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

[BlueGin]

Doing so will end the internet as we know it including this message board.

What a feeble hollow threat.

So let’s say you own this website. You have two choices. Either stop any effort to remove content, no matter what (outside flagrantly illegal content) or continue mod policy to remove some content at their discretion and be subject to liability for the content anyone posts here?

Or just shut down.

What would you do?

First of all “editing” doesn’t include specified rules of use listed in their guidelines members have to abide by when joining.

It relates to censorship being done to members who are posting content within the rules due to bias.

 

[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.

Doing so will end the internet as we know it including this message board.

Then these companies should stop abusing their platform status.

 

[OldLady]

Twitter is very anti Israel.

Might you say that because they don't allow hate speech against Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims?

 

[colfax_m]

Doing so will end the internet as we know it including this message board.

What a feeble hollow threat.

So let’s say you own this website. You have two choices. Either stop any effort to remove content, no matter what (outside flagrantly illegal content) or continue mod policy to remove some content at their discretion and be subject to liability for the content anyone posts here?

Or just shut down.

What would you do?

First of all “editing” doesn’t include specified rules of use listed in their guidelines members have to abide by when joining.

It relates to censorship being done to members who are posting content within the rules due to bias.

Read any website’s TOS and you’ll find they can remove your content and ban you for any reason at all with no notification. That’s not censorship. You dont have a right to post on Twitter or any other privately owned and operated website.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

So let’s say you own this website. You have two choices. Either stop any effort to remove content, no matter what (outside flagrantly illegal content) or continue mod policy to remove some content at their discretion and be subject to liability for the content anyone posts here?

Or just shut down.

What would you do?

It's a red herring...a false dilemma fallacy. I would just laugh at and ignore your childish attempt at
giving your position any dignity at all.

 

[colfax_m]

So let’s say you own this website. You have two choices. Either stop any effort to remove content, no matter what (outside flagrantly illegal content) or continue mod policy to remove some content at their discretion and be subject to liability for the content anyone posts here?

Or just shut down.

What would you do?

It's a red herring...a false dilemma fallacy. I would just laugh at and ignore your childish attempt at
giving your position any dignity at all.

You’re a coward.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

So Trump is upset that more people on social media dislike him than those that like him. How is that going to work? Is he going to force people that don't like him to write nice things about him? Who is going to decide which people are forced to write nice things about him to make it all even? Wouldn't it be easier for him to just stop doing such stupid things so more people would like him?

That is not remotely what the OP says. What fantasy world do you live it? It has nothing to do with Trump. My friend was banned from Twitter for being pro Israel and posting factual pro Israel data. Puzzling to him as he said Twitter didn’t mind seeing anti Israel and pro Palestine posts. This to me is fine but then Twitter needs to be registered as a content provider vs content disseminator. Cannot have it both ways.

Is a book store a content provider or content disseminator?

Depends. Twitter says they are like AT&T... we just deliver what people say. If you call me a moonbat over the phone AT&T doesn’t block that. Twitter may so they aren’t like AT&T they are more like The NY Times. Generic bookstore is a provider. They also don’t ban people from coming in and out.

No one is banned from looking at twitter but certainly a bookstore picks and chooses what books are on the shelves.

And yet a bookstore can not be sued for defamation as a content provider. They don’t know what’s in every book and couldn’t possibly be asked to do so.

Twitter is the same way. Just because they take some things off their platform when they discover objectionable content (as a bookstore may pull books off their shelves if they discover content in a book they don’t like) doesn’t mean they can be legally responsible for every statement.

This is common sense to me.

I can go to another bookstore. Twitter is almost a Monopoly although my kids don’t use it and say it’s for old people. A bookstore if generic will only worry about making money and selling books. Twitter doesn’t make money and decides who they will and will not block. To me they are nothing like AT&T and should not be regulated as such. So this panel can investigate and see which one of us is correct. Why is that so bad? For example this site is a disseminator not a provider. To me they treat the crazies on the Alt Right and Leftists equally and those in the middle (myself) see both sides. That’s fair. As I understand it, Twitter doesn’t do that.

You can go to another website. We don’t need Trump’s committee telling us what is fair.

What other App? Twitter has a sort of monopoly. It is not just Trump. Like I posted earlier. Twitter is very anti Israel. They certainly skew the narrative and block those who disagree. This is fine but it should be regulated as a content provider vs. a disseminator IMO. You disagree why is it bad to have it investigated?

Don’t like it? Here’s what you do. Go to squarespace. Plunk down $12 a month. Publish a website about anything you want.

Stop bothering everyone else.

No committee needed!

You don't understand. It is about how they are regulated. If they claim to not be a provider then they cannot discriminate on what content is or is not available. I don't care if they block people, I care if they can lawfully do it while stating they are just like AT&T or Verizon. They aren't so should not be treated as such. Again, you could be right or I could be right, why not have legal experts examine who is? What is your issue with that? Please explain.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Doing so will end the internet as we know it including this message board.

What a feeble hollow threat.

So let’s say you own this website. You have two choices. Either stop any effort to remove content, no matter what (outside flagrantly illegal content) or continue mod policy to remove some content at their discretion and be subject to liability for the content anyone posts here?

Or just shut down.

What would you do?

If you own a website then its your call but you also have to follow certain regulations. Once you become a content provider you should be regulated as such. That is my only point.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Twitter is very anti Israel.

Might you say that because they don't allow hate speech against Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims?

I posted a link. Not sure what else you would like me to do. Stating that Palestine never existed isn't hate speech but can be considered hate speech by some. Twitter gets to decide? If they do then they are a content provider and should be regulated as such. And I don't know if they consider that hate speech btw. Again, why are you asking me for specifics when I posted an article? Read it.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Read any website’s TOS and you’ll find they can remove your content and ban you for any reason at all with no notification. That’s not censorship. You dont have a right to post on Twitter or any other privately owned and operated website.

Dear little boy...if Twitter wants to be treated like any other web site (such as USMB) then they should
renounce the special privileges and monopolistic practices Congress granted them.
It's really as simple as that. 6 reasons smaller companies want to break up Big Tech

The bullies want things both ways and you seem to think that's a fair deal. It isn't. Sorry for the citation again.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Doing so will end the internet as we know it including this message board.

What a feeble hollow threat.

So let’s say you own this website. You have two choices. Either stop any effort to remove content, no matter what (outside flagrantly illegal content) or continue mod policy to remove some content at their discretion and be subject to liability for the content anyone posts here?

Or just shut down.

What would you do?

First of all “editing” doesn’t include specified rules of use listed in their guidelines members have to abide by when joining.

It relates to censorship being done to members who are posting content within the rules due to bias.

Read any website’s TOS and you’ll find they can remove your content and ban you for any reason at all with no notification. That’s not censorship. You dont have a right to post on Twitter or any other privately owned and operated website.

If thats the case then they are a content provider not a disseminator. Verizon and AT&T cannot and do not do that. YouTube does not either.

 

[BlueGin]

Doing so will end the internet as we know it including this message board.

What a feeble hollow threat.

So let’s say you own this website. You have two choices. Either stop any effort to remove content, no matter what (outside flagrantly illegal content) or continue mod policy to remove some content at their discretion and be subject to liability for the content anyone posts here?

Or just shut down.

What would you do?

First of all “editing” doesn’t include specified rules of use listed in their guidelines members have to abide by when joining.

It relates to censorship being done to members who are posting content within the rules due to bias.

Read any website’s TOS and you’ll find they can remove your content and ban you for any reason at all with no notification. That’s not censorship. You dont have a right to post on Twitter or any other privately owned and operated website.

No they can’t. Not while hiding behind government protections related to platform status.

 

[Bush92]

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.

We already know the television, print, and internet media has a sickening liberal bias. Fuck social media. Never use it. 70% of the people who go on social media are assholes and 50% of them are ignorant assholes.

 

[colfax_m]

Doing so will end the internet as we know it including this message board.

What a feeble hollow threat.

So let’s say you own this website. You have two choices. Either stop any effort to remove content, no matter what (outside flagrantly illegal content) or continue mod policy to remove some content at their discretion and be subject to liability for the content anyone posts here?

Or just shut down.

What would you do?

First of all “editing” doesn’t include specified rules of use listed in their guidelines members have to abide by when joining.

It relates to censorship being done to members who are posting content within the rules due to bias.

Read any website’s TOS and you’ll find they can remove your content and ban you for any reason at all with no notification. That’s not censorship. You dont have a right to post on Twitter or any other privately owned and operated website.

No they can’t. Not while hiding behind government protections related to platform status.

Yes, they can. Read the TOS of this website:
“We may remove or modify any Content submitted at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice. Requests for Content to be removed or modified will be undertaken only at our discretion. We may terminate your access to all or any part of the Service at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice.”

 

[colfax_m]

Doing so will end the internet as we know it including this message board.

What a feeble hollow threat.

So let’s say you own this website. You have two choices. Either stop any effort to remove content, no matter what (outside flagrantly illegal content) or continue mod policy to remove some content at their discretion and be subject to liability for the content anyone posts here?

Or just shut down.

What would you do?

First of all “editing” doesn’t include specified rules of use listed in their guidelines members have to abide by when joining.

It relates to censorship being done to members who are posting content within the rules due to bias.

Read any website’s TOS and you’ll find they can remove your content and ban you for any reason at all with no notification. That’s not censorship. You dont have a right to post on Twitter or any other privately owned and operated website.

If thats the case then they are a content provider not a disseminator. Verizon and AT&T cannot and do not do that. YouTube does not either.

Not sure what you mean about Verizon and ATT but YouTube definitely does that.

Twitter and Youtube are in this to make money. Not propagate you’re message for you.

 

[OldLady]

My friend was banned from Twitter for being pro Israel and posting factual pro Israel data.

That's not why he was banned. Let's hear what he really said.

How do you explain this?

Redirect Notice

His account had been suspended accidentally, Twitter told Oren and the Post.

“This account was mistakenly caught in a spam filter,” a company spokesperson said. “The suspension was reversed and we have notified the account holder. Please note that an account’s followers take time to fully replenish after it is reinstated.”

 

[BlueGin]

Doing so will end the internet as we know it including this message board.

What a feeble hollow threat.

So let’s say you own this website. You have two choices. Either stop any effort to remove content, no matter what (outside flagrantly illegal content) or continue mod policy to remove some content at their discretion and be subject to liability for the content anyone posts here?

Or just shut down.

What would you do?

First of all “editing” doesn’t include specified rules of use listed in their guidelines members have to abide by when joining.

It relates to censorship being done to members who are posting content within the rules due to bias.

Read any website’s TOS and you’ll find they can remove your content and ban you for any reason at all with no notification. That’s not censorship. You dont have a right to post on Twitter or any other privately owned and operated website.

No they can’t. Not while hiding behind government protections related to platform status.

Yes, they can. Read the TOS of this website:
“We may remove or modify any Content submitted at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice. Requests for Content to be removed or modified will be undertaken only at our discretion. We may terminate your access to all or any part of the Service at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice.”

No they can’t. See section 230

“Congress responded by enacting Section 230, establishing that platforms could not be held liable as publishers of user-generated content and clarifying that they could not be held liable for removing any content that they believed in good faith to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” This provision does not allow platforms to remove whatever they wish, however. Courts have held that “otherwise objectionable” does not mean whatever a social media company objects to, but “must, at a minimum, involve or be similar” to obscenity, violence, or harassment. Political viewpoints, no matter how extreme or unpopular, do not fall under this category.”

 

[OldLady]

Twitter is very anti Israel.

Might you say that because they don't allow hate speech against Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims?

I posted a link. Not sure what else you would like me to do. Stating that Palestine never existed isn't hate speech but can be considered hate speech by some. Twitter gets to decide? If they do then they are a content provider and should be regulated as such. And I don't know if they consider that hate speech btw. Again, why are you asking me for specifics when I posted an article? Read it.

He was banned accidentally, caught in a spam filter. As soon as it came to their attention, they reinstated his account. There was certainly nothing in those posts that should have been "banned."

 

[colfax_m]

So Trump is upset that more people on social media dislike him than those that like him. How is that going to work? Is he going to force people that don't like him to write nice things about him? Who is going to decide which people are forced to write nice things about him to make it all even? Wouldn't it be easier for him to just stop doing such stupid things so more people would like him?

That is not remotely what the OP says. What fantasy world do you live it? It has nothing to do with Trump. My friend was banned from Twitter for being pro Israel and posting factual pro Israel data. Puzzling to him as he said Twitter didn’t mind seeing anti Israel and pro Palestine posts. This to me is fine but then Twitter needs to be registered as a content provider vs content disseminator. Cannot have it both ways.

Is a book store a content provider or content disseminator?

Depends. Twitter says they are like AT&T... we just deliver what people say. If you call me a moonbat over the phone AT&T doesn’t block that. Twitter may so they aren’t like AT&T they are more like The NY Times. Generic bookstore is a provider. They also don’t ban people from coming in and out.

No one is banned from looking at twitter but certainly a bookstore picks and chooses what books are on the shelves.

And yet a bookstore can not be sued for defamation as a content provider. They don’t know what’s in every book and couldn’t possibly be asked to do so.

Twitter is the same way. Just because they take some things off their platform when they discover objectionable content (as a bookstore may pull books off their shelves if they discover content in a book they don’t like) doesn’t mean they can be legally responsible for every statement.

This is common sense to me.

I can go to another bookstore. Twitter is almost a Monopoly although my kids don’t use it and say it’s for old people. A bookstore if generic will only worry about making money and selling books. Twitter doesn’t make money and decides who they will and will not block. To me they are nothing like AT&T and should not be regulated as such. So this panel can investigate and see which one of us is correct. Why is that so bad? For example this site is a disseminator not a provider. To me they treat the crazies on the Alt Right and Leftists equally and those in the middle (myself) see both sides. That’s fair. As I understand it, Twitter doesn’t do that.

You can go to another website. We don’t need Trump’s committee telling us what is fair.

What other App? Twitter has a sort of monopoly. It is not just Trump. Like I posted earlier. Twitter is very anti Israel. They certainly skew the narrative and block those who disagree. This is fine but it should be regulated as a content provider vs. a disseminator IMO. You disagree why is it bad to have it investigated?

Don’t like it? Here’s what you do. Go to squarespace. Plunk down $12 a month. Publish a website about anything you want.

Stop bothering everyone else.

No committee needed!

You don't understand. It is about how they are regulated. If they claim to not be a provider then they cannot discriminate on what content is or is not available. I don't care if they block people, I care if they can lawfully do it while stating they are just like AT&T or Verizon. They aren't so should not be treated as such. Again, you could be right or I could be right, why not have legal experts examine who is? What is your issue with that? Please explain.

Sorry, but it’s you who don’t understand how they’re regulated. You’re inventing rules that simply don’t exist. No website is required to “not discriminate”. It’s their website. They can do as they please. That does not mean that they become liable for the content on their website.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Yes, they can. Read the TOS of this website:
“We may remove or modify any Content submitted at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice. Requests for Content to be removed or modified will be undertaken only at our discretion. We may terminate your access to all or any part of the Service at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice.”

This website doesn't pretend it's not what it clearly is. Stop using this website to excuse what Facebook does.
That's fucking dishonest and stupid!

Facebook is not a content provider. It merely publishes
what people provide to it. Therefore it cannot censor what people are saying.
We have a Bill of Rights that makes our inalienable rights very clear.
Why don't you stop clogging up the thread with brainless drivel?

Zuckerberg is an anti civil libertarian piece of shit! Come to terms with reality.