Trump Files Lawsuit Against Big Tech Over Censorship (Poll)

[Skylar]

I'm curious if the USMB progs/dems will side with Trump on this important censorship issue, Should big tech be broken up? Should Section 230 be repealed? Should censorship end? Should Parler be reactivated? Should the "Fairness Doctrine" be revised and tried again? What do you recommend. I recommend "all of the above".

Trump Files Lawsuit Against Big Tech Over 'Censorship Of The American People'

Former President Donald Trump said he is filing a lawsuit against Big Tech companies — Twitter, Facebook, and Google and their CEOs, over allegations of violating Americans’ First Amendment rights by selectively censoring information and its recent action of banning and suspending his accounts.

floridianpress.com

“We’re asking the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida to order an immediate halt to stop social media companies’ illegal and shameful censorship of the American people. That’s exactly what they’re doing,” Trump said. “We’re demanding an end to the shadow banning, a stop to the silencing, a stop to the blacklisting, banishing, and canceling that you know so well.”

Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi argued the platforms have “increasingly engaged in impermissible censorship resulting from threatened legislative action, a misguided reliance upon Section 230.” Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a 1996 provision that gives social media platforms legal liability shield over content posted on their platform by third parties.

Should big tech be broken up - Yes

Put under regulation? The devil is in the details.

Do I agree with the type of regulation trump is asking for. Not in a million years.

Trump wants to be able to use these large public platforms to lie with impunity. No fucking way. And to promote insurrection.

1. Whatever happened to "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

And you have every right to say it. Just not on someone else's website without their permission. I have the right to free speech too. But I can't come into your home, spray paint 'BLACK LIVES MATTER' on your livingroom wall, and force you to keep it there.

That's not 'free speech'. That's me seizing your private property and turning into my private billboard.

Free speech is freedom from government intervention. And Facebook isn't the government, no matter what pseudo-legal gibberish that Trump has made up.

Totally agree, except that we are dealing with "monopolies" who control the flow of information.
If there were multiple Facebooks, Googles, Instagrams, etc. there would not be an issue, or if Section 230 legal protections weren't there there would be legal remedies.

They are not monopolies. There are literally hundreds of social media companies. We're chatting on a social media alternate to Facebook right now.

There are many, many different search engines. And you can use any of one of them you like.

And the 'media' is hundreds if not thousands of different companies.

There is no 'mono' in your imagined 'monopoly'.

 

[kyzr]

What do you recommend.

There’s no need to ‘recommend’ anything – you’re trying to contrive a ‘solution’ to a ‘problem’ that doesn’t exist.

Just because you and others on the right incorrectly perceive social media as being ‘mean’ to Trump and your fellow conservatives doesn’t warrant unnecessary, un-Constitutional government regulation.

OK, suppose FXN was the only news network, and they did not allow any democrat's viewpoints to be seen, would you still be okay with that?

 

[Skylar]

What do you recommend.

There’s no need to ‘recommend’ anything – you’re trying to contrive a ‘solution’ to a ‘problem’ that doesn’t exist.

Just because you and others on the right incorrectly perceive social media as being ‘mean’ to Trump and your fellow conservatives doesn’t warrant unnecessary, un-Constitutional government regulation.

OK, suppose FXN was the only news network, and they did not allow any democrat's viewpoints to be seen, would you still be okay with that?

'Suppose' being the key word. We have to imagine your scenario....because it doesn't exist in reality. FXN isn't the only news network. There are literally hundreds of different news sources. If we count websites, thousands.

There is no 'mono' in your imagined monopoly.

 

[kyzr]

Clearly the 1st amendment prohibits the government from censoring the private press. It does not compel private industry to print the copious lies of a few lunatics, no matter how powerful they are.

Copious lies? You mean like CRT and the 1619 Project?
Here are 5 examples of the MSM (private industry) lies that unfairly hurt the Trump presidency:
1. The loser of the 2016 presidential election Hillary Clinton, along with her Democrat apologists, pushed on this narrative from the beginning. Trump was an illegitimate president due to his collusion with Russia leading up to the election, they said, an infraction so malicious he may have actually been guilty of treason and deserving of the death penalty. There have been instances of political malice between parties in our nation’s past, but never one quite like this.

2. Last week, over a year after most Americans became familiar with the medication, a new study out of New Jersey, the hardest hit state by COVID, shows that if used in conjunction with a regimen of zinc, hydroxychloroquine can give COVID patients upwards of a 200% better survival rate against COVID. Hydroxychloroquine is indeed a miracle drug.

3. We also became aware last week via a report from the Interior Department’s Inspector General that the actions by Park Police near Lafayette Square and St. John’s Church in Washington D.C. last June were not due to directives by President Trump in order to provide him with a “photo op,” as the media originally asserted. We were told that peaceful protesters were gathered near the recently burned church and the cops came and shot rubber bullets and tear gas at them just so Trump could have his picture taken in front of the church holding a bible.

4. During an appearance on 60 Minutes with Leslie Stahl in late-October, President Trump pointed to the younger Biden and correctly observed that Joe Biden was embroiled in a scandal over his son Hunter, but Stahl was defiant, insisting “He’s not. He’s not.” Oh Leslie, he is. He is.

5. The media is now trying to act surprised and put forth the façade that their misreporting on COVID’s origins was just an honest mistake. It wasn’t. The likelihood that COVID originated in China’s Wuhan Laboratory of Virology was clear from the beginning, but again, since Trump and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were beating this drum, they had to take the opposite position. But now that Biden has been elected and his administration is well under way, it is becoming increasing clear that COVID did indeed originate at the Wuhan lab, and was almost definitely manmade. And once again, it is obvious that the media lied to us. Did Fauci pay the Wuhan Lab for "gain of function" research on bat viruses, that killed 600,000 Americans? The MSM is covering that up.

What do any of those dubious allegations have to do with Trumpybear getting booted from the social media clubs and suing them?

So if the democrat's and their MSM lie about Trump, that's fair game, aka "free speech".
But Trump or conservatives don't have that same right to "free speech"?
Ok, I see you're an idealist.

 

[Skylar]

Clearly the 1st amendment prohibits the government from censoring the private press. It does not compel private industry to print the copious lies of a few lunatics, no matter how powerful they are.

Copious lies? You mean like CRT and the 1619 Project?
Here are 5 examples of the MSM (private industry) lies that unfairly hurt the Trump presidency:
1. The loser of the 2016 presidential election Hillary Clinton, along with her Democrat apologists, pushed on this narrative from the beginning. Trump was an illegitimate president due to his collusion with Russia leading up to the election, they said, an infraction so malicious he may have actually been guilty of treason and deserving of the death penalty. There have been instances of political malice between parties in our nation’s past, but never one quite like this.

2. Last week, over a year after most Americans became familiar with the medication, a new study out of New Jersey, the hardest hit state by COVID, shows that if used in conjunction with a regimen of zinc, hydroxychloroquine can give COVID patients upwards of a 200% better survival rate against COVID. Hydroxychloroquine is indeed a miracle drug.

3. We also became aware last week via a report from the Interior Department’s Inspector General that the actions by Park Police near Lafayette Square and St. John’s Church in Washington D.C. last June were not due to directives by President Trump in order to provide him with a “photo op,” as the media originally asserted. We were told that peaceful protesters were gathered near the recently burned church and the cops came and shot rubber bullets and tear gas at them just so Trump could have his picture taken in front of the church holding a bible.

4. During an appearance on 60 Minutes with Leslie Stahl in late-October, President Trump pointed to the younger Biden and correctly observed that Joe Biden was embroiled in a scandal over his son Hunter, but Stahl was defiant, insisting “He’s not. He’s not.” Oh Leslie, he is. He is.

5. The media is now trying to act surprised and put forth the façade that their misreporting on COVID’s origins was just an honest mistake. It wasn’t. The likelihood that COVID originated in China’s Wuhan Laboratory of Virology was clear from the beginning, but again, since Trump and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were beating this drum, they had to take the opposite position. But now that Biden has been elected and his administration is well under way, it is becoming increasing clear that COVID did indeed originate at the Wuhan lab, and was almost definitely manmade. And once again, it is obvious that the media lied to us. Did Fauci pay the Wuhan Lab for "gain of function" research on bat viruses, that killed 600,000 Americans? The MSM is covering that up.

What do any of those dubious allegations have to do with Trumpybear getting booted from the social media clubs and suing them?

So if the democrat's and their MSM lie about Trump, that's fair game, aka "free speech"

The 'MSM' isn't a company. The Media is hundreds of different companies. If you count websites, thousands.

You can't have THOUSANDS of options and claim a monopoly. The 'mono' in monopoly means 'one'. And there are thousands.

But Trump or conservatives don't have that same right to "free speech"?

You don't have a right to the use of someone else's website. Or their printing presses. Or their living room walls to spray paint your message.

You can't be stripped of a 'right' you don't possess. And the 'freedom' to seize someone else's private property and force them to promote YOUR political beliefs against their will....simply doesn't exist.

Ok, I see you're an idealist.

Or....I reject your idea that forcing someone to promote your political beliefs against their will is 'freedom'.

 

[kyzr]

important censorship issue

There is no ‘censorship issue.’

Private social media editing their content as they’re at liberty to do isn’t ‘censorship.’

Censorship is when government seeks to preempt speech or publication through force of law, threatening publishers with punitive measures.

1. Killing "free speech" on social media is censorship

You have no constitutional right to the use of someone else's website. Look at the 1st amendment. Read the first word. That's who can't infringe on your free speech.

2. Banning conservatives isn't "editing content"

Banning those who violate the terms of service they agreed to is editing content.

3. Big tech are monopolies, they control the media, control information, can oppress viewpoints they disagree with, so even though big tech isn't "the government" "big tech" can and does suppress free speech.

They are not monopolies. They are dozens if not hundreds of different companies. And none of them have a thing to do with your right to free speech.

Your rights are freedom from government intervention. You have no right to seize someone else's private property against their will and force them to promote your political beliefs. That's not what rights are. That's not what freedom is.

1. Ok, fine, then breakup the monopolies. Is it okay to have only one newspaper in the US, controlled by one man's view?

2. Banning views he doesn't agree with is censorship. There is no "legal remedy" to resolve disagreements, content can be unfairly banned.

3. We agree to disagree if "Big Tech" has a monopoly or not. Look at the number of users. You can have thousands of FBs but if only one has users...

4. Who is "seizing someone's property"? They are supposed to be platforms for free speech.

 

[Skylar]

important censorship issue

There is no ‘censorship issue.’

Private social media editing their content as they’re at liberty to do isn’t ‘censorship.’

Censorship is when government seeks to preempt speech or publication through force of law, threatening publishers with punitive measures.

1. Killing "free speech" on social media is censorship

You have no constitutional right to the use of someone else's website. Look at the 1st amendment. Read the first word. That's who can't infringe on your free speech.

2. Banning conservatives isn't "editing content"

Banning those who violate the terms of service they agreed to is editing content.

3. Big tech are monopolies, they control the media, control information, can oppress viewpoints they disagree with, so even though big tech isn't "the government" "big tech" can and does suppress free speech.

They are not monopolies. They are dozens if not hundreds of different companies. And none of them have a thing to do with your right to free speech.

Your rights are freedom from government intervention. You have no right to seize someone else's private property against their will and force them to promote your political beliefs. That's not what rights are. That's not what freedom is.

1. Ok, fine, then breakup the monopolies. Is it okay to have only one newspaper in the US, controlled by one man's view?

There isn't a monopoly. There isn't 'one newspapers in the US controlled by one man's view'.

Your entire 'monopoly' argument is a fallacy. There are literally thousands of media sources to choose from.

2. Banning views he doesn't agree with impunity is censorship. There is no "legal remedy" to resolve disagreements, content can be unfairly banned.

Banning views from what? Someone else's private property. Per your reasoning, I can come to your home, spray paint 'PRO-CHOICE FOR LIFE!' on your bedroom wall, and you can neither stop me...nor ever it take it down.

if you do either....that's 'censorship'.

Back in reality, I have no such authority. I can't use your walls for my messages, nor can I force you to promote them. I have no right to seize your private property and FORCE you to promote my personal political beliefs against your will.

The 'rights' and 'freedoms' you're insisting are being taken from you.....are neither rights nor freedoms. As you have no right to someone else's private property to promote your political beliefs.

3. We agree to disagree if "Big Tech" has a monopoly or not.

No. Mono means one. "Big Tech' is dozens to thousands of different companies, depending on how you define 'big'. Nixing even the possibility of your argument being accurate. And you have no right to seize the private property and force ANY of them to promote your political beliefs against their will.

4. Who is "seizing someone's property"? They are supposed to be platforms for free speech.

They are private companies. They get to decide what speech is allowed on their platforms. And if you violate their terms of service, they can take down your posts or ban you.

Here too, for that matter. You have no right to post here anymore than you have a right to post on facebook. And if you violate this boards terms of service, you'll be banned here too.

You don't have the 'freedom' to force any of them to promote your political beliefs.

 

[kyzr]

Clearly the 1st amendment prohibits the government from censoring the private press. It does not compel private industry to print the copious lies of a few lunatics, no matter how powerful they are.

Copious lies? You mean like CRT and the 1619 Project?
Here are 5 examples of the MSM (private industry) lies that unfairly hurt the Trump presidency:
1. The loser of the 2016 presidential election Hillary Clinton, along with her Democrat apologists, pushed on this narrative from the beginning. Trump was an illegitimate president due to his collusion with Russia leading up to the election, they said, an infraction so malicious he may have actually been guilty of treason and deserving of the death penalty. There have been instances of political malice between parties in our nation’s past, but never one quite like this.

2. Last week, over a year after most Americans became familiar with the medication, a new study out of New Jersey, the hardest hit state by COVID, shows that if used in conjunction with a regimen of zinc, hydroxychloroquine can give COVID patients upwards of a 200% better survival rate against COVID. Hydroxychloroquine is indeed a miracle drug.

3. We also became aware last week via a report from the Interior Department’s Inspector General that the actions by Park Police near Lafayette Square and St. John’s Church in Washington D.C. last June were not due to directives by President Trump in order to provide him with a “photo op,” as the media originally asserted. We were told that peaceful protesters were gathered near the recently burned church and the cops came and shot rubber bullets and tear gas at them just so Trump could have his picture taken in front of the church holding a bible.

4. During an appearance on 60 Minutes with Leslie Stahl in late-October, President Trump pointed to the younger Biden and correctly observed that Joe Biden was embroiled in a scandal over his son Hunter, but Stahl was defiant, insisting “He’s not. He’s not.” Oh Leslie, he is. He is.

5. The media is now trying to act surprised and put forth the façade that their misreporting on COVID’s origins was just an honest mistake. It wasn’t. The likelihood that COVID originated in China’s Wuhan Laboratory of Virology was clear from the beginning, but again, since Trump and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were beating this drum, they had to take the opposite position. But now that Biden has been elected and his administration is well under way, it is becoming increasing clear that COVID did indeed originate at the Wuhan lab, and was almost definitely manmade. And once again, it is obvious that the media lied to us. Did Fauci pay the Wuhan Lab for "gain of function" research on bat viruses, that killed 600,000 Americans? The MSM is covering that up.

What do any of those dubious allegations have to do with Trumpybear getting booted from the social media clubs and suing them?

So if the democrat's and their MSM lie about Trump, that's fair game, aka "free speech"

The 'MSM' isn't a company. The Media is hundreds of different companies. If you count websites, thousands.

You can't have THOUSANDS of options and claim a monopoly. The 'mono' in monopoly means 'one'. And there are thousands.

But Trump or conservatives don't have that same right to "free speech"?

You don't have a right to the use of someone else's website. Or their printing presses. Or their living room walls to spray paint your message.

You can't be stripped of a 'right' you don't possess. And the 'freedom' to seize someone else's private property and force them to promote YOUR political beliefs against their will....simply doesn't exist.

Ok, I see you're an idealist.

Or....I reject your idea that forcing someone to promote your political beliefs against their will is 'freedom'.

FB is supposed to be a "public platform", that's why they have Section 230 protection, it is NOT supposed to be "private property", that's the issue.

If FB was "private property" why would they get Section 230 legal protection?

 

[Skylar]

Clearly the 1st amendment prohibits the government from censoring the private press. It does not compel private industry to print the copious lies of a few lunatics, no matter how powerful they are.

Copious lies? You mean like CRT and the 1619 Project?
Here are 5 examples of the MSM (private industry) lies that unfairly hurt the Trump presidency:
1. The loser of the 2016 presidential election Hillary Clinton, along with her Democrat apologists, pushed on this narrative from the beginning. Trump was an illegitimate president due to his collusion with Russia leading up to the election, they said, an infraction so malicious he may have actually been guilty of treason and deserving of the death penalty. There have been instances of political malice between parties in our nation’s past, but never one quite like this.

2. Last week, over a year after most Americans became familiar with the medication, a new study out of New Jersey, the hardest hit state by COVID, shows that if used in conjunction with a regimen of zinc, hydroxychloroquine can give COVID patients upwards of a 200% better survival rate against COVID. Hydroxychloroquine is indeed a miracle drug.

3. We also became aware last week via a report from the Interior Department’s Inspector General that the actions by Park Police near Lafayette Square and St. John’s Church in Washington D.C. last June were not due to directives by President Trump in order to provide him with a “photo op,” as the media originally asserted. We were told that peaceful protesters were gathered near the recently burned church and the cops came and shot rubber bullets and tear gas at them just so Trump could have his picture taken in front of the church holding a bible.

4. During an appearance on 60 Minutes with Leslie Stahl in late-October, President Trump pointed to the younger Biden and correctly observed that Joe Biden was embroiled in a scandal over his son Hunter, but Stahl was defiant, insisting “He’s not. He’s not.” Oh Leslie, he is. He is.

5. The media is now trying to act surprised and put forth the façade that their misreporting on COVID’s origins was just an honest mistake. It wasn’t. The likelihood that COVID originated in China’s Wuhan Laboratory of Virology was clear from the beginning, but again, since Trump and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were beating this drum, they had to take the opposite position. But now that Biden has been elected and his administration is well under way, it is becoming increasing clear that COVID did indeed originate at the Wuhan lab, and was almost definitely manmade. And once again, it is obvious that the media lied to us. Did Fauci pay the Wuhan Lab for "gain of function" research on bat viruses, that killed 600,000 Americans? The MSM is covering that up.

What do any of those dubious allegations have to do with Trumpybear getting booted from the social media clubs and suing them?

So if the democrat's and their MSM lie about Trump, that's fair game, aka "free speech"

The 'MSM' isn't a company. The Media is hundreds of different companies. If you count websites, thousands.

You can't have THOUSANDS of options and claim a monopoly. The 'mono' in monopoly means 'one'. And there are thousands.

But Trump or conservatives don't have that same right to "free speech"?

You don't have a right to the use of someone else's website. Or their printing presses. Or their living room walls to spray paint your message.

You can't be stripped of a 'right' you don't possess. And the 'freedom' to seize someone else's private property and force them to promote YOUR political beliefs against their will....simply doesn't exist.

Ok, I see you're an idealist.

Or....I reject your idea that forcing someone to promote your political beliefs against their will is 'freedom'.

FB is supposed to be a "public platform", that's why they have Section 230 protection, it is NOT supposed to be "private property", that's the issue.

If FB was "private property" why would they get Section 230 legal protection?

The term 'public platform' never appears in Section 230. Nor does Section 230 says that FB is not supposed be 'private property'.

You made both up. Just like you imagined thousands of individual companies are somehow a 'monopoly'. And your imagination doesn't make you a victim, nor strip you of 'freedoms' and 'rights' you do not possess.

As forcing a company to promote your political beliefs against their will and in violation of their terms of service is neither a 'right' nor a 'freedom'.

 

[kyzr]

Clearly the 1st amendment prohibits the government from censoring the private press. It does not compel private industry to print the copious lies of a few lunatics, no matter how powerful they are.

Copious lies? You mean like CRT and the 1619 Project?
Here are 5 examples of the MSM (private industry) lies that unfairly hurt the Trump presidency:
1. The loser of the 2016 presidential election Hillary Clinton, along with her Democrat apologists, pushed on this narrative from the beginning. Trump was an illegitimate president due to his collusion with Russia leading up to the election, they said, an infraction so malicious he may have actually been guilty of treason and deserving of the death penalty. There have been instances of political malice between parties in our nation’s past, but never one quite like this.

2. Last week, over a year after most Americans became familiar with the medication, a new study out of New Jersey, the hardest hit state by COVID, shows that if used in conjunction with a regimen of zinc, hydroxychloroquine can give COVID patients upwards of a 200% better survival rate against COVID. Hydroxychloroquine is indeed a miracle drug.

3. We also became aware last week via a report from the Interior Department’s Inspector General that the actions by Park Police near Lafayette Square and St. John’s Church in Washington D.C. last June were not due to directives by President Trump in order to provide him with a “photo op,” as the media originally asserted. We were told that peaceful protesters were gathered near the recently burned church and the cops came and shot rubber bullets and tear gas at them just so Trump could have his picture taken in front of the church holding a bible.

4. During an appearance on 60 Minutes with Leslie Stahl in late-October, President Trump pointed to the younger Biden and correctly observed that Joe Biden was embroiled in a scandal over his son Hunter, but Stahl was defiant, insisting “He’s not. He’s not.” Oh Leslie, he is. He is.

5. The media is now trying to act surprised and put forth the façade that their misreporting on COVID’s origins was just an honest mistake. It wasn’t. The likelihood that COVID originated in China’s Wuhan Laboratory of Virology was clear from the beginning, but again, since Trump and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were beating this drum, they had to take the opposite position. But now that Biden has been elected and his administration is well under way, it is becoming increasing clear that COVID did indeed originate at the Wuhan lab, and was almost definitely manmade. And once again, it is obvious that the media lied to us. Did Fauci pay the Wuhan Lab for "gain of function" research on bat viruses, that killed 600,000 Americans? The MSM is covering that up.

What do any of those dubious allegations have to do with Trumpybear getting booted from the social media clubs and suing them?

So if the democrat's and their MSM lie about Trump, that's fair game, aka "free speech"

The 'MSM' isn't a company. The Media is hundreds of different companies. If you count websites, thousands.

You can't have THOUSANDS of options and claim a monopoly. The 'mono' in monopoly means 'one'. And there are thousands.

But Trump or conservatives don't have that same right to "free speech"?

You don't have a right to the use of someone else's website. Or their printing presses. Or their living room walls to spray paint your message.

You can't be stripped of a 'right' you don't possess. And the 'freedom' to seize someone else's private property and force them to promote YOUR political beliefs against their will....simply doesn't exist.

Ok, I see you're an idealist.

Or....I reject your idea that forcing someone to promote your political beliefs against their will is 'freedom'.

FB is supposed to be a "public platform", that's why they have Section 230 protection, it is NOT supposed to be "private property", that's the issue.

If FB was "private property" why would they get Section 230 legal protection?

The term 'public platform' never appears in Section 230. Nor does Section 230 says that FB is not supposed be 'private property'.

You made both up. Just like you imagined thousands of individual companies are somehow a 'monopoly'. And your imagination doesn't make you a victim, nor strip you of 'freedoms' and 'rights' you do not possess.

As forcing a company to promote your political beliefs against their will and in violation of their terms of service is neither a 'right' nor a 'freedom'.

I made both up??? Read the entire link please:

Is Facebook a Public Forum, Publisher, or Just a Platform? - FindLaw

Social media has gotten huge. Today, the media part of it is bigger than ever, too. And while regulations are starting to pop up requiring advertisers to disclose when content has been paid-for or promoted, courts are being asked more and more often to decide what space these online platforms...

blogs.findlaw.com

Social media has gotten huge. Today, the media part of it is bigger than ever, too. And while regulations are starting to pop up requiring advertisers to disclose when content has been paid-for or promoted, courts are being asked more and more often to decide what space these online platforms occupy: Public forum, publisher, or simply online platform.
When it comes to Facebook, the question of what exactly the website does can be tricky to answer, particularly after the recent data mining scandal. Though the company has explicitly testified at Congress that it is just a platform for users to post content, a recent story explains that the company has also claimed to be a publisher in a California court.

 

[Skylar]

Clearly the 1st amendment prohibits the government from censoring the private press. It does not compel private industry to print the copious lies of a few lunatics, no matter how powerful they are.

Copious lies? You mean like CRT and the 1619 Project?
Here are 5 examples of the MSM (private industry) lies that unfairly hurt the Trump presidency:
1. The loser of the 2016 presidential election Hillary Clinton, along with her Democrat apologists, pushed on this narrative from the beginning. Trump was an illegitimate president due to his collusion with Russia leading up to the election, they said, an infraction so malicious he may have actually been guilty of treason and deserving of the death penalty. There have been instances of political malice between parties in our nation’s past, but never one quite like this.

2. Last week, over a year after most Americans became familiar with the medication, a new study out of New Jersey, the hardest hit state by COVID, shows that if used in conjunction with a regimen of zinc, hydroxychloroquine can give COVID patients upwards of a 200% better survival rate against COVID. Hydroxychloroquine is indeed a miracle drug.

3. We also became aware last week via a report from the Interior Department’s Inspector General that the actions by Park Police near Lafayette Square and St. John’s Church in Washington D.C. last June were not due to directives by President Trump in order to provide him with a “photo op,” as the media originally asserted. We were told that peaceful protesters were gathered near the recently burned church and the cops came and shot rubber bullets and tear gas at them just so Trump could have his picture taken in front of the church holding a bible.

4. During an appearance on 60 Minutes with Leslie Stahl in late-October, President Trump pointed to the younger Biden and correctly observed that Joe Biden was embroiled in a scandal over his son Hunter, but Stahl was defiant, insisting “He’s not. He’s not.” Oh Leslie, he is. He is.

5. The media is now trying to act surprised and put forth the façade that their misreporting on COVID’s origins was just an honest mistake. It wasn’t. The likelihood that COVID originated in China’s Wuhan Laboratory of Virology was clear from the beginning, but again, since Trump and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were beating this drum, they had to take the opposite position. But now that Biden has been elected and his administration is well under way, it is becoming increasing clear that COVID did indeed originate at the Wuhan lab, and was almost definitely manmade. And once again, it is obvious that the media lied to us. Did Fauci pay the Wuhan Lab for "gain of function" research on bat viruses, that killed 600,000 Americans? The MSM is covering that up.

What do any of those dubious allegations have to do with Trumpybear getting booted from the social media clubs and suing them?

So if the democrat's and their MSM lie about Trump, that's fair game, aka "free speech"

The 'MSM' isn't a company. The Media is hundreds of different companies. If you count websites, thousands.

You can't have THOUSANDS of options and claim a monopoly. The 'mono' in monopoly means 'one'. And there are thousands.

But Trump or conservatives don't have that same right to "free speech"?

You don't have a right to the use of someone else's website. Or their printing presses. Or their living room walls to spray paint your message.

You can't be stripped of a 'right' you don't possess. And the 'freedom' to seize someone else's private property and force them to promote YOUR political beliefs against their will....simply doesn't exist.

Ok, I see you're an idealist.

Or....I reject your idea that forcing someone to promote your political beliefs against their will is 'freedom'.

FB is supposed to be a "public platform", that's why they have Section 230 protection, it is NOT supposed to be "private property", that's the issue.

If FB was "private property" why would they get Section 230 legal protection?

The term 'public platform' never appears in Section 230. Nor does Section 230 says that FB is not supposed be 'private property'.

You made both up. Just like you imagined thousands of individual companies are somehow a 'monopoly'. And your imagination doesn't make you a victim, nor strip you of 'freedoms' and 'rights' you do not possess.

As forcing a company to promote your political beliefs against their will and in violation of their terms of service is neither a 'right' nor a 'freedom'.

I made both up??? Read the entire link please:

Is Facebook a Public Forum, Publisher, or Just a Platform? - FindLaw

Social media has gotten huge. Today, the media part of it is bigger than ever, too. And while regulations are starting to pop up requiring advertisers to disclose when content has been paid-for or promoted, courts are being asked more and more often to decide what space these online platforms...

blogs.findlaw.com

Social media has gotten huge. Today, the media part of it is bigger than ever, too. And while regulations are starting to pop up requiring advertisers to disclose when content has been paid-for or promoted, courts are being asked more and more often to decide what space these online platforms occupy: Public forum, publisher, or simply online platform.
When it comes to Facebook, the question of what exactly the website does can be tricky to answer, particularly after the recent data mining scandal. Though the company has explicitly testified at Congress that it is just a platform for users to post content, a recent story explains that the company has also claimed to be a publisher in a California court.

You're changing your story with every post. You insisted that Section 230 said that FB is not supposed to be private property....and Section 230 says no such thing.

And while FB is huge, its hardly the only social media outlet. There are hundreds. Same with the 'media'. There are literally thousands of different media sources.

You have no 'mono' in your imaginary 'monopoly'. Nor do you have any rights or freedoms that have been stripped from you, as you have no right to the use of anyone else's private property against their will to promote your political beliefs....or violate thier terms of service.

FB has every authority to curate the content on its own website per its own terms of service. You're insisting that YOU get to define what they have to promote, and that FB gets no say in the matter of what is on their OWN website.

Nope. FB gets the only say, as you have zero rights to the use of their private property to promote your beliefs.

 

[kyzr]

Clearly the 1st amendment prohibits the government from censoring the private press. It does not compel private industry to print the copious lies of a few lunatics, no matter how powerful they are.

Copious lies? You mean like CRT and the 1619 Project?
Here are 5 examples of the MSM (private industry) lies that unfairly hurt the Trump presidency:
1. The loser of the 2016 presidential election Hillary Clinton, along with her Democrat apologists, pushed on this narrative from the beginning. Trump was an illegitimate president due to his collusion with Russia leading up to the election, they said, an infraction so malicious he may have actually been guilty of treason and deserving of the death penalty. There have been instances of political malice between parties in our nation’s past, but never one quite like this.

2. Last week, over a year after most Americans became familiar with the medication, a new study out of New Jersey, the hardest hit state by COVID, shows that if used in conjunction with a regimen of zinc, hydroxychloroquine can give COVID patients upwards of a 200% better survival rate against COVID. Hydroxychloroquine is indeed a miracle drug.

3. We also became aware last week via a report from the Interior Department’s Inspector General that the actions by Park Police near Lafayette Square and St. John’s Church in Washington D.C. last June were not due to directives by President Trump in order to provide him with a “photo op,” as the media originally asserted. We were told that peaceful protesters were gathered near the recently burned church and the cops came and shot rubber bullets and tear gas at them just so Trump could have his picture taken in front of the church holding a bible.

4. During an appearance on 60 Minutes with Leslie Stahl in late-October, President Trump pointed to the younger Biden and correctly observed that Joe Biden was embroiled in a scandal over his son Hunter, but Stahl was defiant, insisting “He’s not. He’s not.” Oh Leslie, he is. He is.

5. The media is now trying to act surprised and put forth the façade that their misreporting on COVID’s origins was just an honest mistake. It wasn’t. The likelihood that COVID originated in China’s Wuhan Laboratory of Virology was clear from the beginning, but again, since Trump and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were beating this drum, they had to take the opposite position. But now that Biden has been elected and his administration is well under way, it is becoming increasing clear that COVID did indeed originate at the Wuhan lab, and was almost definitely manmade. And once again, it is obvious that the media lied to us. Did Fauci pay the Wuhan Lab for "gain of function" research on bat viruses, that killed 600,000 Americans? The MSM is covering that up.

What do any of those dubious allegations have to do with Trumpybear getting booted from the social media clubs and suing them?

So if the democrat's and their MSM lie about Trump, that's fair game, aka "free speech"

The 'MSM' isn't a company. The Media is hundreds of different companies. If you count websites, thousands.

You can't have THOUSANDS of options and claim a monopoly. The 'mono' in monopoly means 'one'. And there are thousands.

But Trump or conservatives don't have that same right to "free speech"?

You don't have a right to the use of someone else's website. Or their printing presses. Or their living room walls to spray paint your message.

You can't be stripped of a 'right' you don't possess. And the 'freedom' to seize someone else's private property and force them to promote YOUR political beliefs against their will....simply doesn't exist.

Ok, I see you're an idealist.

Or....I reject your idea that forcing someone to promote your political beliefs against their will is 'freedom'.

FB is supposed to be a "public platform", that's why they have Section 230 protection, it is NOT supposed to be "private property", that's the issue.

If FB was "private property" why would they get Section 230 legal protection?

The term 'public platform' never appears in Section 230. Nor does Section 230 says that FB is not supposed be 'private property'.

You made both up. Just like you imagined thousands of individual companies are somehow a 'monopoly'. And your imagination doesn't make you a victim, nor strip you of 'freedoms' and 'rights' you do not possess.

As forcing a company to promote your political beliefs against their will and in violation of their terms of service is neither a 'right' nor a 'freedom'.

I made both up??? Read the entire link please:

Is Facebook a Public Forum, Publisher, or Just a Platform? - FindLaw

Social media has gotten huge. Today, the media part of it is bigger than ever, too. And while regulations are starting to pop up requiring advertisers to disclose when content has been paid-for or promoted, courts are being asked more and more often to decide what space these online platforms...

blogs.findlaw.com

Social media has gotten huge. Today, the media part of it is bigger than ever, too. And while regulations are starting to pop up requiring advertisers to disclose when content has been paid-for or promoted, courts are being asked more and more often to decide what space these online platforms occupy: Public forum, publisher, or simply online platform.
When it comes to Facebook, the question of what exactly the website does can be tricky to answer, particularly after the recent data mining scandal. Though the company has explicitly testified at Congress that it is just a platform for users to post content, a recent story explains that the company has also claimed to be a publisher in a California court.

You're changing your story with every post. You insisted that Section 230 said that FB is not supposed to be private property....and Section 230 says no such thing.

And while FB is huge, its hardly the only social media outlet. There are hundreds. Same with the 'media'. There are literally thousands of different media sources.

You have no 'mono' in your imaginary 'monopoly'. Nor do you have any rights or freedoms that have been stripped from you, as you have no right to the use of anyone else's private property against their will to promote your political beliefs....or violate thier terms of service.

FB has every authority to curate the content on its own website per its own terms of service. You're insisting that YOU get to define what they have to promote, and that FB gets no say in the matter of what is on their OWN website.

Nope. FB gets the only say, as you have zero rights to the use of their private property to promote your beliefs.

1. I'm not changing my "Section 230" story, this is copied from post-48:
FB is supposed to be a "public platform", that's why they have Section 230 protection, it is NOT supposed to be "private property", that's the issue.

2. The purpose of Section 230 is to protect "platforms" from being sued for "public content" put up on their platforms.

Section 230 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Section 230 is a section of the United States Communications Decency Act that generally provides immunity for website platforms from third-party content.

3. If FB is supposed to be a "public platform" they should not be allowed to censor legitimate public content.
Here is a summary of what we are debating, from the above wiki link:
"Legal experts have criticized the Republicans' push to make Section 230 encompass platform neutrality. Wyden stated in response to potential law changes that "Section 230 is not about neutrality. Period. Full stop. 230 is all about letting private companies make their own decisions to leave up some content and take other content down."[64] Kosseff has stated that the Republican intentions are based on a "fundamental misunderstanding" of Section 230's purpose, as platform neutrality was not one of the considerations made at the time of passage.[65] Kosseff stated that political neutrality was not the intent of Section 230 according to the framers, but rather making sure providers had the ability to make content-removal judgement without fear of liability.[19] There have been concerns that any attempt to weaken Section 230 could actually cause an increase in censorship when services lose their exemption from liability."

4. So Republicans want Section 230 removed, and democrats like it just the way it is, with partisan censorship "filters".

 

[Mac1958]

Clearly the 1st amendment prohibits the government from censoring the private press. It does not compel private industry to print the copious lies of a few lunatics, no matter how powerful they are.

Yep. This is a fundraising gambit. He knows they'll blindly tithe to him.

I wonder how many people have hurt themselves financially, doing that.

 

[kyzr]

Clearly the 1st amendment prohibits the government from censoring the private press. It does not compel private industry to print the copious lies of a few lunatics, no matter how powerful they are.

Yep. This is a fundraising gambit. He knows they'll blindly tithe to him.

I wonder how many people have hurt themselves financially, doing that.

I know I gave him my last dime. He deserves it, being worshipped by all of us stupid rednecks.
You on the other hand, you worship the Xidens, their senile president Joe and druggie dishonorably discharged son Hunter.

 

[Mac1958]

Clearly the 1st amendment prohibits the government from censoring the private press. It does not compel private industry to print the copious lies of a few lunatics, no matter how powerful they are.

Yep. This is a fundraising gambit. He knows they'll blindly tithe to him.

I wonder how many people have hurt themselves financially, doing that.

I know I gave him my last dime. He deserves it, being worshipped by all of us stupid rednecks.
You on the other hand, you worship the Xidens, their senile president Joe and druggie dishonorably discharged son Hunter.

There's one now.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm curious if the USMB progs/dems will side with Trump on this important censorship issue, Should big tech be broken up? Should Section 230 be repealed? Should censorship end? Should Parler be reactivated? Should the "Fairness Doctrine" be revised and tried again? What do you recommend. I recommend "all of the above".

Trump Files Lawsuit Against Big Tech Over 'Censorship Of The American People'

Former President Donald Trump said he is filing a lawsuit against Big Tech companies — Twitter, Facebook, and Google and their CEOs, over allegations of violating Americans’ First Amendment rights by selectively censoring information and its recent action of banning and suspending his accounts.

floridianpress.com

“We’re asking the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida to order an immediate halt to stop social media companies’ illegal and shameful censorship of the American people. That’s exactly what they’re doing,” Trump said. “We’re demanding an end to the shadow banning, a stop to the silencing, a stop to the blacklisting, banishing, and canceling that you know so well.”

Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi argued the platforms have “increasingly engaged in impermissible censorship resulting from threatened legislative action, a misguided reliance upon Section 230.” Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a 1996 provision that gives social media platforms legal liability shield over content posted on their platform by third parties.

Should big tech be broken up - Yes

Put under regulation? The devil is in the details.

Do I agree with the type of regulation trump is asking for. Not in a million years.

Trump wants to be able to use these large public platforms to lie with impunity. No fucking way. And to promote insurrection.

1. Whatever happened to "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

And you have every right to say it. Just not on someone else's website without their permission. I have the right to free speech too. But I can't come into your home, spray paint 'BLACK LIVES MATTER' on your livingroom wall, and force you to keep it there.

That's not 'free speech'. That's me seizing your private property and turning into my private billboard.

Free speech is freedom from government intervention. And Facebook isn't the government, no matter what pseudo-legal gibberish that Trump has made up.

Totally agree, except that we are dealing with "monopolies" who control the flow of information.
If there were multiple Facebooks, Googles, Instagrams, etc. there would not be an issue, or if Section 230 legal protections weren't there there would be legal remedies.

FB isn't Zuckerberg's living room wall, its like the only newspaper in the country, and its used to present only one viewpoint. Its a monopoly.

There are lots of nut bag sites. Go to gab. Plenty of crazies for you there.

 

[kyzr]

I'm curious if the USMB progs/dems will side with Trump on this important censorship issue, Should big tech be broken up? Should Section 230 be repealed? Should censorship end? Should Parler be reactivated? Should the "Fairness Doctrine" be revised and tried again? What do you recommend. I recommend "all of the above".

Trump Files Lawsuit Against Big Tech Over 'Censorship Of The American People'

Former President Donald Trump said he is filing a lawsuit against Big Tech companies — Twitter, Facebook, and Google and their CEOs, over allegations of violating Americans’ First Amendment rights by selectively censoring information and its recent action of banning and suspending his accounts.

floridianpress.com

“We’re asking the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida to order an immediate halt to stop social media companies’ illegal and shameful censorship of the American people. That’s exactly what they’re doing,” Trump said. “We’re demanding an end to the shadow banning, a stop to the silencing, a stop to the blacklisting, banishing, and canceling that you know so well.”

Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi argued the platforms have “increasingly engaged in impermissible censorship resulting from threatened legislative action, a misguided reliance upon Section 230.” Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a 1996 provision that gives social media platforms legal liability shield over content posted on their platform by third parties.

Should big tech be broken up - Yes

Put under regulation? The devil is in the details.

Do I agree with the type of regulation trump is asking for. Not in a million years.

Trump wants to be able to use these large public platforms to lie with impunity. No fucking way. And to promote insurrection.

1. Whatever happened to "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

And you have every right to say it. Just not on someone else's website without their permission. I have the right to free speech too. But I can't come into your home, spray paint 'BLACK LIVES MATTER' on your livingroom wall, and force you to keep it there.

That's not 'free speech'. That's me seizing your private property and turning into my private billboard.

Free speech is freedom from government intervention. And Facebook isn't the government, no matter what pseudo-legal gibberish that Trump has made up.

Totally agree, except that we are dealing with "monopolies" who control the flow of information.
If there were multiple Facebooks, Googles, Instagrams, etc. there would not be an issue, or if Section 230 legal protections weren't there there would be legal remedies.

FB isn't Zuckerberg's living room wall, its like the only newspaper in the country, and its used to present only one viewpoint. Its a monopoly.

There are lots of nut bag sites. Go to gab. Plenty of crazies for you there.

There are more than enough low-IQ democrats on USMB that need exposure to the truth.

 

[Dragonlady]

I'm curious if the USMB progs/dems will side with Trump on this important censorship issue, Should big tech be broken up? Should Section 230 be repealed? Should censorship end? Should Parler be reactivated? Should the "Fairness Doctrine" be revised and tried again? What do you recommend. I recommend "all of the above".

Trump Files Lawsuit Against Big Tech Over 'Censorship Of The American People'

Former President Donald Trump said he is filing a lawsuit against Big Tech companies — Twitter, Facebook, and Google and their CEOs, over allegations of violating Americans’ First Amendment rights by selectively censoring information and its recent action of banning and suspending his accounts.

floridianpress.com

“We’re asking the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida to order an immediate halt to stop social media companies’ illegal and shameful censorship of the American people. That’s exactly what they’re doing,” Trump said. “We’re demanding an end to the shadow banning, a stop to the silencing, a stop to the blacklisting, banishing, and canceling that you know so well.”

Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi argued the platforms have “increasingly engaged in impermissible censorship resulting from threatened legislative action, a misguided reliance upon Section 230.” Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a 1996 provision that gives social media platforms legal liability shield over content posted on their platform by third parties.

Should big tech be broken up - Yes

Put under regulation? The devil is in the details.

Do I agree with the type of regulation trump is asking for. Not in a million years.

Trump wants to be able to use these large public platforms to lie with impunity. No fucking way. And to promote insurrection.

1. Whatever happened to "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

And you have every right to say it. Just not on someone else's website without their permission. I have the right to free speech too. But I can't come into your home, spray paint 'BLACK LIVES MATTER' on your livingroom wall, and force you to keep it there.

That's not 'free speech'. That's me seizing your private property and turning into my private billboard.

Free speech is freedom from government intervention. And Facebook isn't the government, no matter what pseudo-legal gibberish that Trump has made up.

Totally agree, except that we are dealing with "monopolies" who control the flow of information.
If there were multiple Facebooks, Googles, Instagrams, etc. there would not be an issue, or if Section 230 legal protections weren't there there would be legal remedies.

FB isn't Zuckerberg's living room wall, its like the only newspaper in the country, and its used to present only one viewpoint. Its a monopoly.

There are lots of nut bag sites. Go to gab. Plenty of crazies for you there.

There are more than enough low-IQ democrats on USMB that need exposure to the truth.

Clearly the 1st amendment prohibits the government from censoring the private press. It does not compel private industry to print the copious lies of a few lunatics, no matter how powerful they are.

Copious lies? You mean like CRT and the 1619 Project?
Here are 5 examples of the MSM (private industry) lies that unfairly hurt the Trump presidency:
1. The loser of the 2016 presidential election Hillary Clinton, along with her Democrat apologists, pushed on this narrative from the beginning. Trump was an illegitimate president due to his collusion with Russia leading up to the election, they said, an infraction so malicious he may have actually been guilty of treason and deserving of the death penalty. There have been instances of political malice between parties in our nation’s past, but never one quite like this.

2. Last week, over a year after most Americans became familiar with the medication, a new study out of New Jersey, the hardest hit state by COVID, shows that if used in conjunction with a regimen of zinc, hydroxychloroquine can give COVID patients upwards of a 200% better survival rate against COVID. Hydroxychloroquine is indeed a miracle drug.

3. We also became aware last week via a report from the Interior Department’s Inspector General that the actions by Park Police near Lafayette Square and St. John’s Church in Washington D.C. last June were not due to directives by President Trump in order to provide him with a “photo op,” as the media originally asserted. We were told that peaceful protesters were gathered near the recently burned church and the cops came and shot rubber bullets and tear gas at them just so Trump could have his picture taken in front of the church holding a bible.

4. During an appearance on 60 Minutes with Leslie Stahl in late-October, President Trump pointed to the younger Biden and correctly observed that Joe Biden was embroiled in a scandal over his son Hunter, but Stahl was defiant, insisting “He’s not. He’s not.” Oh Leslie, he is. He is.

5. The media is now trying to act surprised and put forth the façade that their misreporting on COVID’s origins was just an honest mistake. It wasn’t. The likelihood that COVID originated in China’s Wuhan Laboratory of Virology was clear from the beginning, but again, since Trump and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were beating this drum, they had to take the opposite position. But now that Biden has been elected and his administration is well under way, it is becoming increasing clear that COVID did indeed originate at the Wuhan lab, and was almost definitely manmade. And once again, it is obvious that the media lied to us. Did Fauci pay the Wuhan Lab for "gain of function" research on bat viruses, that killed 600,000 Americans? The MSM is covering that up.

1. Not once ever did I hear anyone refer to Donald Trump as an “illegitimate president”. Furthermore, Hillary Clinton left the scene after the presidential election wasn’t heard from for nearly a year. So Hillary Clinton wasn’t pushing anything.

Trump was investigated by Republicans. Mueller is a Republican. Comey and McCabe are Republicans. And they found the Trump was involved with the Russians but they couldn’t prove it conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.

I guess you believe Barr’s lie that the Mueller report “exonerated” Trump. You seem to think that Trump’s illegal behaviours should’ve been ignored.

2. I reviewed your study. This wasn’t any kind of double blind study. It was a review of data for people who received hydroxychoriquine. The study showed that those with mild covid might have some benefit from the drug if combined with zinc.

How do you know if you were going to have only mild Covid? The answer is you don’t. Not until you have it. This is just the desperation of the Trump cult to show that Trump wasn’t killing people with the drug.

3. Will give you that one however thin it may be.

4. It’s been two years now and Hunter Biden has been investigated and investigated and still not a single charge against him. Leslie Stahl was right. Hunter Biden didn’t do anything illegal. Trump saying otherwise doesn’t make it so.

 

[badger2]

I'm curious if the USMB progs/dems will side with Trump on this important censorship issue, Should big tech be broken up? Should Section 230 be repealed? Should censorship end? Should Parler be reactivated? Should the "Fairness Doctrine" be revised and tried again? What do you recommend. I recommend "all of the above".

Trump Files Lawsuit Against Big Tech Over 'Censorship Of The American People'

Former President Donald Trump said he is filing a lawsuit against Big Tech companies — Twitter, Facebook, and Google and their CEOs, over allegations of violating Americans’ First Amendment rights by selectively censoring information and its recent action of banning and suspending his accounts.

floridianpress.com

“We’re asking the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida to order an immediate halt to stop social media companies’ illegal and shameful censorship of the American people. That’s exactly what they’re doing,” Trump said. “We’re demanding an end to the shadow banning, a stop to the silencing, a stop to the blacklisting, banishing, and canceling that you know so well.”

Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi argued the platforms have “increasingly engaged in impermissible censorship resulting from threatened legislative action, a misguided reliance upon Section 230.” Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a 1996 provision that gives social media platforms legal liability shield over content posted on their platform by third parties.

The following quotes are from the court case brought against FB by numerous state AG's: "As part of its strategy to thwart competitive threats, Facebook pursued an open first–closed later approach in which it first opened its platform to developers so that Facebook’s user base would grow and users would engage more deeply on Facebook by using third-party services. This strategy significantly boosted engagement on Facebook, enhanced the data it collected, and made the company’s advertising business even more profitable. Later, however, when some of those third-party services appeared to present competitive threats to Facebook’s monopoly, Facebook changed its practices and policies to close the application programming interfaces (“APIs”) on which those services relied, and it took additional actions to degrade and suppress the quality of their interconnections with Facebook."

Open-first, close later" is the strategy FB used to lure in the masses and change the rules later-i.e. selective censorship and acquire all competitors or when a company refused to be swallowed cut. "When Facebook opted not to purchase a firm presenting a competitive threat, or was rebuffed, Facebook cut off access to key components of its immensely valuable network. off all access."

When corps like FB act like monopolies it is in violation of US legal precedent. Our anti-competition laws need to be amended to cover new areas of technology (including social media) to prevent predatory-type of actions continuing to happen by FB and any other potential violator.

https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/facebook_complaint_12.9.2020.pdf

On the growing user base referred to above, we’re not certain that Mr. and Mrs. Einstein remember the phone booths that were once on the suface of the earth. One used them only when needed. Addiction to screenal space has allowed its pimp to offer ‘first hit’s free’ philosophy to its scapegoat-victims, in mimicry of the heroin pimp. But the pimp has burned the bridge back to the booth. The internet is a military invention. Suggested reading, Cyborg Manifesto.

 

[Care4all]

I'm curious if the USMB progs/dems will side with Trump on this important censorship issue, Should big tech be broken up? Should Section 230 be repealed? Should censorship end? Should Parler be reactivated? Should the "Fairness Doctrine" be revised and tried again? What do you recommend. I recommend "all of the above".

Trump Files Lawsuit Against Big Tech Over 'Censorship Of The American People'

Former President Donald Trump said he is filing a lawsuit against Big Tech companies — Twitter, Facebook, and Google and their CEOs, over allegations of violating Americans’ First Amendment rights by selectively censoring information and its recent action of banning and suspending his accounts.

floridianpress.com

“We’re asking the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida to order an immediate halt to stop social media companies’ illegal and shameful censorship of the American people. That’s exactly what they’re doing,” Trump said. “We’re demanding an end to the shadow banning, a stop to the silencing, a stop to the blacklisting, banishing, and canceling that you know so well.”

Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi argued the platforms have “increasingly engaged in impermissible censorship resulting from threatened legislative action, a misguided reliance upon Section 230.” Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a 1996 provision that gives social media platforms legal liability shield over content posted on their platform by third parties.

No. Trump's lawsuit as presented, has no standing. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc,are not govt entities. There is no first amendment protection from private business for us citizens.

The way to approach it is through anti trust and monopoly laws...and if it is deemed a monopoly, it should be split up, like ATT&T... Bringing competition.

A new and revised Fairness doctrine should be brought back, but that would only affect the mainstream media... news networks, NOT social media.