Regulating social media.

[sakinago]

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”?

They admit in their terms of service they will boost and suppress what tweets are seen. They’re adding subtext to peoples tweets. The NY post is still locked out of their account for printing a campaign killer story with a **** ton of evidence. They are editors. It’s much more than allowing every tweet. It’s the duration of information, you know the thing editors do

 

[Synthaholic]

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”?

They admit in their terms of service they will boost and suppress what tweets are seen. They’re adding subtext to peoples tweets. The NY post is still locked out of their account for printing a campaign killer story with a **** ton of evidence. They are editors. It’s much more than allowing every tweet. It’s the duration of information, you know the thing editors do

Was my question too difficult for you?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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 **** 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.

Correct.

Likewise, private citizens are at liberty to not participate on a given social media platform if they disagree with how that platform edits its content; private citizens will regulate social media, not the government.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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 **** out of them or remove their government protections.

Such is the authoritarian right – this is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.

Private media entities are at liberty to edit their content as they see fit – no matter how capricious that editing might be.

Again, if private citizens don’t approve of how social media platforms edit their content, private citizens are at liberty to not participate – it is nether the role nor responsibility of government to do so, and is clearly repugnant to the First Amendment.

This is yet another example of the hypocritical right calling for government regulation solely because conservatives incorrectly perceive social media platforms as being ‘hostile’ to conservative viewpoints, not because regulation is warranted or in the public interest.

 

[dblack]

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?

I'm talking about fake political garbage. None of you gave one shit about "section 230" until Facebook stopped playing along with Trump's propaganda machine. And you still don't. You just want to get one over on businesses that don't do what you want. Just like the Democrats. No principle is at play, other than vengeance.

 

[dblack]

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 **** out of them or remove their government protections.

Such is the authoritarian right – this is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.

Private media entities are at liberty to edit their content as they see fit – no matter how capricious that editing might be.

Again, if private citizens don’t approve of how social media platforms edit their content, private citizens are at liberty to not participate – it is nether the role nor responsibility of government to do so, and is clearly repugnant to the First Amendment.

This is yet another example of the hypocritical right calling for government regulation solely because conservatives incorrectly perceive social media platforms as being ‘hostile’ to conservative viewpoints, not because regulation is warranted or in the public interest.

That's all fine and I agree, C - but will you be singing the same tune when a Democrat Congress joins the bandwagon? Because I guarantee you they will.

 

[sakinago]

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?

I'm talking about fake political garbage. None of you gave one shit about "section 230" until Facebook stopped playing along with Trump's propaganda machine. And you still don't. You just want to get one over on businesses that don't do what you want. Just like the Democrats. No principle is at play, other than vengeance.

I, and plenty of others, have been talking about take away 230 protections since the debate started. And yes there was a vibrant debate on the right on how to possibly regulate without giving the government too much power. Which there is precedent for. Turns out SCOTUS overwhelmingly ruled that because social media has become vital to the way humans communicate, that states can’t prohibit even the most vile pedophiles from using it, because it’d violate speech rights. Removing section 230 protections is the perfect way to promote the 1st amendment, and gives government zero power. Charging those companies with fraud was also another option talked about that wouldn’t involve new regulation.

But let’s say nobody was talking about 230 up until an hour ago...Does it really matter? It still makes your OP worthless. If someone were to share with you a shortcut on how to get to work faster, would you say “thanks, but I can’t use it because I didn’t know about it right away.” Like wtf is your point?

 

[sakinago]

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”?

They admit in their terms of service they will boost and suppress what tweets are seen. They’re adding subtext to peoples tweets. The NY post is still locked out of their account for printing a campaign killer story with a **** ton of evidence. They are editors. It’s much more than allowing every tweet. It’s the duration of information, you know the thing editors do

Was my question too difficult for you?

Was my answer too difficult for you? I get you can’t enter the arena of ideas without using straw man arguments, but my response more than sufficiently addressed your dumb ass question. If SCOTUS, including the great and powerful RBG, rules that states are not allowed to ban sexual predators from using social media because it is too vital to how we communicate...Then how is twitter allowed to shut down the NY Post account for publishing a story that has had nothing but corroborating evidence come out in the form of multiple witnesses who were close friends with the Biden’s and directly involved in the business, and more documentation released from the same sources? Is that a question you can answer?

 

[Obiwan]

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.

So users upload content, and Twitter and Farcebook decide which content is allowed to remain on their sites....

And content they don't agree with is removed....

What is the difference between that and a newspaper (or TV network) having stories submitted, and deciding which ones they will carry????

By controlling which information they allow on their sites, they become publishers (instead of platforms)...

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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 **** 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”?

Section 230 is a piece of Internet legislation in the United States, passed into law as part of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996

 

[dblack]

I, and plenty of others, have been talking about take away 230 protections since the debate started.

The "debate" didn't start until Trump decided to "go after" tech companies that were blocking his propaganda. it wasn't a debate so much as a hunt for excuses. And you found some. Congratulations.

This is how the regulatory state works, and why it's so insidious. Government offers up special protections and regulations and then uses its power to revoke them as leverage, leverage to bully people and companies who aren't doing the administration's bidding. It's no different than the state threatening to revoke tax exemption "protections" from religious institutions that dare to speak out about politics. It's ugly, coercive retribution.

 

[dblack]

Getting back the OP, I'm wondering how Trumpsters, or other Republicans, will respond when Democrats introduce legislation to "rein in" social media. Will they chant "bake the cake" along with their political enemies? Or pivot, and once again pretend they are defenders of the free market?

"It's different when we do it."

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

So users upload content, and Twitter and Farcebook decide which content is allowed to remain on their sites....

And content they don't agree with is removed....

What is the difference between that and a newspaper (or TV network) having stories submitted, and deciding which ones they will carry????

By controlling which information they allow on their sites, they become publishers (instead of platforms)...

Correct. No different than US Messageboard.

 

[Synthaholic]

I, and plenty of others, have been talking about take away 230 protections since the debate started.

The "debate" didn't start until Trump decided to "go after" tech companies that were blocking his propaganda. it wasn't a debate so much as a hunt for excuses. And you found some. Congratulations.

This is how the regulatory state works, and why it's so insidious. Government offers up special protections and regulations and then uses its power to revoke them as leverage, leverage to bully people and companies who aren't doing the administration's bidding. It's no different than the state threatening to revoke tax exemption "protections" from religious institutions that dare to speak out about politics. It's ugly, coercive retribution.

I agree with your post except this bad analogy. It’s codified that churches can’t engage in certain activities and still maintain their tax-free status. We have a long-established separation between church and state.

 

[candycorn]

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.

it will happen. I think it’s a question of how punitive the regulators are going to be....not if.


Facebook may have to fund a competitor before it’s over

 

[dblack]

I, and plenty of others, have been talking about take away 230 protections since the debate started.

The "debate" didn't start until Trump decided to "go after" tech companies that were blocking his propaganda. it wasn't a debate so much as a hunt for excuses. And you found some. Congratulations.

This is how the regulatory state works, and why it's so insidious. Government offers up special protections and regulations and then uses its power to revoke them as leverage, leverage to bully people and companies who aren't doing the administration's bidding. It's no different than the state threatening to revoke tax exemption "protections" from religious institutions that dare to speak out about politics. It's ugly, coercive retribution.

I agree with your post except this bad analogy. It’s codified that churches can’t engage in certain activities and still maintain their tax-free status.

Oh, the state's interference with social media will be plenty "codified" once the Dems get their hands on it.

We have a long-established separation between church and state.

Off-topic, but regardless of how "long-established" it is - tax exemption for religions is the opposite of "separation between church and state". It's a special perk offered up by the state to control religions.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

it will happen. I think it’s a question of how punitive the regulators are going to be....not if.


Facebook may have to fund a competitor before it’s over

MySpace is back, baby!!1!

 

[dblack]

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.

it will happen. I think it’s a question of how punitive the regulators are going to be....not if.

Trump's nonsense was definitely "punitive" - he just wants to spank fb and twitter because they defied him. But with the Dems it will be more about expanding state power. Always is.

 

[Synthaholic]

I, and plenty of others, have been talking about take away 230 protections since the debate started.

The "debate" didn't start until Trump decided to "go after" tech companies that were blocking his propaganda. it wasn't a debate so much as a hunt for excuses. And you found some. Congratulations.

This is how the regulatory state works, and why it's so insidious. Government offers up special protections and regulations and then uses its power to revoke them as leverage, leverage to bully people and companies who aren't doing the administration's bidding. It's no different than the state threatening to revoke tax exemption "protections" from religious institutions that dare to speak out about politics. It's ugly, coercive retribution.

I agree with your post except this bad analogy. It’s codified that churches can’t engage in certain activities and still maintain their tax-free status.

Oh, the state's interference with social media will be plenty "codified" once the Dems get their hands on it.

We have a long-established separation between church and state.

Off-topic, but regardless of how "long-established" it is - tax exemption for religions is the opposite of "separation between church and state". It's a special perk offered up by the state to control religions.

I believe we should junk it and collect the taxes, especially the property taxes. Let them spew all they want. Very few people are influenced by their clergy these days, as they have all fallen in the public’s eyes. Evangelical grifters, Catholic pedophiles, etc.

 

[candycorn]

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.

it will happen. I think it’s a question of how punitive the regulators are going to be....not if.


Facebook may have to fund a competitor before it’s over

MySpace is back, baby!!1!

It may be as simple as having a link on their homepage to a competitor. But it may also be much more punitive