Stay tuned, and send names & events. Thank you Michelle! https://twitter.com/af_clips/status/1261331113102004226 …
102K
7:56 AM - May 16, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

57.2K people are talking about this


Facebook Inc., which also owns Instagram, defended its practices when asked for a response to the nascent proposal.

“People on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions we’ve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,” the company said.

They can consider all they want. They can't do anything about private platforms.

You wouldn't want them to anyway. If they did you could kiss most of your "news" sources goodbye in fairly short order.

Yes they can. They can take away their platform status and all protections they garner from the government with that status. They want to edit content...they are a publisher.

Publisher or not is debatable.

The point you kids are missing is that they aren't censoring political views points.

They are simply removing hate speech and misinformation.

Are your political views based on lies and hate?

It is debatable when they are taking a side politically and censoring based on that political stance. They feel they can skirt the law by deeming anything they don’t like as “ hateful” and “ misinformation”.

But according to section 230 they can not censor political speech no matter how extreme. And they clearly do engage in selective censorship.

Nothing in section 230 prevents them from removing any political speech. Especially extreme political speech. The platform is owner and operated by private individuals and there are no laws preventing them from deleting content on those platforms.

They can’t be both a platform and a publisher and continue to get government protections while skirting the rules. They need to pick one or the other. If they are a publisher fine...then they are liable for content on their forums. If they are a platform they need to stop censoring content that is against their political views. They can’t have it both ways.

They aren't censoring for political views.

They are removing hate speech and false information.

That is all.

Even if they were censoring for political views, it's still legal. The law does not require them to be neutral arbiters in order to maintain protection from legal liability for the content of their user's posts.

We really don't want the government deciding these issues.

Obviously they cant seeing as in the article above Twitter banned a reporter on NBC’s behalf and then had to reinstate him and have their lawyer issue a statement.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Conservatives are now fans of the Fairness Doctrine. Imagine that.

I'm a fan of the Bill of Rights. And leftists as usual are fans of Chinese style authoritarianism because their message can be sent out and no one can mess with it. Because dissent is eliminated.
Imagine that.

If you are for the 2nd Amendment or limits on abortion, boom...you are expelled.
If you think the Covid pandemic has been largely an exercise in authoritarian over reach.....boom, you are out!
If you believe our voting system must not be manipulated or breached boom....you will be silenced.

The Bill of Rights says you may say all these things. The Tech Giants at YouTube, Facebook and Twitter
say not so fast. Your "hate speech" must not be allowed to flourish.

Sounds Xi Jinping's China, doesn't it.

The Bill of Rights restricts the government, not the private sector.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I don't follow why he cannot comprehend this. He is either trolling or stupid.

Why can't it be both? Someone who continuously repeats an argument that has it's entire basis in a lie
is both a troll and stupid for supporting a blatant lie.

And yet the law and legal precedent are all on my side.

Im not trolling. I’m just saying something you don’t want to be true.

How can there be precedent when Twitter was founded 10 yrs after the law was passed?

Because precedent is set when people are taken to court and there are decisions. Twitter has been sued a lot. It wins a lot.

Let me explain it this way. Since for some reason you cannot comprehend simple English.

Twitter is currently defined as a “distributors” or carriers of information — much like a phone company — and the idea is that a carrier can’t possibly read or listen to every message and check it for potentially offensive or illegal content.

If the company is filtering and selecting messages, however, and possibly letting certain parties know when a legally questionable one shows up, that is much more like what publishers do — and in many jurisdictions, publishers like newspapers are held to a different standard.

I understand your argument really well. I don't think you're listening or reading up on the issue.

There used to be a distinction between "distributors" and publishers in online forums like Twitter. But that turned out to be a bad situation which is what Section 230 of CDA was put in to rectify.

Section 230: Legislative History

Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230) was Congress' response to two court cases decided in New York in the early 1990's that had conflicting results.Cubby and Stratton OakmontThe first case involved CompuServe, which in the early days of the Internet hosted "an on-line general information service"...

www.eff.org

This explains the history.

In brief, there were two lawsuits in the 90s, both suing the companies that hosted forums for defamatory material that was put on those forums by users. In the first case, CompuServe did not moderate their forum so they were considered a distributor. In the second case, Prodigy lost because they did moderate their forum.

This created a perverse incentive for websites to avoid moderation. Any moderation at all made them liable for all content posted on the website. Not a lot of people wanted that. So they passed a law that said you aren't held liable for content posted on your website by users even if you moderate the website and delete content that you don't want.

It's incredibly simple. From the article: "The amendment specifically made sure that "providers of an interactive computer service" would not be treated as publishers of third-party content. Unlike publications like newspapers that are accountable for the content they print, online services would be relieved of this liability."

Websites, apps or whatever you want to call them are not newspapers. They shouldn't be regulated like them.

And I think we should have a 2nd look. I am not sure why you are not OK with that? Law was passed 10 yrs before Twitter was even founded. What is wrong with a 2nd look?

I'd say the law has worked great. Twitter wouldn't exist at all if not for that law. So what's your goal?

I have already explained that Twitter has changed and my goal is to make sure it is a fair platform and is monitored correctly.

 

[BlueGin]

Twitter may not claim to be a free speech platform and then ban members for political opinions. So says a judge

No Free Speech: Judge Rules Twitter Bans Users 'At Any Time, for Any Reason'

A California judge has ruled that Twitter can be sued for falsely advertising free speech.

www1.cbn.com

 

[BlueGin]

This is interesting as well...


“Twitter employees have been caught on camera boasting about keeping conservatives and Trump supporters off the platform.

One employee even discussed shadowbanning political accounts, which Twitter denies doing. Another said user accounts that supported "God, guns, and America" were flagged as "bots."

from the above article also.

 

[Crepitus]

If you've had any bias, let the WH know. Social media is clearly biased. It's insulting to ones intelligence for them to suggest otherwise. Whether conservative, a supporter of Trump or just "controversial' (especially if it is against the alt-left mantra), social media is silencing you in one form or another if you start to become popular.

Trump considers panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media

WASHINGTON — President Trump is considering establishing a panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media, according to people familiar with the matter, in a move that would likely draw pushback from technology companies and others.


The plans are still under discussion but could include the establishment of a White House-created commission that would examine allegations of online bias and censorship, these people said. The administration could also encourage similar reviews by federal regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission, they said.

“Left-wing bias in the tech world is a concern that definitely needs to be addressed from our vantage point, and at least exposed [so] that Americans have clear eyes about what we’re dealing with,” a White House official said.

Mr. Trump has long expressed that viewpoint, and in a recent Twitter post indicated that a plan to address complaints of bias is in the works.

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump


The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation. Stay tuned, and send names & events. Thank you Michelle! https://twitter.com/af_clips/status/1261331113102004226 …
102K
7:56 AM - May 16, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

57.2K people are talking about this


Facebook Inc., which also owns Instagram, defended its practices when asked for a response to the nascent proposal.

“People on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions we’ve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,” the company said.

They can consider all they want. They can't do anything about private platforms.

You wouldn't want them to anyway. If they did you could kiss most of your "news" sources goodbye in fairly short order.

Yes they can. They can take away their platform status and all protections they garner from the government with that status. They want to edit content...they are a publisher.

Publisher or not is debatable.

The point you kids are missing is that they aren't censoring political views points.

They are simply removing hate speech and misinformation.

Are your political views based on lies and hate?

It is debatable when they are taking a side politically and censoring based on that political stance. They feel they can skirt the law by deeming anything they don’t like as “ hateful” and “ misinformation”.

But according to section 230 they can not censor political speech no matter how extreme. And they clearly do engage in selective censorship.

Nothing in section 230 prevents them from removing any political speech. Especially extreme political speech. The platform is owner and operated by private individuals and there are no laws preventing them from deleting content on those platforms.

They can’t be both a platform and a publisher and continue to get government protections while skirting the rules. They need to pick one or the other. If they are a publisher fine...then they are liable for content on their forums. If they are a platform they need to stop censoring content that is against their political views. They can’t have it both ways.

They aren't censoring for political views.

They are removing hate speech and false information.

That is all.

Even if they were censoring for political views, it's still legal. The law does not require them to be neutral arbiters in order to maintain protection from legal liability for the content of their user's posts.

We really don't want the government deciding these issues.

It's true, we do not want that.

But they aren't even doing it.

It's just another republican lie.

The only folks who believe it are the usual suspects that believe everything their infotainment sites tell them.

 

[Crepitus]

This is interesting as well...


“Twitter employees have been caught on camera boasting about keeping conservatives and Trump supporters off the platform.

One employee even discussed shadowbanning political accounts, which Twitter denies doing. Another said user accounts that supported "God, guns, and America" were flagged as "bots."

from the above article also.

Show me some twitter employees boasting about it.

 

[colfax_m]

I don't follow why he cannot comprehend this. He is either trolling or stupid.

Why can't it be both? Someone who continuously repeats an argument that has it's entire basis in a lie
is both a troll and stupid for supporting a blatant lie.

And yet the law and legal precedent are all on my side.

Im not trolling. I’m just saying something you don’t want to be true.

How can there be precedent when Twitter was founded 10 yrs after the law was passed?

Because precedent is set when people are taken to court and there are decisions. Twitter has been sued a lot. It wins a lot.

Let me explain it this way. Since for some reason you cannot comprehend simple English.

Twitter is currently defined as a “distributors” or carriers of information — much like a phone company — and the idea is that a carrier can’t possibly read or listen to every message and check it for potentially offensive or illegal content.

If the company is filtering and selecting messages, however, and possibly letting certain parties know when a legally questionable one shows up, that is much more like what publishers do — and in many jurisdictions, publishers like newspapers are held to a different standard.

I know the point you’re

I don't follow why he cannot comprehend this. He is either trolling or stupid.

Why can't it be both? Someone who continuously repeats an argument that has it's entire basis in a lie
is both a troll and stupid for supporting a blatant lie.

And yet the law and legal precedent are all on my side.

Im not trolling. I’m just saying something you don’t want to be true.

How can there be precedent when Twitter was founded 10 yrs after the law was passed?

Because precedent is set when people are taken to court and there are decisions. Twitter has been sued a lot. It wins a lot.

I am not saying it should be sued. I am asking if it has changed as a platform. Twitter is no longer just a distributor of real-time content but is now a publisher. Site has changed.

How has it changed exactly?

Is Twitter a publisher or a distributor? There’s a crucial difference – Old GigaOm

gigaom.com

Read it for yourself. You are not very informed but are still making an argument. Odd.

Twitter has always had policies to remove content it deemed problematic for whatever reason.

So incredibly ill defined and arbitrary. Just like hate speech, conjured up by liberals who find facts uncomfortable.

Yeah. It’s to give them as much flexibility as possible.

 

[colfax_m]

I don't follow why he cannot comprehend this. He is either trolling or stupid.

Why can't it be both? Someone who continuously repeats an argument that has it's entire basis in a lie
is both a troll and stupid for supporting a blatant lie.

And yet the law and legal precedent are all on my side.

Im not trolling. I’m just saying something you don’t want to be true.

How can there be precedent when Twitter was founded 10 yrs after the law was passed?

Because precedent is set when people are taken to court and there are decisions. Twitter has been sued a lot. It wins a lot.

Let me explain it this way. Since for some reason you cannot comprehend simple English.

Twitter is currently defined as a “distributors” or carriers of information — much like a phone company — and the idea is that a carrier can’t possibly read or listen to every message and check it for potentially offensive or illegal content.

If the company is filtering and selecting messages, however, and possibly letting certain parties know when a legally questionable one shows up, that is much more like what publishers do — and in many jurisdictions, publishers like newspapers are held to a different standard.

I understand your argument really well. I don't think you're listening or reading up on the issue.

There used to be a distinction between "distributors" and publishers in online forums like Twitter. But that turned out to be a bad situation which is what Section 230 of CDA was put in to rectify.

Section 230: Legislative History

Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230) was Congress' response to two court cases decided in New York in the early 1990's that had conflicting results.Cubby and Stratton OakmontThe first case involved CompuServe, which in the early days of the Internet hosted "an on-line general information service"...

www.eff.org

This explains the history.

In brief, there were two lawsuits in the 90s, both suing the companies that hosted forums for defamatory material that was put on those forums by users. In the first case, CompuServe did not moderate their forum so they were considered a distributor. In the second case, Prodigy lost because they did moderate their forum.

This created a perverse incentive for websites to avoid moderation. Any moderation at all made them liable for all content posted on the website. Not a lot of people wanted that. So they passed a law that said you aren't held liable for content posted on your website by users even if you moderate the website and delete content that you don't want.

It's incredibly simple. From the article: "The amendment specifically made sure that "providers of an interactive computer service" would not be treated as publishers of third-party content. Unlike publications like newspapers that are accountable for the content they print, online services would be relieved of this liability."

Websites, apps or whatever you want to call them are not newspapers. They shouldn't be regulated like them.

And I think we should have a 2nd look. I am not sure why you are not OK with that? Law was passed 10 yrs before Twitter was even founded. What is wrong with a 2nd look?

I'd say the law has worked great. Twitter wouldn't exist at all if not for that law. So what's your goal?

I have already explained that Twitter has changed and my goal is to make sure it is a fair platform and is monitored correctly.

Fair to whom? Monitored by whom?

This sounds a little opressive.