Facebook Working with Law Enforcement to Ban 'Stop the Steal'

[Bobob]

Supporters and facilitators of domestic terrorism such as stop the steal and Trumper's criminal terrorists, in general, must be rounded up and dealt with.

The FBI had told Trump that the biggest threat was the white supremacists and they needed to deal with them. Trump, for obvious reasons, refused

 

[Camp]

Voter fraud is Trump's "BIG LIE" used for inciting his violent terrorist insurrection on 1/6

 

[Foreigner Looking In.]

Supporters and facilitators of domestic terrorism such as stop the steal and Trumper's criminal terrorists, in general, must be rounded up and dealt with.

The FBI had told Trump that the biggest threat was the white supremacists and they needed to deal with them. Trump, for obvious reasons, refused

You can be called a white supremacist for adopting black kids. Ask Amy.
Or supporting the cops.
The term has been trivialised and is now worthless.

 

[Foreigner Looking In.]

Nor did Google or Amazon deplatform Pornhub when they were showing Kiddie porn and rape videos.

They didn't have to. the mere threat of it was enough to get them to clean up their act.

The problem was, Pornhub overreacted, it got rid of not only those videos, but any video that wasn't made in a studio or was posted by a non-verified user.

Oh, they just missed it over the last number of years? They didn't know kiddieporn was on their page until the victims sued them??
How gullible.
There was nothing on Parler that could not be found on Twitter.
Take Twitter off and be consistent.

 

[Bobob]

Supporters and facilitators of domestic terrorism such as stop the steal and Trumper's criminal terrorists, in general, must be rounded up and dealt with.

The FBI had told Trump that the biggest threat was the white supremacists and they needed to deal with them. Trump, for obvious reasons, refused

You can be called a white supremacist for adopting black kids. Ask Amy.
Or supporting the cops.
The term has been trivialised and is now worthless.

You can be called anything, but what you are in reality, is something else.

 

[Concerned American]

Big Tech may find itself hurting.

The following was a post of pmax on Pelican PARF forum.


The recent move is something, isn't it ? Big tech might have just stepped into it.

Can't imagine any other government ceding control to the US tech lords.


President Andrés Manuel López Obrador

“I can tell you that at the first G20 meeting we have, I am going to make a proposal on this issue. Yes, social media should not be used to incite violence and all that, but this cannot be used as a pretext to suspend freedom of expression.”

“How can a company act as if it was all powerful, omnipotent, as a sort of Spanish Inquisition on what is expressed?”

Foreign Relations Secretary Marcelo Ebrard

“Given that Mexico, through our president, has spoken out, we immediately made contact with others who think the same,”
“The president’s orders are to make contact with all of them, share this concern and work on coming up with a joint proposal. We will see what is proposed.”

Poland’s prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki

“the owners of corporate giants should not decide which views are right and which are not.”

Steffen Seibert, Merkel’s chief spokesman

“The right to freedom of opinion is of fundamental importance. Given that, the chancellor considers it problematic that the president’s accounts have been permanently suspended."
“This fundamental right can be intervened in, but according to the law and within the framework defined by legislators — not according to a decision by the management of social media platforms"

EU Digital Commissioner Thierry Breton

"Just as 9/11 marked a paradigm shift for global security, 20 years later we are witnessing a before-and-after in the role of digital platforms in our democracy.

The fact that a CEO can pull the plug on POTUS’s loudspeaker without any checks and balances is perplexing. It is not only confirmation of the power of these platforms, but it also displays deep weaknesses in the way our society is organized in the digital space.

These last few days have made it more obvious than ever that we cannot just stand by idly and rely on these platforms’ good will or artful interpretation of the law. We need to set the rules of the game and organize the digital space with clear rights, obligations and safeguards. We need to restore trust in the digital space. It is a matter of survival for our democracies in the 21st century."

French Junior Minister for European Union Affairs Clement Beaune

“I’m shocked by the fact that it is now, entirely in private hands. It cannot be in private hands only.”

“The regulation of digital giants cannot be done by the digital oligarchy itself. Big tech is one of the threats to democracy."

__________________
What the lark !

Last edited by pmax; Today at 07:48 AM..

The left and big tech tested social media control during the Arab Spring and it worked pretty well, ask Egypt, Libya and Syria. So they unleashed it during this election in the US. It is a shame when US leadership is upstaged by Mexico. Welcome to the democrats vision for the US.

 

[Coyote]

It's a privately owned company.

Benefitting from PUBLIC laws. Funny how you ignore that.

True. So how exactly does that apply?

Social media companies need to provide equal access to all view points. But they don't need to allow all content, so they have user agreements - Terms of Service - and rules. They should apply those rules equally and fairly. It doesn't always work out that way (using algorithms and automatic processes instead of people often creates problems). I know the right is constantly whining about discrimination ... and you can make an argument, but so can I - I see a ton of rightwing posts and opinions on FB (I don't do Twitter).

Those companies don't have to provide space for violent content or the planning of insurrections regardless of the ideology of the user and they can reasonably ban users who continuously violate their polices. Free speech does not preclude that.

 

[westwall]

It's a privately owned company.

Benefitting from PUBLIC laws. Funny how you ignore that.

True. So how exactly does that apply?

Social media companies need to provide equal access to all view points. But they don't need to allow all content, so they have user agreements - Terms of Service - and rules. They should apply those rules equally and fairly. It doesn't always work out that way (using algorithms and automatic processes instead of people often creates problems). I know the right is constantly whining about discrimination ... and you can make an argument, but so can I - I see a ton of rightwing posts and opinions on FB (I don't do Twitter).

Those companies don't have to provide space for violent content or the planning of insurrections regardless of the ideology of the user and they can reasonably ban users who continuously violate their polices. Free speech does not preclude that.

They are actively censoring any viewpoint that differs from the official Democrat/CACA propaganda. Thanks to government, and taxpayer money, they have knocked out all of their competition. Now they control what is released as was shown to dramatic effect when they closed down ACTUAL FACTUAL stories about hunter xiden.

Goebbels would be envious of Big tech. All he had was Signal, these assholes have almost everything.

 

[Coyote]

Big Tech may find itself hurting.

The following was a post of pmax on Pelican PARF forum.


The recent move is something, isn't it ? Big tech might have just stepped into it.

Can't imagine any other government ceding control to the US tech lords.


President Andrés Manuel López Obrador

“I can tell you that at the first G20 meeting we have, I am going to make a proposal on this issue. Yes, social media should not be used to incite violence and all that, but this cannot be used as a pretext to suspend freedom of expression.”

“How can a company act as if it was all powerful, omnipotent, as a sort of Spanish Inquisition on what is expressed?”

Foreign Relations Secretary Marcelo Ebrard

“Given that Mexico, through our president, has spoken out, we immediately made contact with others who think the same,”
“The president’s orders are to make contact with all of them, share this concern and work on coming up with a joint proposal. We will see what is proposed.”

Poland’s prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki

“the owners of corporate giants should not decide which views are right and which are not.”

Steffen Seibert, Merkel’s chief spokesman

“The right to freedom of opinion is of fundamental importance. Given that, the chancellor considers it problematic that the president’s accounts have been permanently suspended."
“This fundamental right can be intervened in, but according to the law and within the framework defined by legislators — not according to a decision by the management of social media platforms"

EU Digital Commissioner Thierry Breton

"Just as 9/11 marked a paradigm shift for global security, 20 years later we are witnessing a before-and-after in the role of digital platforms in our democracy.

The fact that a CEO can pull the plug on POTUS’s loudspeaker without any checks and balances is perplexing. It is not only confirmation of the power of these platforms, but it also displays deep weaknesses in the way our society is organized in the digital space.

These last few days have made it more obvious than ever that we cannot just stand by idly and rely on these platforms’ good will or artful interpretation of the law. We need to set the rules of the game and organize the digital space with clear rights, obligations and safeguards. We need to restore trust in the digital space. It is a matter of survival for our democracies in the 21st century."

French Junior Minister for European Union Affairs Clement Beaune

“I’m shocked by the fact that it is now, entirely in private hands. It cannot be in private hands only.”

“The regulation of digital giants cannot be done by the digital oligarchy itself. Big tech is one of the threats to democracy."

__________________
What the lark !

Last edited by pmax; Today at 07:48 AM..

The left and big tech tested social media control during the Arab Spring and it worked pretty well, ask Egypt, Libya and Syria. So they unleashed it during this election in the US. It is a shame when US leadership is upstaged by Mexico. Welcome to the democrats vision for the US.

You might want to take a cynical look at Mexico's posturing here.

Mexico ranks 143rd in media freedom and is one of the deadliest countries for journalists. In 2020, it held first place in number of journalists killed, most often trying to expose corruption.

 

[bripat9643]

The riot at the U.S. Capitol prompted swift action against self-described free speech site Parler for allegedly failing to moderate violent rhetoric, but Facebook searches turned up posts "promoting" the Jan. 6 rally with the hashtags #StopTheSteal, #FightForTrump, #WildProtest and #DoNotCertify as recently as Monday, The Washington Post reported.

Oh Wow! The promoted a rally! they're criminals!

What a ******* NAZI.

 

[Coyote]

It's a privately owned company.

Benefitting from PUBLIC laws. Funny how you ignore that.

True. So how exactly does that apply?

Social media companies need to provide equal access to all view points. But they don't need to allow all content, so they have user agreements - Terms of Service - and rules. They should apply those rules equally and fairly. It doesn't always work out that way (using algorithms and automatic processes instead of people often creates problems). I know the right is constantly whining about discrimination ... and you can make an argument, but so can I - I see a ton of rightwing posts and opinions on FB (I don't do Twitter).

Those companies don't have to provide space for violent content or the planning of insurrections regardless of the ideology of the user and they can reasonably ban users who continuously violate their polices. Free speech does not preclude that.

They are actively censoring any viewpoint that differs from the official Democrat/CACA propaganda. Thanks to government, and taxpayer money, they have knocked out all of their competition. Now they control what is released as was shown to dramatic effect when they closed down ACTUAL FACTUAL stories about hunter xiden.

Goebbels would be envious of Big tech. All he had was Signal, these assholes have almost everything.

That doesn't fit reality - ie, I see tons of stuff that certainly doesn't fit the Dem viewpoint.

On Hunter Biden - that's a mix of fact and fiction, some of it they should have reported (and didn't they say it was a mistake on their part?), but some of it was completely unsubstantiated (for example child rape).

 

[Asclepias]

It's a privately owned company.

So was Parler.

Evidently they were a shitty company. They couldnt afford to stay open.

 

[Concerned American]

Big Tech may find itself hurting.

The following was a post of pmax on Pelican PARF forum.


The recent move is something, isn't it ? Big tech might have just stepped into it.

Can't imagine any other government ceding control to the US tech lords.


President Andrés Manuel López Obrador

“I can tell you that at the first G20 meeting we have, I am going to make a proposal on this issue. Yes, social media should not be used to incite violence and all that, but this cannot be used as a pretext to suspend freedom of expression.”

“How can a company act as if it was all powerful, omnipotent, as a sort of Spanish Inquisition on what is expressed?”

Foreign Relations Secretary Marcelo Ebrard

“Given that Mexico, through our president, has spoken out, we immediately made contact with others who think the same,”
“The president’s orders are to make contact with all of them, share this concern and work on coming up with a joint proposal. We will see what is proposed.”

Poland’s prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki

“the owners of corporate giants should not decide which views are right and which are not.”

Steffen Seibert, Merkel’s chief spokesman

“The right to freedom of opinion is of fundamental importance. Given that, the chancellor considers it problematic that the president’s accounts have been permanently suspended."
“This fundamental right can be intervened in, but according to the law and within the framework defined by legislators — not according to a decision by the management of social media platforms"

EU Digital Commissioner Thierry Breton

"Just as 9/11 marked a paradigm shift for global security, 20 years later we are witnessing a before-and-after in the role of digital platforms in our democracy.

The fact that a CEO can pull the plug on POTUS’s loudspeaker without any checks and balances is perplexing. It is not only confirmation of the power of these platforms, but it also displays deep weaknesses in the way our society is organized in the digital space.

These last few days have made it more obvious than ever that we cannot just stand by idly and rely on these platforms’ good will or artful interpretation of the law. We need to set the rules of the game and organize the digital space with clear rights, obligations and safeguards. We need to restore trust in the digital space. It is a matter of survival for our democracies in the 21st century."

French Junior Minister for European Union Affairs Clement Beaune

“I’m shocked by the fact that it is now, entirely in private hands. It cannot be in private hands only.”

“The regulation of digital giants cannot be done by the digital oligarchy itself. Big tech is one of the threats to democracy."

__________________
What the lark !

Last edited by pmax; Today at 07:48 AM..

The left and big tech tested social media control during the Arab Spring and it worked pretty well, ask Egypt, Libya and Syria. So they unleashed it during this election in the US. It is a shame when US leadership is upstaged by Mexico. Welcome to the democrats vision for the US.

You might want to take a cynical look at Mexico's posturing here.

Mexico ranks 143rd in media freedom and is one of the deadliest countries for journalists. In 2020, it held first place in number of journalists killed, most often trying to expose corruption.

And that is pertinent to the OP---how. Obrador condemned your fair haired social media so you go on the attack against their media record. HaHaHa. BTW, you sure put your opinion out there a lot for a moderator--usually moderators are supposed to be objective.

 

[progressive hunter]

It's a privately owned company.

Benefitting from PUBLIC laws. Funny how you ignore that.

True. So how exactly does that apply?

Social media companies need to provide equal access to all view points. But they don't need to allow all content, so they have user agreements - Terms of Service - and rules. They should apply those rules equally and fairly. It doesn't always work out that way (using algorithms and automatic processes instead of people often creates problems). I know the right is constantly whining about discrimination ... and you can make an argument, but so can I - I see a ton of rightwing posts and opinions on FB (I don't do Twitter).

Those companies don't have to provide space for violent content or the planning of insurrections regardless of the ideology of the user and they can reasonably ban users who continuously violate their polices. Free speech does not preclude that.

They are actively censoring any viewpoint that differs from the official Democrat/CACA propaganda. Thanks to government, and taxpayer money, they have knocked out all of their competition. Now they control what is released as was shown to dramatic effect when they closed down ACTUAL FACTUAL stories about hunter xiden.

Goebbels would be envious of Big tech. All he had was Signal, these assholes have almost everything.

That doesn't fit reality - ie, I see tons of stuff that certainly doesn't fit the Dem viewpoint.

On Hunter Biden - that's a mix of fact and fiction, some of it they should have reported (and didn't they say it was a mistake on their part?), but some of it was completely unsubstantiated (for example child rape).

how are pictures of him with what seem like a minor unsubstantiated??? one of his emails even said he acted inappropriately with a minor,,

 

[westwall]

It's a privately owned company.

Benefitting from PUBLIC laws. Funny how you ignore that.

True. So how exactly does that apply?

Social media companies need to provide equal access to all view points. But they don't need to allow all content, so they have user agreements - Terms of Service - and rules. They should apply those rules equally and fairly. It doesn't always work out that way (using algorithms and automatic processes instead of people often creates problems). I know the right is constantly whining about discrimination ... and you can make an argument, but so can I - I see a ton of rightwing posts and opinions on FB (I don't do Twitter).

Those companies don't have to provide space for violent content or the planning of insurrections regardless of the ideology of the user and they can reasonably ban users who continuously violate their polices. Free speech does not preclude that.

They are actively censoring any viewpoint that differs from the official Democrat/CACA propaganda. Thanks to government, and taxpayer money, they have knocked out all of their competition. Now they control what is released as was shown to dramatic effect when they closed down ACTUAL FACTUAL stories about hunter xiden.

Goebbels would be envious of Big tech. All he had was Signal, these assholes have almost everything.

That doesn't fit reality - ie, I see tons of stuff that certainly doesn't fit the Dem viewpoint.

On Hunter Biden - that's a mix of fact and fiction, some of it they should have reported (and didn't they say it was a mistake on their part?), but some of it was completely unsubstantiated (for example child rape).

You do? Where? Where is a single source that reaches nationwide that isn't CACA propaganda? As far as hunter xiden goes, I am not referring to any of the child sex shit he is accused of, I am merely talking about the factual influence peddling, and security concerns, which are obvious to anyone who isn't incredibly biased.

 

[Coyote]

Big Tech may find itself hurting.

The following was a post of pmax on Pelican PARF forum.


The recent move is something, isn't it ? Big tech might have just stepped into it.

Can't imagine any other government ceding control to the US tech lords.


President Andrés Manuel López Obrador

“I can tell you that at the first G20 meeting we have, I am going to make a proposal on this issue. Yes, social media should not be used to incite violence and all that, but this cannot be used as a pretext to suspend freedom of expression.”

“How can a company act as if it was all powerful, omnipotent, as a sort of Spanish Inquisition on what is expressed?”

Foreign Relations Secretary Marcelo Ebrard

“Given that Mexico, through our president, has spoken out, we immediately made contact with others who think the same,”
“The president’s orders are to make contact with all of them, share this concern and work on coming up with a joint proposal. We will see what is proposed.”

Poland’s prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki

“the owners of corporate giants should not decide which views are right and which are not.”

Steffen Seibert, Merkel’s chief spokesman

“The right to freedom of opinion is of fundamental importance. Given that, the chancellor considers it problematic that the president’s accounts have been permanently suspended."
“This fundamental right can be intervened in, but according to the law and within the framework defined by legislators — not according to a decision by the management of social media platforms"

EU Digital Commissioner Thierry Breton

"Just as 9/11 marked a paradigm shift for global security, 20 years later we are witnessing a before-and-after in the role of digital platforms in our democracy.

The fact that a CEO can pull the plug on POTUS’s loudspeaker without any checks and balances is perplexing. It is not only confirmation of the power of these platforms, but it also displays deep weaknesses in the way our society is organized in the digital space.

These last few days have made it more obvious than ever that we cannot just stand by idly and rely on these platforms’ good will or artful interpretation of the law. We need to set the rules of the game and organize the digital space with clear rights, obligations and safeguards. We need to restore trust in the digital space. It is a matter of survival for our democracies in the 21st century."

French Junior Minister for European Union Affairs Clement Beaune

“I’m shocked by the fact that it is now, entirely in private hands. It cannot be in private hands only.”

“The regulation of digital giants cannot be done by the digital oligarchy itself. Big tech is one of the threats to democracy."

__________________
What the lark !

Last edited by pmax; Today at 07:48 AM..

The left and big tech tested social media control during the Arab Spring and it worked pretty well, ask Egypt, Libya and Syria. So they unleashed it during this election in the US. It is a shame when US leadership is upstaged by Mexico. Welcome to the democrats vision for the US.

You might want to take a cynical look at Mexico's posturing here.

Mexico ranks 143rd in media freedom and is one of the deadliest countries for journalists. In 2020, it held first place in number of journalists killed, most often trying to expose corruption.

And that is pertinent to the OP---how. Obrador condemned your fair haired social media so you go on the attack against their media record. HaHaHa. BTW, you sure put your opinion out there a lot for a moderator--usually moderators are supposed to be objective.

You're new here kid. Moderators at USMB can post as they wish - we are allowed to have our opinions and there is no requirement that our political opinions on these boards be "neutral" or "objective".

Other than that, I fail to understand why you seem to be praising Mexico given it's record on free speech. It's pertinent since free speech is part of the topic.

 

[Coyote]

It's a privately owned company.

Benefitting from PUBLIC laws. Funny how you ignore that.

True. So how exactly does that apply?

Social media companies need to provide equal access to all view points. But they don't need to allow all content, so they have user agreements - Terms of Service - and rules. They should apply those rules equally and fairly. It doesn't always work out that way (using algorithms and automatic processes instead of people often creates problems). I know the right is constantly whining about discrimination ... and you can make an argument, but so can I - I see a ton of rightwing posts and opinions on FB (I don't do Twitter).

Those companies don't have to provide space for violent content or the planning of insurrections regardless of the ideology of the user and they can reasonably ban users who continuously violate their polices. Free speech does not preclude that.

They are actively censoring any viewpoint that differs from the official Democrat/CACA propaganda. Thanks to government, and taxpayer money, they have knocked out all of their competition. Now they control what is released as was shown to dramatic effect when they closed down ACTUAL FACTUAL stories about hunter xiden.

Goebbels would be envious of Big tech. All he had was Signal, these assholes have almost everything.

That doesn't fit reality - ie, I see tons of stuff that certainly doesn't fit the Dem viewpoint.

On Hunter Biden - that's a mix of fact and fiction, some of it they should have reported (and didn't they say it was a mistake on their part?), but some of it was completely unsubstantiated (for example child rape).

You do? Where? Where is a single source that reaches nationwide that isn't CACA propaganda? As far as hunter xiden goes, I am not referring to any of the child sex shit he is accused of, I am merely talking about the factual influence peddling, and security concerns, which are obvious to anyone who isn't incredibly biased.

Security concerns? No different than the Trump children. Aside from that - the only things I call "factual" in the mess are what the DoJ/FBI are investigating. If there is enough there for an investigation, then at least it's substantiated, imo.

I think there are plenty of sources that aren't what you call CACA propaganda, but I suspect we won't agree on that.

 

[Concerned American]

Big Tech may find itself hurting.

The following was a post of pmax on Pelican PARF forum.


The recent move is something, isn't it ? Big tech might have just stepped into it.

Can't imagine any other government ceding control to the US tech lords.


President Andrés Manuel López Obrador

“I can tell you that at the first G20 meeting we have, I am going to make a proposal on this issue. Yes, social media should not be used to incite violence and all that, but this cannot be used as a pretext to suspend freedom of expression.”

“How can a company act as if it was all powerful, omnipotent, as a sort of Spanish Inquisition on what is expressed?”

Foreign Relations Secretary Marcelo Ebrard

“Given that Mexico, through our president, has spoken out, we immediately made contact with others who think the same,”
“The president’s orders are to make contact with all of them, share this concern and work on coming up with a joint proposal. We will see what is proposed.”

Poland’s prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki

“the owners of corporate giants should not decide which views are right and which are not.”

Steffen Seibert, Merkel’s chief spokesman

“The right to freedom of opinion is of fundamental importance. Given that, the chancellor considers it problematic that the president’s accounts have been permanently suspended."
“This fundamental right can be intervened in, but according to the law and within the framework defined by legislators — not according to a decision by the management of social media platforms"

EU Digital Commissioner Thierry Breton

"Just as 9/11 marked a paradigm shift for global security, 20 years later we are witnessing a before-and-after in the role of digital platforms in our democracy.

The fact that a CEO can pull the plug on POTUS’s loudspeaker without any checks and balances is perplexing. It is not only confirmation of the power of these platforms, but it also displays deep weaknesses in the way our society is organized in the digital space.

These last few days have made it more obvious than ever that we cannot just stand by idly and rely on these platforms’ good will or artful interpretation of the law. We need to set the rules of the game and organize the digital space with clear rights, obligations and safeguards. We need to restore trust in the digital space. It is a matter of survival for our democracies in the 21st century."

French Junior Minister for European Union Affairs Clement Beaune

“I’m shocked by the fact that it is now, entirely in private hands. It cannot be in private hands only.”

“The regulation of digital giants cannot be done by the digital oligarchy itself. Big tech is one of the threats to democracy."

__________________
What the lark !

Last edited by pmax; Today at 07:48 AM..

The left and big tech tested social media control during the Arab Spring and it worked pretty well, ask Egypt, Libya and Syria. So they unleashed it during this election in the US. It is a shame when US leadership is upstaged by Mexico. Welcome to the democrats vision for the US.

You might want to take a cynical look at Mexico's posturing here.

Mexico ranks 143rd in media freedom and is one of the deadliest countries for journalists. In 2020, it held first place in number of journalists killed, most often trying to expose corruption.

And that is pertinent to the OP---how. Obrador condemned your fair haired social media so you go on the attack against their media record. HaHaHa. BTW, you sure put your opinion out there a lot for a moderator--usually moderators are supposed to be objective.

You're new here kid. Moderators at USMB can post as they wish - we are allowed to have our opinions and there is no requirement that our political opinions on these boards be "neutral" or "objective".

Other than that, I fail to understand why you seem to be praising Mexico given it's record on free speech. It's pertinent since free speech is part of the topic.

Moderator-- noun · a person or thing that moderates. Tough to do when you are not objective. Oh, yeah, you believe Chris Wallace was objective too. Oh yeah, I was a kid when I was your age.

 

[Coyote]

Big Tech may find itself hurting.

The following was a post of pmax on Pelican PARF forum.


The recent move is something, isn't it ? Big tech might have just stepped into it.

Can't imagine any other government ceding control to the US tech lords.


President Andrés Manuel López Obrador

“I can tell you that at the first G20 meeting we have, I am going to make a proposal on this issue. Yes, social media should not be used to incite violence and all that, but this cannot be used as a pretext to suspend freedom of expression.”

“How can a company act as if it was all powerful, omnipotent, as a sort of Spanish Inquisition on what is expressed?”

Foreign Relations Secretary Marcelo Ebrard

“Given that Mexico, through our president, has spoken out, we immediately made contact with others who think the same,”
“The president’s orders are to make contact with all of them, share this concern and work on coming up with a joint proposal. We will see what is proposed.”

Poland’s prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki

“the owners of corporate giants should not decide which views are right and which are not.”

Steffen Seibert, Merkel’s chief spokesman

“The right to freedom of opinion is of fundamental importance. Given that, the chancellor considers it problematic that the president’s accounts have been permanently suspended."
“This fundamental right can be intervened in, but according to the law and within the framework defined by legislators — not according to a decision by the management of social media platforms"

EU Digital Commissioner Thierry Breton

"Just as 9/11 marked a paradigm shift for global security, 20 years later we are witnessing a before-and-after in the role of digital platforms in our democracy.

The fact that a CEO can pull the plug on POTUS’s loudspeaker without any checks and balances is perplexing. It is not only confirmation of the power of these platforms, but it also displays deep weaknesses in the way our society is organized in the digital space.

These last few days have made it more obvious than ever that we cannot just stand by idly and rely on these platforms’ good will or artful interpretation of the law. We need to set the rules of the game and organize the digital space with clear rights, obligations and safeguards. We need to restore trust in the digital space. It is a matter of survival for our democracies in the 21st century."

French Junior Minister for European Union Affairs Clement Beaune

“I’m shocked by the fact that it is now, entirely in private hands. It cannot be in private hands only.”

“The regulation of digital giants cannot be done by the digital oligarchy itself. Big tech is one of the threats to democracy."

__________________
What the lark !

Last edited by pmax; Today at 07:48 AM..

The left and big tech tested social media control during the Arab Spring and it worked pretty well, ask Egypt, Libya and Syria. So they unleashed it during this election in the US. It is a shame when US leadership is upstaged by Mexico. Welcome to the democrats vision for the US.

You might want to take a cynical look at Mexico's posturing here.

Mexico ranks 143rd in media freedom and is one of the deadliest countries for journalists. In 2020, it held first place in number of journalists killed, most often trying to expose corruption.

And that is pertinent to the OP---how. Obrador condemned your fair haired social media so you go on the attack against their media record. HaHaHa. BTW, you sure put your opinion out there a lot for a moderator--usually moderators are supposed to be objective.

You're new here kid. Moderators at USMB can post as they wish - we are allowed to have our opinions and there is no requirement that our political opinions on these boards be "neutral" or "objective".

Other than that, I fail to understand why you seem to be praising Mexico given it's record on free speech. It's pertinent since free speech is part of the topic.

Moderator-- noun · a person or thing that moderates. Tough to do when you are not objective. Oh, yeah, you believe Chris Wallace was objective too. Oh yeah, I was a kid when I was your age.

You are talking about two different things: how we moderate vs how we post. Ask any mod here, they'll say the same thing. Now, got further issues regarding moderation? Take it up via pm as per the rules.

 

[westwall]

It's a privately owned company.

Benefitting from PUBLIC laws. Funny how you ignore that.

True. So how exactly does that apply?

Social media companies need to provide equal access to all view points. But they don't need to allow all content, so they have user agreements - Terms of Service - and rules. They should apply those rules equally and fairly. It doesn't always work out that way (using algorithms and automatic processes instead of people often creates problems). I know the right is constantly whining about discrimination ... and you can make an argument, but so can I - I see a ton of rightwing posts and opinions on FB (I don't do Twitter).

Those companies don't have to provide space for violent content or the planning of insurrections regardless of the ideology of the user and they can reasonably ban users who continuously violate their polices. Free speech does not preclude that.

They are actively censoring any viewpoint that differs from the official Democrat/CACA propaganda. Thanks to government, and taxpayer money, they have knocked out all of their competition. Now they control what is released as was shown to dramatic effect when they closed down ACTUAL FACTUAL stories about hunter xiden.

Goebbels would be envious of Big tech. All he had was Signal, these assholes have almost everything.

That doesn't fit reality - ie, I see tons of stuff that certainly doesn't fit the Dem viewpoint.

On Hunter Biden - that's a mix of fact and fiction, some of it they should have reported (and didn't they say it was a mistake on their part?), but some of it was completely unsubstantiated (for example child rape).

You do? Where? Where is a single source that reaches nationwide that isn't CACA propaganda? As far as hunter xiden goes, I am not referring to any of the child sex shit he is accused of, I am merely talking about the factual influence peddling, and security concerns, which are obvious to anyone who isn't incredibly biased.

Security concerns? No different than the Trump children. Aside from that - the only things I call "factual" in the mess are what the DoJ/FBI are investigating. If there is enough there for an investigation, then at least it's substantiated, imo.

I think there are plenty of sources that aren't what you call CACA propaganda, but I suspect we won't agree on that.

Don't be stupid. hunter xiden was buying defense related companies with chinese communist party money. Companies that the chinese were PROHIBITED from even buying products from. Is your brain permanently parked at the door and no logical thought ever allowed to be processed or is their some hope for you?