Trump considers panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media

[colfax_m]

As I showed you, the terms of service say they can censor anything they want for any reason they want. They are within their rights by the TOS to do so.

Okay. So when did Zuckerberg retract his claim that Facebook is NOT a content creator?
I missed that bit of news.

Zuckerberg could claim that they’re a Dairy Queen. It’s irrelevant. They are what they are no matter what Zuckerberg claims.

 

[BlueGin]

Zuckerberg claimed FB is both and that Section 230 needed to be amended to account for such.

Well that's his claim, isn't it?
It's like a bigamist claiming he can be legally married to several women at once.
In point of fact, he can't despite his claim.

Right. He wants Congress to amend his right to have it both ways. He knows he is misusing the platform as it is.

 

[colfax_m]

I don't follow why he cannot comprehend this. He is either trolling or stupid.

Why can't it be both? Someone who continuously repeats an argument that has it's entire basis in a lie
is both a troll and stupid for supporting a blatant lie.

And yet the law and legal precedent are all on my side.

Im not trolling. I’m just saying something you don’t want to be true.

How can there be precedent when Twitter was founded 10 yrs after the law was passed?

Because precedent is set when people are taken to court and there are decisions. Twitter has been sued a lot. It wins a lot.

 

[colfax_m]

As I showed you, the terms of service say they can censor anything they want for any reason they want. They are within their rights by the TOS to do so.

Okay. So when did Zuckerberg retract his claim that Facebook is NOT a content creator?
I missed that bit of news.

Zuckerberg claimed FB is both and that Section 230 needed to be amended to account for such.

And yet the law and legal precedent are all on my side.

Im not trolling. I’m just saying something you don’t want to be true.

So why not establish your claim in fact by citing an authoritative and knowledgeable source that backs you
up. I've seen you state something as IF it were fact. Now lets see the fact itself.

We can start here.

Everything you need to know about Section 230

...and all of the plans for how to change it.

www.theverge.com

In the United States, the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting most forms of speech, which would include many proposals to force tech companies to moderate content. A law that required companies to moderate content based on the political viewpoint it expresses, for example, would likely be struck down as unconstitutional.

But private companies can create rules to restrict speech if they so choose. This is why Facebook and Twitter ban hate speech, for example, even though it is permitted under the First Amendment

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I don't follow why he cannot comprehend this. He is either trolling or stupid.

Why can't it be both? Someone who continuously repeats an argument that has it's entire basis in a lie
is both a troll and stupid for supporting a blatant lie.

And yet the law and legal precedent are all on my side.

Im not trolling. I’m just saying something you don’t want to be true.

How can there be precedent when Twitter was founded 10 yrs after the law was passed?

Because precedent is set when people are taken to court and there are decisions. Twitter has been sued a lot. It wins a lot.

I am not saying it should be sued. I am asking if it has changed as a platform. Twitter is no longer just a distributor of real-time content but is now a publisher. Site has changed.

 

[satrebil]

It merely publishes
what people provide to it. Therefore it cannot censor what people are saying.

??? Name me one newspaper or magazine that doesn't control what it prints.

They do and they may be sued if they print untruths. Twitter is more like a newspaper and less like an Internet service provider. That’s my argument.

Twitter can not possibly fact check every tweet. It would destroy the company.

Then they should not block certain tweets. Why are you angry with me? This is the law. Challenge the law not people who expect Twitter to follow it. Why are you so angry. I am not even saying you’re wrong. I am saying we should let the experts decide.

You are not reflecting the law. Twitter is allowed to block tweets. The experts have decided. In court.

Sure but then they should no longer be considered a disseminator. If you and I get in a scuffle we let the law decide what happens. We cannot even agree on this here so why not let the law decide? What is so bad about that?

The law has decided. Lots of people have sued Twitter because they were banned. I’ve never heard of anyone winning.

And how do you feel about Joe Biden wanting section 230 repealed? Mostly because he says FB allowed posts related to his son and Russia to be posted?

You are assuming only the right has issues with these “protections”.

Joe Biden wants to revoke Section 230

The law is a foundational part of the internet as we know it

www.google.com

Section 230 Is the Internet’s First Amendment. Now Both Republicans and Democrats Want To Take It Away.

Imagine, for a moment, the following series of online exchanges. This isn't a real conversation. But it's the sort of…

www.google.com

I know that criticism comes at FB and others from both sides. It doesn’t change my position.

Yep. We cannot agree. So courts should decide. Thanks for agreeing with me on that.

Exactly. Right know the left thinks they benefit so they are all for censorship.

however,these companies are abusing the platform vs publisher protections and it needs to stop.

There are a number of places on the internet don’t engage in the kind of “censorship” that you’re complaining of.

And they’re just loaded with anti-semitism and racism.

Incorrect. That falls under hate speech and is against section 230.

Anyway even Mark Zuckerburg thinks Forums like FB and Twitter need more regulations because they actually fall in between a publisher and platform due to the scope of their reach ( they are international).

Section 230 was created when the internet was new...it needs to be reviewed again.

Yes. Section 230 is what makes the internet work which is why we need it. It gives platforms the ability to moderate their content so we don’t have to put up with hate speech without being considered publishers and therefore liable for the content of everyone’s postings as a result.

This is what I’ve been trying to tell you. Section 230 is essential. Without it, platforms would devolve.

Apps are not the same as websites. I would Like the SCOTUS to review. Why do you have an issue with that? I am Not saying change the law. I am saying review and opine.

You can want a pony if you want. It doesn’t mean you deserve one.

Never said deserve. Only that I want it. If it doesn't happen, so be it. I am not on Twitter anyway.

See? No commission or panel or whatever is needed.

I disagree. Am I not allowed to disagree?

Don’t be such a snowflake.

Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. I only concerned because my kids are on social media and I would like the laws to be up to date and protective while not limiting their rights. If that makes me a snowflake, guilty as charged.

You’re crawfishing.

Tell your kids to stay off social media. There. They’re protected.

That is not reality. They live in a world of social media. That is like saying if you want to avoid car accidents, have your kids not ride in cars. You're illogical.

It’s quite logical. You want to protect them from social media, don’t use it.

What are you trying to protect them from?

That doesn't make any sense. When I teach them to drive, I will teach them to be safe drivers, not to avoid cars. What do you think I am trying to protect them from? Give me some educated guesses.

My best guess is that conservatives (in general) want free speech for themselves and restricted speech for what they don’t like.

You want to be able to post whatever you want on social media? Then so does everyone else. If you want social media to take down content that is objectionable, don’t whine when they take down your content.

Your best guess is wrong.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I don't follow why he cannot comprehend this. He is either trolling or stupid.

Why can't it be both? Someone who continuously repeats an argument that has it's entire basis in a lie
is both a troll and stupid for supporting a blatant lie.

And yet the law and legal precedent are all on my side.

Im not trolling. I’m just saying something you don’t want to be true.

How can there be precedent when Twitter was founded 10 yrs after the law was passed?

Because precedent is set when people are taken to court and there are decisions. Twitter has been sued a lot. It wins a lot.

Let me explain it this way. Since for some reason you cannot comprehend simple English.

Twitter is currently defined as a “distributors” or carriers of information — much like a phone company — and the idea is that a carrier can’t possibly read or listen to every message and check it for potentially offensive or illegal content.

If the company is filtering and selecting messages, however, and possibly letting certain parties know when a legally questionable one shows up, that is much more like what publishers do — and in many jurisdictions, publishers like newspapers are held to a different standard.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Zuckerberg could claim that they’re a Dairy Queen. It’s irrelevant. They are what they are no matter what Zuckerberg claims.

You've finally gotten one thing right. Zuckerberg can claim whatever he wants.
The fact remains Facebook publishes the content of other people and Zuckerberg has no legal
basis on which he can simply censor other people's content...IF he wants to continue to claim FB is
not a a merely like a phone book but a content creator which it seems he wants to do.

He actually want things both ways. And all ways. Congress needs to revoke whatever privileges they've handed over to this imperious jackass.

 

[colfax_m]

I don't follow why he cannot comprehend this. He is either trolling or stupid.

Why can't it be both? Someone who continuously repeats an argument that has it's entire basis in a lie
is both a troll and stupid for supporting a blatant lie.

And yet the law and legal precedent are all on my side.

Im not trolling. I’m just saying something you don’t want to be true.

How can there be precedent when Twitter was founded 10 yrs after the law was passed?

Because precedent is set when people are taken to court and there are decisions. Twitter has been sued a lot. It wins a lot.

I am not saying it should be sued. I am asking if it has changed as a platform. Twitter is no longer just a distributor of real-time content but is now a publisher. Site has changed.

How has it changed exactly?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I don't follow why he cannot comprehend this. He is either trolling or stupid.

Why can't it be both? Someone who continuously repeats an argument that has it's entire basis in a lie
is both a troll and stupid for supporting a blatant lie.

And yet the law and legal precedent are all on my side.

Im not trolling. I’m just saying something you don’t want to be true.

How can there be precedent when Twitter was founded 10 yrs after the law was passed?

Because precedent is set when people are taken to court and there are decisions. Twitter has been sued a lot. It wins a lot.

I am not saying it should be sued. I am asking if it has changed as a platform. Twitter is no longer just a distributor of real-time content but is now a publisher. Site has changed.

How has it changed exactly?

Is Twitter a publisher or a distributor? There’s a crucial difference – Old GigaOm

gigaom.com

Read it for yourself. You are not very informed but are still making an argument. Odd.

 

[BlueGin]

I don't follow why he cannot comprehend this. He is either trolling or stupid.

Why can't it be both? Someone who continuously repeats an argument that has it's entire basis in a lie
is both a troll and stupid for supporting a blatant lie.

And yet the law and legal precedent are all on my side.

Im not trolling. I’m just saying something you don’t want to be true.

How can there be precedent when Twitter was founded 10 yrs after the law was passed?

Because precedent is set when people are taken to court and there are decisions. Twitter has been sued a lot. It wins a lot.

I am not saying it should be sued. I am asking if it has changed as a platform. Twitter is no longer just a distributor of real-time content but is now a publisher. Site has changed.

And they over moderate based on political bias and as favors to a certain political party. See FB ,YouTube and Twitter banning talk of corona virus content, protests and items related to the whistleblower during impeachment.

 

[Crepitus]

If you've had any bias, let the WH know. Social media is clearly biased. It's insulting to ones intelligence for them to suggest otherwise. Whether conservative, a supporter of Trump or just "controversial' (especially if it is against the alt-left mantra), social media is silencing you in one form or another if you start to become popular.

Trump considers panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media

WASHINGTON — President Trump is considering establishing a panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media, according to people familiar with the matter, in a move that would likely draw pushback from technology companies and others.


The plans are still under discussion but could include the establishment of a White House-created commission that would examine allegations of online bias and censorship, these people said. The administration could also encourage similar reviews by federal regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission, they said.

“Left-wing bias in the tech world is a concern that definitely needs to be addressed from our vantage point, and at least exposed [so] that Americans have clear eyes about what we’re dealing with,” a White House official said.

Mr. Trump has long expressed that viewpoint, and in a recent Twitter post indicated that a plan to address complaints of bias is in the works.

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump


The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation. Stay tuned, and send names & events. Thank you Michelle! https://twitter.com/af_clips/status/1261331113102004226 …
102K
7:56 AM - May 16, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

57.2K people are talking about this


Facebook Inc., which also owns Instagram, defended its practices when asked for a response to the nascent proposal.

“People on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions we’ve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,” the company said.

They can consider all they want. They can't do anything about private platforms.

You wouldn't want them to anyway. If they did you could kiss most of your "news" sources goodbye in fairly short order.

Yes they can. They can take away their platform status and all protections they garner from the government with that status. They want to edit content...they are a publisher.

Publisher or not is debatable.

The point you kids are missing is that they aren't censoring political views points.

They are simply removing hate speech and misinformation.

Are your political views based on lies and hate?

I've never expressed hate speech on twitter, nor swore or been overly aggressive. I was outspoken against Communist China and a supporter of America, capitalism and President Trump. I was deemed a bot.

Before they took that step, they had cut off my followers, shadow banned me and other cowardly, chicken shyte communist tactics. I once hit 7500 and then they flipped the switch. I'd gain 50 and then in a day lose 75. It was obvious and comical. I never hit above 7000 again for well over a year, but I didn't care, though I called out the Jack Dorsey for allowing it to happen, in a polite and sincere manner.

Twitter is one of many I'm sure. They will face their demise as all others do that silence citizens. Jack doesn't care, he is worth billions for producing nothing but increasingly oppression of true free speech. Social media is already on the decline in terms of popularity, though revenues for ads are up. I wonder why.

In the end, they will lose what made them so great because they refused to support free speech. It's cowardice at it's finest. They will be replaced with another format which will begin in support of free speech but then turn to support the alt-left agenda, and the merry-go round will continue. A function of a new society that seems to admire Communist China more than America.

If all you did was retweet what the fake accounts told you it's no wonder you were mistaken for one.

lol. I rarely retweeted and it was always legitimate sources. I provided my own discussion and content from mainstream sources and I do on this site.

It was just cowardly, communist appeasement (or appeasing Canadian police forces) and I, like so many, have to pay the price.

I hope there is a Bill of online speech Rights pushed. Then we can see what the Dbag do when they face serious legal issues for abusing citizens accounts and speech.

Of course you did!

Lol.

Do you see me post extreme arguments or positions on this site that are anything but the largest media outlets? All I ever do is post from Fox, CNN, CBC, newspapers and the odd one here or there out of left field. I'm not looking to post UFO or Bigfoot sightings, even if it does exist. I try to keep it fairly narrow. I did the same on twitter, except they don't like solid arguments that make their alt-left followers look foolish.

I'm afraid that's incorrect.

If the arguments had been factual they would not have been removed.

 

[Crepitus]

If you've had any bias, let the WH know. Social media is clearly biased. It's insulting to ones intelligence for them to suggest otherwise. Whether conservative, a supporter of Trump or just "controversial' (especially if it is against the alt-left mantra), social media is silencing you in one form or another if you start to become popular.

Trump considers panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media

WASHINGTON — President Trump is considering establishing a panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media, according to people familiar with the matter, in a move that would likely draw pushback from technology companies and others.


The plans are still under discussion but could include the establishment of a White House-created commission that would examine allegations of online bias and censorship, these people said. The administration could also encourage similar reviews by federal regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission, they said.

“Left-wing bias in the tech world is a concern that definitely needs to be addressed from our vantage point, and at least exposed [so] that Americans have clear eyes about what we’re dealing with,” a White House official said.

Mr. Trump has long expressed that viewpoint, and in a recent Twitter post indicated that a plan to address complaints of bias is in the works.

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump


The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation. Stay tuned, and send names & events. Thank you Michelle! https://twitter.com/af_clips/status/1261331113102004226 …
102K
7:56 AM - May 16, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

57.2K people are talking about this


Facebook Inc., which also owns Instagram, defended its practices when asked for a response to the nascent proposal.

“People on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions we’ve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,” the company said.

They can consider all they want. They can't do anything about private platforms.

You wouldn't want them to anyway. If they did you could kiss most of your "news" sources goodbye in fairly short order.

Yes they can. They can take away their platform status and all protections they garner from the government with that status. They want to edit content...they are a publisher.

Publisher or not is debatable.

The point you kids are missing is that they aren't censoring political views points.

They are simply removing hate speech and misinformation.

Are your political views based on lies and hate?

It is debatable when they are taking a side politically and censoring based on that political stance. They feel they can skirt the law by deeming anything they don’t like as “ hateful” and “ misinformation”.

But according to section 230 they can not censor political speech no matter how extreme. And they clearly do engage in selective censorship.

Nothing in section 230 prevents them from removing any political speech. Especially extreme political speech. The platform is owner and operated by private individuals and there are no laws preventing them from deleting content on those platforms.

They can’t be both a platform and a publisher and continue to get government protections while skirting the rules. They need to pick one or the other. If they are a publisher fine...then they are liable for content on their forums. If they are a platform they need to stop censoring content that is against their political views. They can’t have it both ways.

They aren't censoring for political views.

They are removing hate speech and false information.

That is all.

 

[WEATHER53]

If you've had any bias, let the WH know. Social media is clearly biased. It's insulting to ones intelligence for them to suggest otherwise. Whether conservative, a supporter of Trump or just "controversial' (especially if it is against the alt-left mantra), social media is silencing you in one form or another if you start to become popular.

Trump considers panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media

WASHINGTON — President Trump is considering establishing a panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media, according to people familiar with the matter, in a move that would likely draw pushback from technology companies and others.


The plans are still under discussion but could include the establishment of a White House-created commission that would examine allegations of online bias and censorship, these people said. The administration could also encourage similar reviews by federal regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission, they said.

“Left-wing bias in the tech world is a concern that definitely needs to be addressed from our vantage point, and at least exposed [so] that Americans have clear eyes about what we’re dealing with,” a White House official said.

Mr. Trump has long expressed that viewpoint, and in a recent Twitter post indicated that a plan to address complaints of bias is in the works.

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump


The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation. Stay tuned, and send names & events. Thank you Michelle! https://twitter.com/af_clips/status/1261331113102004226 …
102K
7:56 AM - May 16, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

57.2K people are talking about this


Facebook Inc., which also owns Instagram, defended its practices when asked for a response to the nascent proposal.

“People on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions we’ve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,” the company said.

They can consider all they want. They can't do anything about private platforms.

You wouldn't want them to anyway. If they did you could kiss most of your "news" sources goodbye in fairly short order.

Yes they can. They can take away their platform status and all protections they garner from the government with that status. They want to edit content...they are a publisher.

Publisher or not is debatable.

The point you kids are missing is that they aren't censoring political views points.

They are simply removing hate speech and misinformation.

Are your political views based on lies and hate?

I've never expressed hate speech on twitter, nor swore or been overly aggressive. I was outspoken against Communist China and a supporter of America, capitalism and President Trump. I was deemed a bot.

Before they took that step, they had cut off my followers, shadow banned me and other cowardly, chicken shyte communist tactics. I once hit 7500 and then they flipped the switch. I'd gain 50 and then in a day lose 75. It was obvious and comical. I never hit above 7000 again for well over a year, but I didn't care, though I called out the Jack Dorsey for allowing it to happen, in a polite and sincere manner.

Twitter is one of many I'm sure. They will face their demise as all others do that silence citizens. Jack doesn't care, he is worth billions for producing nothing but increasingly oppression of true free speech. Social media is already on the decline in terms of popularity, though revenues for ads are up. I wonder why.

In the end, they will lose what made them so great because they refused to support free speech. It's cowardice at it's finest. They will be replaced with another format which will begin in support of free speech but then turn to support the alt-left agenda, and the merry-go round will continue. A function of a new society that seems to admire Communist China more than America.

If all you did was retweet what the fake accounts told you it's no wonder you were mistaken for one.

lol. I rarely retweeted and it was always legitimate sources. I provided my own discussion and content from mainstream sources and I do on this site.

It was just cowardly, communist appeasement (or appeasing Canadian police forces) and I, like so many, have to pay the price.

I hope there is a Bill of online speech Rights pushed. Then we can see what the Dbag do when they face serious legal issues for abusing citizens accounts and speech.

Of course you did!

Lol.

Do you see me post extreme arguments or positions on this site that are anything but the largest media outlets? All I ever do is post from Fox, CNN, CBC, newspapers and the odd one here or there out of left field. I'm not looking to post UFO or Bigfoot sightings, even if it does exist. I try to keep it fairly narrow. I did the same on twitter, except they don't like solid arguments that make their alt-left followers look foolish.

I'm afraid that's incorrect.

If the arguments had been factual they would not have been removed.

Speculative comment is often discussed but rarely censored unless counter to the shutdown agenda
“Hate speech” is of course in the eye of the beholder and is simply blunt factual talk of a non PC nature and liberals hate that and thus the term was invented

 

[Crepitus]

If you've had any bias, let the WH know. Social media is clearly biased. It's insulting to ones intelligence for them to suggest otherwise. Whether conservative, a supporter of Trump or just "controversial' (especially if it is against the alt-left mantra), social media is silencing you in one form or another if you start to become popular.

Trump considers panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media

WASHINGTON — President Trump is considering establishing a panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media, according to people familiar with the matter, in a move that would likely draw pushback from technology companies and others.


The plans are still under discussion but could include the establishment of a White House-created commission that would examine allegations of online bias and censorship, these people said. The administration could also encourage similar reviews by federal regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission, they said.

“Left-wing bias in the tech world is a concern that definitely needs to be addressed from our vantage point, and at least exposed [so] that Americans have clear eyes about what we’re dealing with,” a White House official said.

Mr. Trump has long expressed that viewpoint, and in a recent Twitter post indicated that a plan to address complaints of bias is in the works.

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump


The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation. Stay tuned, and send names & events. Thank you Michelle! https://twitter.com/af_clips/status/1261331113102004226 …
102K
7:56 AM - May 16, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

57.2K people are talking about this


Facebook Inc., which also owns Instagram, defended its practices when asked for a response to the nascent proposal.

“People on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions we’ve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,” the company said.

Social media censorship is a difficult one for me. I find censorship abhorrent but I also value the rights of a private business - so where do you draw the line?

I would propose a law that any publicly traded company who's primary purpose is to operate as a social media platform be held to 1st Amendment standards. If you want to censor people you don't like then get off the stock market and self-fund.

They don't remove folks for their political views, they remove the for hate speech and/or false information (lies).

According to Joe Biden they do not and their protections needs to be repealed.

Sure, sure.

I'm sure that's exactly what Joe said.

Lol

“Biden appears to have his sights set on Section 230 because of an October 2018 scuffle with Facebook. The Biden campaign wrote a letter to Facebook asking it to remove an ad, posted by an independent Political Action Committee (PAC), claiming that Biden was blackmailing a Ukrainian official to keep them from prosecuting his son, Hunter Biden. Facebook declined to remove the ad, answering that it will not monitor political ads based on whether the information they present is true or false. “

Lol, you realize you just undercut your whole position, right?

If you've had any bias, let the WH know. Social media is clearly biased. It's insulting to ones intelligence for them to suggest otherwise. Whether conservative, a supporter of Trump or just "controversial' (especially if it is against the alt-left mantra), social media is silencing you in one form or another if you start to become popular.

Trump considers panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media

WASHINGTON — President Trump is considering establishing a panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media, according to people familiar with the matter, in a move that would likely draw pushback from technology companies and others.


The plans are still under discussion but could include the establishment of a White House-created commission that would examine allegations of online bias and censorship, these people said. The administration could also encourage similar reviews by federal regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission, they said.

“Left-wing bias in the tech world is a concern that definitely needs to be addressed from our vantage point, and at least exposed [so] that Americans have clear eyes about what we’re dealing with,” a White House official said.

Mr. Trump has long expressed that viewpoint, and in a recent Twitter post indicated that a plan to address complaints of bias is in the works.

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump


The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation. Stay tuned, and send names & events. Thank you Michelle! https://twitter.com/af_clips/status/1261331113102004226 …
102K
7:56 AM - May 16, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

57.2K people are talking about this


Facebook Inc., which also owns Instagram, defended its practices when asked for a response to the nascent proposal.

“People on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions we’ve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,” the company said.

Social media censorship is a difficult one for me. I find censorship abhorrent but I also value the rights of a private business - so where do you draw the line?

I would propose a law that any publicly traded company who's primary purpose is to operate as a social media platform be held to 1st Amendment standards. If you want to censor people you don't like then get off the stock market and self-fund.

They don't remove folks for their political views, they remove the for hate speech and/or false information (lies).

According to Joe Biden they do not and their protections needs to be repealed.

Sure, sure.

I'm sure that's exactly what Joe said.

Lol

“Biden appears to have his sights set on Section 230 because of an October 2018 scuffle with Facebook. The Biden campaign wrote a letter to Facebook asking it to remove an ad, posted by an independent Political Action Committee (PAC), claiming that Biden was blackmailing a Ukrainian official to keep them from prosecuting his son, Hunter Biden. Facebook declined to remove the ad, answering that it will not monitor political ads based on whether the information they present is true or false. “

You do realize you just undercut your whole argument, right?

Did I say I agreed with him? No. I asked someone else what they thought about his stance on this issue.

Well that's not true.

You told me that Joe Biden thought they should have their protections removed because they didn't, that is did not, censors an anti Biden ad.

That kinda undermines your whole premise of political censorship.

 

[BlueGin]

If you've had any bias, let the WH know. Social media is clearly biased. It's insulting to ones intelligence for them to suggest otherwise. Whether conservative, a supporter of Trump or just "controversial' (especially if it is against the alt-left mantra), social media is silencing you in one form or another if you start to become popular.

Trump considers panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media

WASHINGTON — President Trump is considering establishing a panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media, according to people familiar with the matter, in a move that would likely draw pushback from technology companies and others.


The plans are still under discussion but could include the establishment of a White House-created commission that would examine allegations of online bias and censorship, these people said. The administration could also encourage similar reviews by federal regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission, they said.

“Left-wing bias in the tech world is a concern that definitely needs to be addressed from our vantage point, and at least exposed [so] that Americans have clear eyes about what we’re dealing with,” a White House official said.

Mr. Trump has long expressed that viewpoint, and in a recent Twitter post indicated that a plan to address complaints of bias is in the works.

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump


The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation. Stay tuned, and send names & events. Thank you Michelle! https://twitter.com/af_clips/status/1261331113102004226 …
102K
7:56 AM - May 16, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

57.2K people are talking about this


Facebook Inc., which also owns Instagram, defended its practices when asked for a response to the nascent proposal.

“People on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions we’ve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,” the company said.

They can consider all they want. They can't do anything about private platforms.

You wouldn't want them to anyway. If they did you could kiss most of your "news" sources goodbye in fairly short order.

Yes they can. They can take away their platform status and all protections they garner from the government with that status. They want to edit content...they are a publisher.

Publisher or not is debatable.

The point you kids are missing is that they aren't censoring political views points.

They are simply removing hate speech and misinformation.

Are your political views based on lies and hate?

It is debatable when they are taking a side politically and censoring based on that political stance. They feel they can skirt the law by deeming anything they don’t like as “ hateful” and “ misinformation”.

But according to section 230 they can not censor political speech no matter how extreme. And they clearly do engage in selective censorship.

Nothing in section 230 prevents them from removing any political speech. Especially extreme political speech. The platform is owner and operated by private individuals and there are no laws preventing them from deleting content on those platforms.

They can’t be both a platform and a publisher and continue to get government protections while skirting the rules. They need to pick one or the other. If they are a publisher fine...then they are liable for content on their forums. If they are a platform they need to stop censoring content that is against their political views. They can’t have it both ways.

They aren't censoring for political views.

They are removing hate speech and false information.

That is all.

Nope they are banning based on political bias and as favors to big corporations like NBC,CBS,Sony,FOX and the DNC...

 

[BlueGin]

If you've had any bias, let the WH know. Social media is clearly biased. It's insulting to ones intelligence for them to suggest otherwise. Whether conservative, a supporter of Trump or just "controversial' (especially if it is against the alt-left mantra), social media is silencing you in one form or another if you start to become popular.

Trump considers panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media

WASHINGTON — President Trump is considering establishing a panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media, according to people familiar with the matter, in a move that would likely draw pushback from technology companies and others.


The plans are still under discussion but could include the establishment of a White House-created commission that would examine allegations of online bias and censorship, these people said. The administration could also encourage similar reviews by federal regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission, they said.

“Left-wing bias in the tech world is a concern that definitely needs to be addressed from our vantage point, and at least exposed [so] that Americans have clear eyes about what we’re dealing with,” a White House official said.

Mr. Trump has long expressed that viewpoint, and in a recent Twitter post indicated that a plan to address complaints of bias is in the works.

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump


The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation. Stay tuned, and send names & events. Thank you Michelle! https://twitter.com/af_clips/status/1261331113102004226 …
102K
7:56 AM - May 16, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

57.2K people are talking about this


Facebook Inc., which also owns Instagram, defended its practices when asked for a response to the nascent proposal.

“People on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions we’ve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,” the company said.

Social media censorship is a difficult one for me. I find censorship abhorrent but I also value the rights of a private business - so where do you draw the line?

I would propose a law that any publicly traded company who's primary purpose is to operate as a social media platform be held to 1st Amendment standards. If you want to censor people you don't like then get off the stock market and self-fund.

They don't remove folks for their political views, they remove the for hate speech and/or false information (lies).

According to Joe Biden they do not and their protections needs to be repealed.

Sure, sure.

I'm sure that's exactly what Joe said.

Lol

“Biden appears to have his sights set on Section 230 because of an October 2018 scuffle with Facebook. The Biden campaign wrote a letter to Facebook asking it to remove an ad, posted by an independent Political Action Committee (PAC), claiming that Biden was blackmailing a Ukrainian official to keep them from prosecuting his son, Hunter Biden. Facebook declined to remove the ad, answering that it will not monitor political ads based on whether the information they present is true or false. “

Lol, you realize you just undercut your whole position, right?

If you've had any bias, let the WH know. Social media is clearly biased. It's insulting to ones intelligence for them to suggest otherwise. Whether conservative, a supporter of Trump or just "controversial' (especially if it is against the alt-left mantra), social media is silencing you in one form or another if you start to become popular.

Trump considers panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media

WASHINGTON — President Trump is considering establishing a panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media, according to people familiar with the matter, in a move that would likely draw pushback from technology companies and others.


The plans are still under discussion but could include the establishment of a White House-created commission that would examine allegations of online bias and censorship, these people said. The administration could also encourage similar reviews by federal regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission, they said.

“Left-wing bias in the tech world is a concern that definitely needs to be addressed from our vantage point, and at least exposed [so] that Americans have clear eyes about what we’re dealing with,” a White House official said.

Mr. Trump has long expressed that viewpoint, and in a recent Twitter post indicated that a plan to address complaints of bias is in the works.

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump


The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation. Stay tuned, and send names & events. Thank you Michelle! https://twitter.com/af_clips/status/1261331113102004226 …
102K
7:56 AM - May 16, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

57.2K people are talking about this


Facebook Inc., which also owns Instagram, defended its practices when asked for a response to the nascent proposal.

“People on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions we’ve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,” the company said.

Social media censorship is a difficult one for me. I find censorship abhorrent but I also value the rights of a private business - so where do you draw the line?

I would propose a law that any publicly traded company who's primary purpose is to operate as a social media platform be held to 1st Amendment standards. If you want to censor people you don't like then get off the stock market and self-fund.

They don't remove folks for their political views, they remove the for hate speech and/or false information (lies).

According to Joe Biden they do not and their protections needs to be repealed.

Sure, sure.

I'm sure that's exactly what Joe said.

Lol

“Biden appears to have his sights set on Section 230 because of an October 2018 scuffle with Facebook. The Biden campaign wrote a letter to Facebook asking it to remove an ad, posted by an independent Political Action Committee (PAC), claiming that Biden was blackmailing a Ukrainian official to keep them from prosecuting his son, Hunter Biden. Facebook declined to remove the ad, answering that it will not monitor political ads based on whether the information they present is true or false. “

You do realize you just undercut your whole argument, right?

Did I say I agreed with him? No. I asked someone else what they thought about his stance on this issue.

Well that's not true.

You told me that Joe Biden thought they should have their protections removed because they didn't, that is did not, censors an anti Biden ad.

That kinda undermines your whole premise of political censorship.

Well...he obviously thought he could get them to remove it with just an email from a staffer. Wonder why that is?

 

[colfax_m]

I don't follow why he cannot comprehend this. He is either trolling or stupid.

Why can't it be both? Someone who continuously repeats an argument that has it's entire basis in a lie
is both a troll and stupid for supporting a blatant lie.

And yet the law and legal precedent are all on my side.

Im not trolling. I’m just saying something you don’t want to be true.

How can there be precedent when Twitter was founded 10 yrs after the law was passed?

Because precedent is set when people are taken to court and there are decisions. Twitter has been sued a lot. It wins a lot.

Let me explain it this way. Since for some reason you cannot comprehend simple English.

Twitter is currently defined as a “distributors” or carriers of information — much like a phone company — and the idea is that a carrier can’t possibly read or listen to every message and check it for potentially offensive or illegal content.

If the company is filtering and selecting messages, however, and possibly letting certain parties know when a legally questionable one shows up, that is much more like what publishers do — and in many jurisdictions, publishers like newspapers are held to a different standard.

I understand your argument really well. I don't think you're listening or reading up on the issue.

There used to be a distinction between "distributors" and publishers in online forums like Twitter. But that turned out to be a bad situation which is what Section 230 of CDA was put in to rectify.

Section 230: Legislative History

Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230) was Congress' response to two court cases decided in New York in the early 1990's that had conflicting results.Cubby and Stratton OakmontThe first case involved CompuServe, which in the early days of the Internet hosted "an on-line general information service"...

www.eff.org

This explains the history.

In brief, there were two lawsuits in the 90s, both suing the companies that hosted forums for defamatory material that was put on those forums by users. In the first case, CompuServe did not moderate their forum so they were considered a distributor. In the second case, Prodigy lost because they did moderate their forum.

This created a perverse incentive for websites to avoid moderation. Any moderation at all made them liable for all content posted on the website. Not a lot of people wanted that. So they passed a law that said you aren't held liable for content posted on your website by users even if you moderate the website and delete content that you don't want.

It's incredibly simple. From the article: "The amendment specifically made sure that "providers of an interactive computer service" would not be treated as publishers of third-party content. Unlike publications like newspapers that are accountable for the content they print, online services would be relieved of this liability."

Websites, apps or whatever you want to call them are not newspapers. They shouldn't be regulated like them.

 

[Crepitus]

If you've had any bias, let the WH know. Social media is clearly biased. It's insulting to ones intelligence for them to suggest otherwise. Whether conservative, a supporter of Trump or just "controversial' (especially if it is against the alt-left mantra), social media is silencing you in one form or another if you start to become popular.

Trump considers panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media

WASHINGTON — President Trump is considering establishing a panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media, according to people familiar with the matter, in a move that would likely draw pushback from technology companies and others.


The plans are still under discussion but could include the establishment of a White House-created commission that would examine allegations of online bias and censorship, these people said. The administration could also encourage similar reviews by federal regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission, they said.

“Left-wing bias in the tech world is a concern that definitely needs to be addressed from our vantage point, and at least exposed [so] that Americans have clear eyes about what we’re dealing with,” a White House official said.

Mr. Trump has long expressed that viewpoint, and in a recent Twitter post indicated that a plan to address complaints of bias is in the works.

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump


The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation. Stay tuned, and send names & events. Thank you Michelle! https://twitter.com/af_clips/status/1261331113102004226 …
102K
7:56 AM - May 16, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

57.2K people are talking about this


Facebook Inc., which also owns Instagram, defended its practices when asked for a response to the nascent proposal.

“People on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions we’ve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,” the company said.

They can consider all they want. They can't do anything about private platforms.

You wouldn't want them to anyway. If they did you could kiss most of your "news" sources goodbye in fairly short order.

Yes they can. They can take away their platform status and all protections they garner from the government with that status. They want to edit content...they are a publisher.

Publisher or not is debatable.

The point you kids are missing is that they aren't censoring political views points.

They are simply removing hate speech and misinformation.

Are your political views based on lies and hate?

I've never expressed hate speech on twitter, nor swore or been overly aggressive. I was outspoken against Communist China and a supporter of America, capitalism and President Trump. I was deemed a bot.

Before they took that step, they had cut off my followers, shadow banned me and other cowardly, chicken shyte communist tactics. I once hit 7500 and then they flipped the switch. I'd gain 50 and then in a day lose 75. It was obvious and comical. I never hit above 7000 again for well over a year, but I didn't care, though I called out the Jack Dorsey for allowing it to happen, in a polite and sincere manner.

Twitter is one of many I'm sure. They will face their demise as all others do that silence citizens. Jack doesn't care, he is worth billions for producing nothing but increasingly oppression of true free speech. Social media is already on the decline in terms of popularity, though revenues for ads are up. I wonder why.

In the end, they will lose what made them so great because they refused to support free speech. It's cowardice at it's finest. They will be replaced with another format which will begin in support of free speech but then turn to support the alt-left agenda, and the merry-go round will continue. A function of a new society that seems to admire Communist China more than America.

If all you did was retweet what the fake accounts told you it's no wonder you were mistaken for one.

lol. I rarely retweeted and it was always legitimate sources. I provided my own discussion and content from mainstream sources and I do on this site.

It was just cowardly, communist appeasement (or appeasing Canadian police forces) and I, like so many, have to pay the price.

I hope there is a Bill of online speech Rights pushed. Then we can see what the Dbag do when they face serious legal issues for abusing citizens accounts and speech.

Of course you did!

Lol.

Do you see me post extreme arguments or positions on this site that are anything but the largest media outlets? All I ever do is post from Fox, CNN, CBC, newspapers and the odd one here or there out of left field. I'm not looking to post UFO or Bigfoot sightings, even if it does exist. I try to keep it fairly narrow. I did the same on twitter, except they don't like solid arguments that make their alt-left followers look foolish.

I'm afraid that's incorrect.

If the arguments had been factual they would not have been removed.

Speculative comment is often discussed but rarely censored unless counter to the shutdown agenda
“Hate speech” is of course in the eye of the beholder and is simply blunt factual talk of a non PC nature and liberals hate that and thus the term was invented

Hate speech has a legal definition. It is not "in the eye of the beholder".

False information is sometimes removed.

Neither often not rapidly enough in my opinion.

But they are not censoring for political.leanings.

If posts by people you agree with politically are regularly removed, that should be telling you something.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I don't follow why he cannot comprehend this. He is either trolling or stupid.

Why can't it be both? Someone who continuously repeats an argument that has it's entire basis in a lie
is both a troll and stupid for supporting a blatant lie.

And yet the law and legal precedent are all on my side.

Im not trolling. I’m just saying something you don’t want to be true.

How can there be precedent when Twitter was founded 10 yrs after the law was passed?

Because precedent is set when people are taken to court and there are decisions. Twitter has been sued a lot. It wins a lot.

Let me explain it this way. Since for some reason you cannot comprehend simple English.

Twitter is currently defined as a “distributors” or carriers of information — much like a phone company — and the idea is that a carrier can’t possibly read or listen to every message and check it for potentially offensive or illegal content.

If the company is filtering and selecting messages, however, and possibly letting certain parties know when a legally questionable one shows up, that is much more like what publishers do — and in many jurisdictions, publishers like newspapers are held to a different standard.

I understand your argument really well. I don't think you're listening or reading up on the issue.

There used to be a distinction between "distributors" and publishers in online forums like Twitter. But that turned out to be a bad situation which is what Section 230 of CDA was put in to rectify.

Section 230: Legislative History

Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230) was Congress' response to two court cases decided in New York in the early 1990's that had conflicting results.Cubby and Stratton OakmontThe first case involved CompuServe, which in the early days of the Internet hosted "an on-line general information service"...

www.eff.org

This explains the history.

In brief, there were two lawsuits in the 90s, both suing the companies that hosted forums for defamatory material that was put on those forums by users. In the first case, CompuServe did not moderate their forum so they were considered a distributor. In the second case, Prodigy lost because they did moderate their forum.

This created a perverse incentive for websites to avoid moderation. Any moderation at all made them liable for all content posted on the website. Not a lot of people wanted that. So they passed a law that said you aren't held liable for content posted on your website by users even if you moderate the website and delete content that you don't want.

It's incredibly simple. From the article: "The amendment specifically made sure that "providers of an interactive computer service" would not be treated as publishers of third-party content. Unlike publications like newspapers that are accountable for the content they print, online services would be relieved of this liability."

Websites, apps or whatever you want to call them are not newspapers. They shouldn't be regulated like them.

And I think we should have a 2nd look. I am not sure why you are not OK with that? Law was passed 10 yrs before Twitter was even founded. What is wrong with a 2nd look?