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

[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).

 

[Crepitus]

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.

Zuckerberg can change Facebook any time he wants.

 

[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.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

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.

Courts have decided. They don’t agree with you. See? We don’t need a commission.

I expect it will go about as far as Trump's commission on voter fraud.
How'd that work out?

This is not a closed case yet. We know there is fraud.

Well, true, we know it happened in North Carolina.....in a Republican district...so it stands to reason there's probably more Republican voter fraud going on.
Again, these are all privately held companies. No court (except maybe a McConnell stacked court) is going to rule in that favor. And really, have you taken a
look at social media? The majority of it is right leaning. And there is WIDE latitude on what gets whacked and what doesn't.

 

[cnm]

Yes. Political censorship is sad and a common feature of totalitarian regimes.

Won't someone think of the snowflakes?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Conservatives are now fans of the Fairness Doctrine. Imagine that.

 

[BlueGin]

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.

They are already devolving. Which is why it needs to be addressed again. Example of violations...Twitter allows SJW mob’s harrassment of it’s other users which is clearly a violation of section 230.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

They are already devolving. Which is why it needs to be addressed again. Example of violations...Twitter allows SJW mob’s harrassment of it’s other users which is clearly a violation of section 230.

They also allow harassment from Trump too. That’s not a “violation” of 230. You don’t have a right to have mean things taken off the internet.

 

[BlueGin]

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.

They are already devolving. Which is why it needs to be addressed again. Example of violations...Twitter allows SJW mob’s harrassment of it’s other users which is clearly a violation of section 230.

They also allow harassment from Trump too. That’s not a “violation” of 230. You don’t have a right to have mean things taken off the internet.

I’m not talking about “ mean things” I’m talking about data mining,doxing,swatting,death threats etc...

 

[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?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

Courts have decided. They don’t agree with you. See? We don’t need a commission.

They have not. This needs to go to the highest court as we are in the infancy of social media. If the highest court agrees then OK.

Section 230 of the CDA was held constitutional decades ago by the SCOTUS.

And that makes it obsolete. This is a new world and I would like social media platform laws to be modern.

 

[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.

It's likely that the data he was posting wasn't "factual" if he was banned.

Even if it’s not doesn’t mean you ban the person. I have No idea what he posted. Is Twitter not an opinion forum?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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?

Nope.

Redirect Notice

 

[colfax_m]

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.

They are already devolving. Which is why it needs to be addressed again. Example of violations...Twitter allows SJW mob’s harrassment of it’s other users which is clearly a violation of section 230.

They also allow harassment from Trump too. That’s not a “violation” of 230. You don’t have a right to have mean things taken off the internet.

I’m not talking about “ mean things” I’m talking about data mining,doxing,swatting,death threats etc...

Then you’re meandering quite far away from the topic.

 

[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.

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

Then these companies should stop abusing their platform status.

They aren't.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

Courts have decided. They don’t agree with you. See? We don’t need a commission.

They have not. This needs to go to the highest court as we are in the infancy of social media. If the highest court agrees then OK.

Section 230 of the CDA was held constitutional decades ago by the SCOTUS.

And that makes it obsolete. This is a new world and I would like social media platform laws to be modern.

Nope. 230 was written specifically for the internet and is fundamental for its function. It’s as important now as it’s ever been. More so.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.