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

[WEATHER53]

Certainly is a lot of one way streetism on what can remain or not
It’s not conservative one way for sure.

 

[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And how do you feel about Joe Biden wanting section 230 repealed?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.

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.

Twitter was founded 10 years post CDA 230. I want it revisited by legal/constitutional experts. That is all. Not my call just my opinion.

 

[shockedcanadian]

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.

 

[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.

No, this is very similar to the conflict between Netscape and internet explorer. PC’s were being bundled with IE the way our phones are tied to google. Google then controls YouTube, etc. Creates a disadvantage for competitors.

Lol, no. That's not what this is about at all.

 

[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.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

When will you people understand that a private company has no obligation to give anyone free speech?

What you don't understand is a business isn't democracy. It's not a democratic institution. You have absolutely no say on how a business is run. If a business wants to be responsible and not propagate lies and deceptions that's the choice of the business and perfectly legal.

If you don't like the fact that some social media doesn't lie through their teeth or deceive people with ridiculous conspiracies that's your problem. There's nothing you can do about it.

Editorials and opinions are welcomed on our public airwaves. It was you people who screamed about the fairness doctrine and other regulations that kept our media free and honest. reagan removed it with people like you cheering him on. Now news outlets have been so consolidated, it's near monopolies.

If you and trump had your way, no one would be allowed to say or print anything you see as negative about trump or anyone you agree with.

If you don't like the internet sites and news that do as you say they do, don't use the site or watch the channel. It's not like they're the only ones. There are literally trillions of websites and hundreds of channels both on TV and radio. Find one you like but don't try to force everyone to do what you want them to do.

Funny, when Obama wanted to regulate the internet as a utility you people went nuts. So he didn't do it. When he wanted to preserve net neutrality you people went nuts. He did it anyway because of the pressure the rest of us put on him to do it. Then you cheered trump as he stripped away net neutrality and the few rules the internet had.

You are the people who hate regulations on business. You are the people who believe that business should be totally free to do whatever they want.

Now, not so much.

Your beliefs change with the wind for your own convenience.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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.

As usual your view is overly simplified, dishonest and childish. The Fight Over Section 230—and the Internet as We Know It
It, your version of things, says- everything is great. We don't need to change a thing. Without it (section 230) the internet will simply cease to exist.


That's all blatant bullshit! The fact that a commission will be looking into how it is someone like Zuckerberg
can simply toss someone out of what is supposedly a service for all (not just for those that please Lord Zuckerberg) and it should tell everyone we have a problem with anti civil libertarian Big Tech Giants.

Congress absolutely needs to extend more oversight so that we resemble the United States more than we currently do China. The issue is coming up. The spotlight will be turned on. Weaselish apologists and
rationalizers like you had better look out!

 

[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

 

[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?

I've never made 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, but I didn't care, though I called out the Jack Dorsey for allowing it to happen.

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 and the merry-go round will continue. A function of a new society that seems to admire Communist China more than America.

Twitter sends me daily emails begging me to post there. But since they allowed it to become a cesspool why would I want to? I will agree...it will die out eventually.

 

[Crepitus]

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?

They ban repeat offenders, just like the mods do here.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

 

[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.

See? No commission or panel or whatever is needed.

I disagree. Am I not allowed to disagree?

 

[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?

They ban repeat offenders, just like the mods do here.

IDK...Twitter seems to ban only repeat offenders that are pro Israel. LOL.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

As usual your view is overly simplified, dishonest and childish. The Fight Over Section 230—and the Internet as We Know It
It, your version of things, says- everything is great. We don't need to change a thing. Without it (section 230) the internet will simply cease to exist.


That's all blatant bullshit! The fact that a commission will be looking into how it is someone like Zuckerberg
can simply toss someone out of what is supposedly a service for all (not just for those that please Lord Zuckerberg) should tell everyone we have a problem with anti civil libertarian Big Tech Giants.

Congress absolutely needs to extend more oversight so that we resemble the United States more than we currently do China. The issue is coming up. The spotlight will be turned on. Weaselish apologists and
rationalizers like you had better look out!

Facebook does not claim to be a service for all. They specifically state when you sign up that they can kick you off at any time for any reason.

Those are the terms you agree to.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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?

Nope.

Redirect Notice

From your link:

"This account was mistakenly caught in a spam filter"

Hoist on your own petard.

 

[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.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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

I'm a fan of the Bill of Rights. And leftists as usual are fans of Chinese style authoritarianism because their message can be sent out and no one can mess with it. Because dissent is eliminated.
Imagine that.

If you are for the 2nd Amendment or limits on abortion, boom...you are expelled.
If you think the Covid pandemic has been largely an exercise in authoritarian over reach.....boom, you are out!
If you believe our voting system must not be manipulated or breached boom....you will be silenced.

The Bill of Rights says you may say all these things. The Tech Giants at YouTube, Facebook and Twitter
say not so fast. Your "hate speech" must not be allowed to flourish.

Sounds Xi Jinping's China, doesn't it.

 

[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. “