Trump Files Lawsuit Against Big Tech Over Censorship (Poll)

[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 Should Section 230 be repealed?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.

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.

1. Trump's illegal behaviors?? List them please. In the US you are innocent until proven guilty.
It was Hillary and the DNC that collaborated with the Russians to get the Steele Dossier, see wiki.
You never heard democrats call Trump's presidency illegitimate? Look at these links:

Jerrold Nadler: Trump election ‘illegitimate,’ won’t attend inauguration

Dozens of House Democrats plan to skip Donald Trump’s inauguration as the 45th president of the United States, casting a partisan pall over the historic event and prompting allies of the president-elect to say the losers of the November election need to get over themselves.

www.washingtontimes.com

One moment, please...

conservativedailypost.com

Paul Krugman Claims 'Democrats Never Said Trump Was Illegitimate'; Krugman Said So in 2017

Byron York caught New York Times columnist Paul Krugman lying that Democrats never called Trump illegitimate. Krugman did so in 2017.

www.breitbart.com

2. Its proven, get over it.

3. Thx.

4. Hunter's laptop and whistleblower Bobulinsky say otherwise. The Xiden's wrongdoing have NOT been investigated, it was covered up by the FBI.

 

[colfax_m]

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?

The problem is that Fox News isn’t the only news network. To accept the premise you’d first have to explain why that would be the case in your hypothetical question.

 

[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.

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

Which failed president is doing all that whining about not being able to get away with breaking the rules?

 

[Kondor3]

Yes.

This is one of those odd times where I actually agree with the idea behind a Rumpian action.

Facebook, Google et al are the Standard Oils of our times... Teddy engaged in trust-busting more than a century ago... it's Joe's turn now.

But my own agreement does not stem from their removal of Rump's accounts.

That Orange kokksukker deserved it... yelling "fire" in a crowded theater with respect to the Insurrection of January 6, 2021.

I've felt that FB et al need to be broken-up for at least a couple of years now... they've gotten too influential and too big for their britches... not good for Free Speech.

 

[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.

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.

Can't give him number 3....other than the park police planned to remove protesters at about curfew.

The issue was who ORDERED the protesters to be shot with rubber bullets and tear gas....?

Park police said THEY did not use rubber bullets or gas, one of their helper groups, did.

So still unanswered is, who fired rubber bullets and gassing and who ordered this group, to do so?

Dc police? National guard? Federal forces? Homeland security? They were all present as back up and additional help.

 

[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.

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.

1. You may be right, Trump's lawsuit may be thrown out. However, from my post #52 above:

"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."

Section 230 should be removed, then the courts would be the arbiters.

2. I agree that the MSM should have to be less biased than they have been when reporting NEWS as judged by neutral studies, such as the Harvard study, Opinion can be biased, but even opinion pieces should have both sides presented fairly.

 

[colfax_m]

To point out the absurdity of this lawsuit, Trump claims Facebook and everyone else he’s suing are state actors and therefore had no right to remove him from the platform.

Meaning, Facebook removed him at the behest of the government while he was the chief executive of that government.

Mind boggling.

 

[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?

The problem is that Fox News isn’t the only news network. To accept the premise you’d first have to explain why that would be the case in your hypothetical question.

The premise is that FB has almost all of the users such that it technically is a "monopoly". Even if there are similar platforms, when you look at the number of users FB has almost all of them. 2nd place goes to youtube, but their political content isn't like FBs.

100 Essential Facebook Statistics: 2024 Market Share Analysis & Data - Financesonline.com

Facebook statistics article shows you how to make the most of this social media platform to grow your business using social media strategies from the best practitioners.

financesonline.com

 

[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.

Which failed president is doing all that whining about not being able to get away with breaking the rules?

Breaking what rules? These? "Never push back on the MSM"?

 

[colfax_m]

The premise is that FB has almost all of the users such that it technically is a "monopoly". Even if there are similar platforms, when you look at the number of users FB has almost all of them. 2nd place goes to youtube, but their political content isn't like FBs.

A number of problems arise when calling Facebook a monopoly.

First, a monopoly is not defined as simply being the biggest. A monopoly requires control of a market sector. There isn’t control just because they’re big. You have to show how Facebook would prevent other competitors from entering the market space.

Even so, the market space here is the internet which is not a limited resource. It’s a virtual limitless space. Facebook occupying a large part of that current space does not prevent anyone else from joining as the space is limitless. Users are not bound to use Facebook and can have as many accounts on as many platforms as they please. For no cost too!

 

[Care4all]

The free press in our Early age, was created so they COULD pick sides and influence the public....not as neutral entities, but partisan entities.... the idea that the press or MS media should be neutral in reporting is fairly new...the past century.

Our problem today, are corporations buying up all the once local newspapers, and local media broadcast stations, and local radio stations..... Eliminating competition that once existed, to where maybe 5 huge corporations own it all, for the whole nation.

 

[kyzr]

The premise is that FB has almost all of the users such that it technically is a "monopoly". Even if there are similar platforms, when you look at the number of users FB has almost all of them. 2nd place goes to youtube, but their political content isn't like FBs.

A number of problems arise when calling Facebook a monopoly.

First, a monopoly is not defined as simply being the biggest. A monopoly requires control of a market sector. There isn’t control just because they’re big. You have to show how Facebook would prevent other competitors from entering the market space.

Even so, the market space here is the internet which is not a limited resource. It’s a virtual limitless space. Facebook occupying a large part of that current space does not prevent anyone else from joining as the space is limitless. Users are not bound to use Facebook and can have as many accounts on as many platforms as they please. For no cost too!

I'm not litigating that FB is a monopoly here on the USMB. I think it is, and you think its not. We'll see how it shakes out in court.
The monopoly issue is only one item, the 2nd issue is Section 230 protection from lawsuits. The battle-lines are already drawn on that one. See my post #52.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Yes. Thank's to the Republican's and their Faux News Networks and their reporting news as opinion during the Obama years where they perfected the techniques other networks are emulating.

OK, suppose FXN was the only news network

When there was only three networks they did impose fairness rules. Today with our eclectic choices, those rules are no longer necessary. I remember how the left whined when they realized the monopoly the Rabid Right had on AM radio back in the 90's

 

[candycorn]

Wasn't the blob supposedly going to put Twitter out of business with his new platform? LOL

 

[colfax_m]

I'm not litigating that FB is a monopoly here on the USMB. I think it is, and you think its not. We'll see how it shakes out in court.
The monopoly issue is only one item, the 2nd issue is Section 230 protection from lawsuits. The battle-lines are already drawn on that one. See my post #52.

The idea that Facebook is a monopoly isn’t a part of Trump’s lawsuit as far as I’ve read. The anti-trust cases filed by the Trump administration against social media were recently dismissed from court. I don’t think there is any active litigation on this matter.

Trump thinks he can get the courts to declare section 230 unconstititional in his lawsuit which is absolutely absurd and his argument to support it is nonsense.

Conservatives mostly get the purpose of section 230 completely backwards. It was always intended to provide internet platforms the ability to decide for themselves what content was allowable on their sites without having to fear taking on legal liability. Repealing 230 is not what anyone really wants.

 

[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.

Yes. Thank's to the Republican's and their Faux News Networks and their reporting news as opinion during the Obama years where they perfected the techniques other networks are emulating.

OK, suppose FXN was the only news network

When there was only three networks they did impose fairness rules. Today with our eclectic choices, those rules are no longer necessary. I remember how the left whined when they realized the monopoly the Rabid Right had on AM radio back in the 90's

FXN always presents both sides of issues, unlike the insignificant MSM who only present one side, that's why they are the most watched and highest rated.
So if you agree with the fake news and one-sided news watch CNN, and MSDNC and be happy.

 

[kyzr]

I'm not litigating that FB is a monopoly here on the USMB. I think it is, and you think its not. We'll see how it shakes out in court.
The monopoly issue is only one item, the 2nd issue is Section 230 protection from lawsuits. The battle-lines are already drawn on that one. See my post #52.

The idea that Facebook is a monopoly isn’t a part of Trump’s lawsuit as far as I’ve read. The anti-trust cases filed by the Trump administration against social media were recently dismissed from court. I don’t think there is any active litigation on this matter.

Trump thinks he can get the courts to declare section 230 unconstititional in his lawsuit which is absolutely absurd and his argument to support it is nonsense.

Conservatives mostly get the purpose of section 230 completely backwards. It was always intended to provide internet platforms the ability to decide for themselves what content was allowable on their sites without having to fear taking on legal liability. Repealing 230 is not what anyone really wants.

Repealing Section 230 is what Republicans want.

 

[Clipper]

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.

Crying tears of anguiush, Trump is already begging the suckers for cash.

Hopefully, the targets of Trump's anguish will let the suit proceed & have Trumpy Boy sit down for a 5 hr. deposition & have him explain under oath his coup attemp on Jan. 6. Which will no doubt be brought up.

Good move, Stable Genius.

Oops!

 

[colfax_m]

Repealing Section 230 is what Republicans want.

I don’t think so. I think they’re just using it as a threat to get their way. Republicans must know how bad repealing section 230 would be for everyone, including social media users and the company.

What they actually want is for social media to tolerate their bad behavior and are using this as a threat to get their way.

 

[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.

Crying tears of anguiush, Trump is already begging the suckers for cash.

Hopefully, the targets of Trump's anguish will let the suit proceed & have Trumpy Boy sit down for a 5 hr. deposition & have him explain under oath his coup attemp on Jan. 6. Which will no doubt be brought up.

Good move, Stable Genius.

Oops!

I'm not optimistic that anything that Trump or Republicans want will happen before 2023 or 2025, but its making a nice "To-Do" list, and maybe even Trump's and Newt's new "Contract with America".

So enjoy 2021 and 2022 and your senile old occupant of the WH, and the weirdos in the House and Senate.