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

[colfax_m]

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.
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 authoritarin 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.

You don’t have a first amendment right to post anything on a private website.

 

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And how do you feel about Joe Biden wanting section 230 repealed?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

Don’t be such a snowflake.

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

 

[Crepitus]

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

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

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


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

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

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

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump


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

57.2K people are talking about this


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

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

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

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

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

Publisher or not is debatable.

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

They are simply removing hate speech and misinformation.

Are your political views based on lies and hate?

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

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

They aren't. They are removing hate speech and false information.

That is all.

You people have based your political beliefs on hate speech and false information so it feels like they are biased against you.

That should be telling you something.

 

[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.

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

lol. I rarely retweeted and it was always legitimate sources. I provided my own discussion and content from mainstream sources as I do on this site. I'd often given credit for those who disagreed with my positions if they made good, sound, arguments that made sense to me.

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

I hope there is a Bill of online speech Rights pushed. Then we can see what the Dbags do when they face serious legal issues for abusing citizens accounts and speech. I think I made powerful arguments, sometimes receive more than 1000 likes, which was a credit to my argument and broader support on an issue as far as I am concerned as I wasn't a big account. Twitter doesn't seem to like that.

 

[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

From your link:

"This account was mistakenly caught in a spam filter"

Hoist on your own petard.

They use that excuse frequently. Did it with Candace Owens too. I don't buy it.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.
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 authoritarin 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.

You don’t have a first amendment right to post anything on a private website.

But you do on the Internet that Verizon provides or Xfinity. So why does Twitter claim they are like Xfinity and Verizon when they aren't?

 

[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...

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

No I’m not. Those are all forms of harrassment Twitter allows on its platform by certain members which are all against section 230.

 

[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.

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

Can you prove that?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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.

So is Zuckerberg calling himself a content "creator"now? Because he isn't. And Congress should not treat
him as such.

 

[satrebil]

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).

Absolute horseshit.

 

[Crepitus]

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

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

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


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

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

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

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump


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

57.2K people are talking about this


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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure, sure.

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

Lol

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump


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

57.2K people are talking about this


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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure, sure.

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

Lol

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

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

 

[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.

Can you prove that?

I just posted a link. Google yourself how often they "mistakenly" ban accounts.

Twitter apologizes after conservative commentator Candace Owens was briefly locked out of her account

Twitter apologized Sunday after locking out conservative commentator Candace Owens from her account after she was accused of violating the social media platform’s rules.

www.foxnews.com

@Censorship: Twitter Bans 10 Conservatives Accounts; Won't Give Reason Why - The Lid

Ten conservative accounts owned by ten different entities were suspended by Twitter, when they asked why, their bans were made permanent

lidblog.com

SHOCKING NEW STUDY Finds Twitter Censors Conservatives over Liberals at a 21:1 Ratio | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

It’s no secret that censors and shadow-bans conservatives.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

‘Twitter purge’ of conservative accounts prompts backlash, lawsuits

Prominent conservative Twitter users pushed back hard on Wednesday after an overnight purge of their accounts that culled thousands of their followers, as the embattled social media platform faced mounting charges of left-wing bias and suppression of right-wing viewpoints.

www.washingtontimes.com

Again, they should be allowed to do this but I want to know if they should be labeled as a content provider or like they claim just a disseminator like Verizon. I would like legal experts to opine and decide. I have young kids who are on social media and would like to understand the laws better and to make sure they are current. They are not on Twitter.

 

[Crepitus]

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

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

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


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

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

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

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump


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

57.2K people are talking about this


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

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

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

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

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

Publisher or not is debatable.

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

They are simply removing hate speech and misinformation.

Are your political views based on lies and hate?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course you did!

Lol.

 

[deanrd]

Conservatives don’t play golf when 100,000 Americans are dying in pain and agony

 

[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.

They use that excuse frequently. Did it with Candace Owens too. I don't buy it.

SMH.

Obviously you have already decided what to believe.

I'm wasting my time here.

 

[Wapasha]

A charge of censorship can only be leveled against government, not private entities. Even if this were not true, there is no cogent and consistent definition of "conservativism" to work from.

I am not on social media, but the owners/operators are free to set up their own rules, like prohibiting comments that incite violence or revenge porn or those that simply are blame rants against some demographic group.

Censorship: the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

Where does it say only government can do this? FaceBook certainly does it.

 

[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.

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

You’re crawfishing.

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

 

[Wapasha]

Conservatives don’t play golf when 100,000 Americans are dying in pain and agony

Is that the new definition?

 

[colfax_m]

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.

So is Zuckerberg calling himself a content "creator"now? Because he isn't. And Congress should not treat
him as such.

Nope. He’s a social media website. He’s regulated as a social media website.

You don’t have a right to post on Facebook.

 

[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

From your link:

"This account was mistakenly caught in a spam filter"

Hoist on your own petard.

They use that excuse frequently. Did it with Candace Owens too. I don't buy it.

SMH.

Obviously you have already decided what to believe.

I'm wasting my time here.

I can the say the same for you....