Regulating social media.

Natural Citizen

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
12,629
Reaction score
5,573
Points
430
Oh, and btw...

Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)

  • China 1949 to early 1960s
  • Albania 1949-53
  • East Germany 1950s
  • Iran 1953 *
  • Guatemala 1954 *
  • Costa Rica mid-1950s
  • Syria 1956-7
  • Egypt 1957
  • Indonesia 1957-8
  • British Guiana 1953-64 *
  • Iraq 1963 *
  • North Vietnam 1945-73
  • Cambodia 1955-70 *
  • Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
  • Ecuador 1960-63 *
  • Congo 1960 *
  • France 1965
  • Brazil 1962-64 *
  • Dominican Republic 1963 *
  • Cuba 1959 to present
  • Bolivia 1964 *
  • Indonesia 1965 *
  • Ghana 1966 *
  • Chile 1964-73 *
  • Greece 1967 *
  • Costa Rica 1970-71
  • Bolivia 1971 *
  • Australia 1973-75 *
  • Angola 1975, 1980s
  • Zaire 1975
  • Portugal 1974-76 *
  • Jamaica 1976-80 *
  • Seychelles 1979-81
  • Chad 1981-82 *
  • Grenada 1983 *
  • South Yemen 1982-84
  • Suriname 1982-84
  • Fiji 1987 *
  • Libya 1980s
  • Nicaragua 1981-90 *
  • Panama 1989 *
  • Bulgaria 1990 *
  • Albania 1991 *
  • Iraq 1991
  • Afghanistan 1980s *
  • Somalia 1993
  • Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
  • Ecuador 2000 *
  • Afghanistan 2001 *
  • Venezuela 2002 *
  • Iraq 2003 *
  • Haiti 2004 *
  • Somalia 2007 to present
  • Honduras 2009 *
  • Libya 2011 *
  • Syria 2012
  • Ukraine 2014 *
  • United States 2016
 

Natural Citizen

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
12,629
Reaction score
5,573
Points
430
Ah well. I'm jumping off of here. I have stuff to do. Sorry I had a lawnmower man moment in the middle of your regulating social media party. Happens. :21:
 
Last edited:

kyzr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
16,318
Reaction score
7,479
Points
390
Location
The AL part of PA
A couple of questions here, first, the unserious: sounds like you conservatives are pro-regulating social media when it's your side in charge, and against it when it's the other guy?
Relevant reading...

Democrats Threaten To Regulate Facebook, Twitter, Google: 'Do Something' To Stop Russian Propaganda 'Or We Will'

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) complained that the platforms had been “misused.” She threatened, “you have to be the ones who do something about it – or we will.”

How do you address the onslaught of false information, propaganda, etc while still maintaining free speech?

Prior to mass social media...people were not constantly connected to the "news" or "media" and news papers had some obligation to report at least somewhat accurately (except for tabloids)....false news didn't get amplified and virally spread like it can today.

I have no answers but I do think it is a serious problem.
How do you address false information? Just look at the polls. Most are wrong all the time. They are mostly propaganda.
People need to find trusted sources to independently verify information, aka "alternate facts".
Today there are two distinct flavors of news, red or blue.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
56,543
Reaction score
14,230
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
My biggest worry, politically, since Trump was elected in 2016, has been what would happen in the aftermath. The liberal backlash is going to be ugly. Liberals used to at least pretend to care about liberty. Now they openly despise it. And while political expedience has them currently opposing Trump's efforts to "regulate" social media, that's sort of thing they usually support. The only thing currently keeping it in check is partisan gridlock.

Which worries me.

If Republicans lose the Senate, and the White House, I think we'll see a major effort by Democrats to seize control of (aka "regulate") major social media companies. And, given that Trumpsters have been clamoring for just that, and the fact that they'll be in the minority, Republicans will offer precious little resistance.
Nonsense.

Liberals have long been the sole defenders of liberty and freedom – from Brown v. Board of Education and Hernandez v. Texas in the 50s to Obergefell v. Hodges and Health v. Hellerstedt today; in these and scores of other cases liberals have opposed conservatives’ efforts to increase the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty, safeguarding citizens’ liberty from government excess and overreach.

And if you’ve been paying attention, it’s conservatives who have sought to place unwarranted limits and restrictions on social media – indeed, on this very forum rightists have called for FB and Twitter to be ‘broken up’ by government, subject to government regulation, and treated as ‘utilities’ because of their wrongheaded perception that social media entities are ‘hostile’ conservative viewpoints.

You should be concerned about the authoritarian right, not Biden and a Democratic Senate.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
56,543
Reaction score
14,230
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
A couple of questions here, first, the unserious: sounds like you conservatives are pro-regulating social media when it's your side in charge, and against it when it's the other guy?
Relevant reading...

Democrats Threaten To Regulate Facebook, Twitter, Google: 'Do Something' To Stop Russian Propaganda 'Or We Will'

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) complained that the platforms had been “misused.” She threatened, “you have to be the ones who do something about it – or we will.”

How do you address the onslaught of false information, propaganda, etc while still maintaining free speech?

Prior to mass social media...people were not constantly connected to the "news" or "media" and news papers had some obligation to report at least somewhat accurately (except for tabloids)....false news didn't get amplified and virally spread like it can today.

I have no answers but I do think it is a serious problem.
It’s neither the role nor responsibility of government to address the problem of false information, propaganda, and fake news – for government to seek to do so would jeopardize free speech.

And the Framers had a solution to this problem – unfortunately, most Americans are too stupid, too ignorant, or to blind to understand it.

The Framers’ solution was to allow the people – in the context of private society – to debate and discuss the conflicts and controversies of the day, to determine for ourselves what speech is acceptable and appropriate and what speech is not, absent interference from the government or the courts.

In fact, what rightists wrongly deride as ‘political correctness’ and ‘cancel culture’ is what the Framers envisioned: private citizens alone regulating speech reflecting the consensus of the majority in a truly free and democratic society.
 

Ken Mac

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2019
Messages
1,684
Reaction score
856
Points
930
Location
South Carolina
A couple of questions here, first, the unserious: sounds like you conservatives are pro-regulating social media when it's your side in charge, and against it when it's the other guy?
Relevant reading...

Democrats Threaten To Regulate Facebook, Twitter, Google: 'Do Something' To Stop Russian Propaganda 'Or We Will'

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) complained that the platforms had been “misused.” She threatened, “you have to be the ones who do something about it – or we will.”

How do you address the onslaught of false information, propaganda, etc while still maintaining free speech?

Prior to mass social media...people were not constantly connected to the "news" or "media" and news papers had some obligation to report at least somewhat accurately (except for tabloids)....false news didn't get amplified and virally spread like it can today.

I have no answers but I do think it is a serious problem.
It’s neither the role nor responsibility of government to address the problem of false information, propaganda, and fake news – for government to seek to do so would jeopardize free speech.

And the Framers had a solution to this problem – unfortunately, most Americans are too stupid, too ignorant, or to blind to understand it.

The Framers’ solution was to allow the people – in the context of private society – to debate and discuss the conflicts and controversies of the day, to determine for ourselves what speech is acceptable and appropriate and what speech is not, absent interference from the government or the courts.

In fact, what rightists wrongly deride as ‘political correctness’ and ‘cancel culture’ is what the Framers envisioned: private citizens alone regulating speech reflecting the consensus of the majority in a truly free and democratic society.
Thus allowing the majority to overrun the rights of the minority.

We are a Republic for a reason. The minority still has rights to free speech that should not be usurped by the majority.
 
OP
D

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
36,313
Reaction score
4,487
Points
1,130
My biggest worry, politically, since Trump was elected in 2016, has been what would happen in the aftermath. The liberal backlash is going to be ugly. Liberals used to at least pretend to care about liberty. Now they openly despise it. And while political expedience has them currently opposing Trump's efforts to "regulate" social media, that's sort of thing they usually support. The only thing currently keeping it in check is partisan gridlock.

Which worries me.

If Republicans lose the Senate, and the White House, I think we'll see a major effort by Democrats to seize control of (aka "regulate") major social media companies. And, given that Trumpsters have been clamoring for just that, and the fact that they'll be in the minority, Republicans will offer precious little resistance.
Nonsense.
Of course.

Liberals have long been the sole defenders of liberty and freedom
They used to be. Sort of. Back in the day. But not for awhile now.

And if you’ve been paying attention, it’s conservatives who have sought to place unwarranted limits and restrictions on social media – indeed, on this very forum rightists have called for FB and Twitter to be ‘broken up’ by government, subject to government regulation, and treated as ‘utilities’ because of their wrongheaded perception that social media entities are ‘hostile’ conservative viewpoints.
Those aren't conservatives. They're Trumpsters.

You should be concerned about the authoritarian right, not Biden and a Democratic Senate.
I'm concerned about both. And if one party holds all the power, there's very little to keep them in check.
 
OP
D

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
36,313
Reaction score
4,487
Points
1,130
It’s neither the role nor responsibility of government to address the problem of false information, propaganda, and fake news – for government to seek to do so would jeopardize free speech.

And the Framers had a solution to this problem – unfortunately, most Americans are too stupid, too ignorant, or to blind to understand it.

The Framers’ solution was to allow the people – in the context of private society – to debate and discuss the conflicts and controversies of the day, to determine for ourselves what speech is acceptable and appropriate and what speech is not, absent interference from the government or the courts.

In fact, what rightists wrongly deride as ‘political correctness’ and ‘cancel culture’ is what the Framers envisioned: private citizens alone regulating speech reflecting the consensus of the majority in a truly free and democratic society.
Sure. Agree with all of that. We'll see if Congress is on board. I'm betting they'll jump at the chance to sink their teeth into social media. Can I count on you to raise hell if they do?
 

Synthaholic

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
47,656
Reaction score
8,813
Points
2,030
Location
Kicking PoliticalChic's ass up & down the forum
Trump and Republicans don't want to "regulate" social media, they want to remove section 230 protection so that they can be sued just like any other media outlet in the US.
They aren’t publishers any more than US Messageboard is a publisher.
They most certainly are.

The distinction lies in the fact that Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etal will removed posts they deem inappropriate. In doing so, they become, technically, a publisher. In that regard, USMB is also a publisher...
False. They have TOS. Tweets that violate their TOS are removed.

You’ll get it eventually. Or not.
Thats complete nonsense.

They are constantly removing posts and then trying to fit them into their TOS nonsense by constantly tweaking the damn rules. Just like Webster changed the definition of sexual preference RIGHT AFTER THE DEBATE.

MANY posts are just straight up removed with NO NOTIFICATION as to why.

Regulate the fuck out of them or remove their government protections.
They are a private company that can decide what their platform is used for. If they wanted to remove all Rightwing tweets they could, and wouldn’t have to explain themselves.
 

Synthaholic

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
47,656
Reaction score
8,813
Points
2,030
Location
Kicking PoliticalChic's ass up & down the forum
In your view then - is ANY regulation equal to "state run media"?
Yes. To whatever degree something is "regulated", it's controlled by the state. We should be very wary of that.
For example - there is regulation regarding false advertising, and regulations allowing media to be sued for false, libelous or defamatory reporting. Shouldn't platforms at least be held to that standard rather than "hands off"?
Regulations don't "allow" media to be sued. Anybody can sue anyone for anything they like. Anyone except the government. If these businesses get in bed with government, we'll have very little power to reject them.
And gun manufacturers. Can’t sue them. Yet.
 

Synthaholic

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
47,656
Reaction score
8,813
Points
2,030
Location
Kicking PoliticalChic's ass up & down the forum
A couple of questions here, first, the unserious: sounds like you conservatives are pro-regulating social media when it's your side in charge, and against it when it's the other guy?
Relevant reading...

Democrats Threaten To Regulate Facebook, Twitter, Google: 'Do Something' To Stop Russian Propaganda 'Or We Will'

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) complained that the platforms had been “misused.” She threatened, “you have to be the ones who do something about it – or we will.”

How do you address the onslaught of false information, propaganda, etc while still maintaining free speech?

Prior to mass social media...people were not constantly connected to the "news" or "media" and news papers had some obligation to report at least somewhat accurately (except for tabloids)....false news didn't get amplified and virally spread like it can today.

I have no answers but I do think it is a serious problem.
How do you address false information? Just look at the polls. Most are wrong all the time. They are mostly propaganda.
People need to find trusted sources to independently verify information, aka "alternate facts".
Today there are two distinct flavors of news, red or blue.
The good polls are correct nearly all of the time.

There may be two flavors of news but there are only one set of facts, one truth.
 

Grampa Murked U

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2011
Messages
82,894
Reaction score
22,479
Points
2,205
Location
Kansas City
Trump and Republicans don't want to "regulate" social media, they want to remove section 230 protection so that they can be sued just like any other media outlet in the US.
They aren’t publishers any more than US Messageboard is a publisher.
They most certainly are.

The distinction lies in the fact that Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etal will removed posts they deem inappropriate. In doing so, they become, technically, a publisher. In that regard, USMB is also a publisher...
False. They have TOS. Tweets that violate their TOS are removed.

You’ll get it eventually. Or not.
Thats complete nonsense.

They are constantly removing posts and then trying to fit them into their TOS nonsense by constantly tweaking the damn rules. Just like Webster changed the definition of sexual preference RIGHT AFTER THE DEBATE.

MANY posts are just straight up removed with NO NOTIFICATION as to why.

Regulate the fuck out of them or remove their government protections.
They are a private company that can decide what their platform is used for. If they wanted to remove all Rightwing tweets they could, and wouldn’t have to explain themselves.
Of course they would have to explain themselves because the are under protected status via laws carved out just for them by Congress.

Stop being willfully stupid.

Also, they are not a "private" company. They are a publicly traded company.
 

sakinago

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
4,944
Reaction score
1,335
Points
185
My biggest worry, politically, since Trump was elected in 2016, has been what would happen in the aftermath. The liberal backlash is going to be ugly. Liberals used to at least pretend to care about liberty. Now they openly despise it. And while political expedience has them currently opposing Trump's efforts to "regulate" social media, that's sort of thing they usually support. The only thing currently keeping it in check is partisan gridlock.

Which worries me.

If Republicans lose the Senate, and the White House, I think we'll see a major effort by Democrats to seize control of (aka "regulate") major social media companies. And, given that Trumpsters have been clamoring for just that, and the fact that they'll be in the minority, Republicans will offer precious little resistance.
 

sakinago

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
4,944
Reaction score
1,335
Points
185
No
My biggest worry, politically, since Trump was elected in 2016, has been what would happen in the aftermath. The liberal backlash is going to be ugly. Liberals used to at least pretend to care about liberty. Now they openly despise it. And while political expedience has them currently opposing Trump's efforts to "regulate" social media, that's sort of thing they usually support. The only thing currently keeping it in check is partisan gridlock.

Which worries me.

If Republicans lose the Senate, and the White House, I think we'll see a major effort by Democrats to seize control of (aka "regulate") major social media companies. And, given that Trumpsters have been clamoring for just that, and the fact that they'll be in the minority, Republicans will offer precious little resistance.
no one is talking about regulation. We’re talking about removing a sweetheart protection deal in section 230. They can decide whether they want to behave as editors, or if they want to behave like platforms. If they decide they want to be editors, then they’ll no longer receive the protection from liable. It’s literally that simple. We’re in midst of this problem because government already got into bed with them and offered them protection.
 
OP
D

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
36,313
Reaction score
4,487
Points
1,130
No
My biggest worry, politically, since Trump was elected in 2016, has been what would happen in the aftermath. The liberal backlash is going to be ugly. Liberals used to at least pretend to care about liberty. Now they openly despise it. And while political expedience has them currently opposing Trump's efforts to "regulate" social media, that's sort of thing they usually support. The only thing currently keeping it in check is partisan gridlock.

Which worries me.

If Republicans lose the Senate, and the White House, I think we'll see a major effort by Democrats to seize control of (aka "regulate") major social media companies. And, given that Trumpsters have been clamoring for just that, and the fact that they'll be in the minority, Republicans will offer precious little resistance.
no one is talking about regulation. We’re talking about removing a sweetheart protection deal in section 230. They can decide whether they want to behave as editors, or if they want to behave like platforms. If they decide they want to be editors, then they’ll no longer receive the protection from liable. It’s literally that simple. We’re in midst of this problem because government already got into bed with them and offered them protection.
Uh-huh. Sorry. Not buying the excuses. This is just retribution because these companies won't do what you want.
 

Synthaholic

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
47,656
Reaction score
8,813
Points
2,030
Location
Kicking PoliticalChic's ass up & down the forum
Trump and Republicans don't want to "regulate" social media, they want to remove section 230 protection so that they can be sued just like any other media outlet in the US.
They aren’t publishers any more than US Messageboard is a publisher.
They most certainly are.

The distinction lies in the fact that Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etal will removed posts they deem inappropriate. In doing so, they become, technically, a publisher. In that regard, USMB is also a publisher...
False. They have TOS. Tweets that violate their TOS are removed.

You’ll get it eventually. Or not.
Thats complete nonsense.

They are constantly removing posts and then trying to fit them into their TOS nonsense by constantly tweaking the damn rules. Just like Webster changed the definition of sexual preference RIGHT AFTER THE DEBATE.

MANY posts are just straight up removed with NO NOTIFICATION as to why.

Regulate the fuck out of them or remove their government protections.
They are a private company that can decide what their platform is used for. If they wanted to remove all Rightwing tweets they could, and wouldn’t have to explain themselves.
Of course they would have to explain themselves because the are under protected status via laws carved out just for them by Congress.

Stop being willfully stupid.

Also, they are not a "private" company. They are a publicly traded company.
So is News Corp. So go tell them that FoxNews has to have an equal amount of Liberal content.

I meant they are not the government, so there is no ‘censoring’.

What “protected status”?
 

Synthaholic

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
47,656
Reaction score
8,813
Points
2,030
Location
Kicking PoliticalChic's ass up & down the forum
No
My biggest worry, politically, since Trump was elected in 2016, has been what would happen in the aftermath. The liberal backlash is going to be ugly. Liberals used to at least pretend to care about liberty. Now they openly despise it. And while political expedience has them currently opposing Trump's efforts to "regulate" social media, that's sort of thing they usually support. The only thing currently keeping it in check is partisan gridlock.

Which worries me.

If Republicans lose the Senate, and the White House, I think we'll see a major effort by Democrats to seize control of (aka "regulate") major social media companies. And, given that Trumpsters have been clamoring for just that, and the fact that they'll be in the minority, Republicans will offer precious little resistance.
no one is talking about regulation. We’re talking about removing a sweetheart protection deal in section 230. They can decide whether they want to behave as editors, or if they want to behave like platforms. If they decide they want to be editors, then they’ll no longer receive the protection from liable. It’s literally that simple. We’re in midst of this problem because government already got into bed with them and offered them protection.
So, unless they allow every tweet they are being “editors”?
 

sakinago

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
4,944
Reaction score
1,335
Points
185
No
My biggest worry, politically, since Trump was elected in 2016, has been what would happen in the aftermath. The liberal backlash is going to be ugly. Liberals used to at least pretend to care about liberty. Now they openly despise it. And while political expedience has them currently opposing Trump's efforts to "regulate" social media, that's sort of thing they usually support. The only thing currently keeping it in check is partisan gridlock.

Which worries me.

If Republicans lose the Senate, and the White House, I think we'll see a major effort by Democrats to seize control of (aka "regulate") major social media companies. And, given that Trumpsters have been clamoring for just that, and the fact that they'll be in the minority, Republicans will offer precious little resistance.
no one is talking about regulation. We’re talking about removing a sweetheart protection deal in section 230. They can decide whether they want to behave as editors, or if they want to behave like platforms. If they decide they want to be editors, then they’ll no longer receive the protection from liable. It’s literally that simple. We’re in midst of this problem because government already got into bed with them and offered them protection.
Uh-huh. Sorry. Not buying the excuses. This is just retribution because these companies won't do what you want.
This isn’t excuses. This is what is being discussed. There is no regulation being proposed. Only the removal of regulation. What are you even talking about?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top