If you don't like something the solution is more regulation

[TECSHARE]

You know what is really surreal? The actual entitled assholes in each and every one of these platforms telling you that you have the option of going to the other place with the same assholes who think they are entitled to tell you what you can and can not say.

Since I already realize that I can do that, then someone telling me so wouldn't be surreal. A bit redundant perhaps.

You are a mob of idiots cutting your own throats never once questioning your correctitude. Unfortunately you aren't going to realize this until just before you bleed out.

Fascinating. Any chance you can get back on topic? How about limiting your outbursts to one vituperative diatribe per page, would that work for you?

If you don't like something the solution is more regulation.


This is exactly why the REAL crooks get into government.

Are you calling Trump a crook?

I am very much on topic. You think all this censorship is great so you pretend it doesn't exist. You are too dense to realize once this is a permanent precedent, that standard is going to be turned around to censor you too, then no one will be able to speak freely. Of course that is not important, what is important is you defeat Trump at all costs, even if you have to burn down the country and destroy all of our freedoms to do so. Of course when that happens, that will be Trump's fault too of course.

[suchmoon]

I am very much on topic. You think all this censorship is great so you pretend it doesn't exist. You are too dense to realize once this is a permanent precedent, that standard is going to be turned around to censor you too, then no one will be able to speak freely. Of course that is not important, what is important is you defeat Trump at all costs, even if you have to burn down the country and destroy all of our freedoms to do so. Of course when that happens, that will be Trump's fault too of course.

No, I don't think that censorship is great, therefore I don't like the government attempting to tell private business what kinds of otherwise lawful speech they must allow or disallow.

[TECSHARE]

I am very much on topic. You think all this censorship is great so you pretend it doesn't exist. You are too dense to realize once this is a permanent precedent, that standard is going to be turned around to censor you too, then no one will be able to speak freely. Of course that is not important, what is important is you defeat Trump at all costs, even if you have to burn down the country and destroy all of our freedoms to do so. Of course when that happens, that will be Trump's fault too of course.

No, I don't think that censorship is great, therefore I don't like the government attempting to tell private business what kinds of otherwise lawful speech they must allow or disallow.

You are a liar that thinks the ends justify the means. The government wouldn't need to tell private companies these things if they weren't run by criminals subverting free speech while screaming that it is being violated when forced to actually be the neutral platforms they pretend to be so they can enjoy protections set out for public platforms of under the law. These companies are illegal monopolies intentionally seeking to interfere with the election process and subverting free speech. They need to suffer consequences.


https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politics/nj-naacp-leader-calls-for-paterson-mail-in-vote-to-be-canceled-amid-fraud-claims/2435162/

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndwv/pr/pendleton-county-mail-carrier-charged-attempted-election-fraud

Weird, the "fact checkers" assured me this doesn't happen. Must be fake news!

[suchmoon]

You are a liar that thinks the ends justify the means.

False.

The government wouldn't need to tell private companies these things if they weren't run by criminals

Wouldn't it make more sense to prosecute the supposed criminals instead of creating more red tape?

[TECSHARE]

You are a liar that thinks the ends justify the means.

False.

The government wouldn't need to tell private companies these things if they weren't run by criminals

Wouldn't it make more sense to prosecute the supposed criminals instead of creating more red tape?

Well since you are full of shit, that doesn't mean much.
Prosecute who? The corporation? Meanwhile they have the opportunity to interfere in the results of the upcoming election while it works its way through the courts for years? Good plan.

[suchmoon]

Prosecute who? The corporation? Meanwhile they have the opportunity to interfere in the results of the upcoming election while it works its way through the courts for years? Good plan.

I don't know who. You said there are criminals. Why doesn't Trump order to prosecute the criminals but instead creates more regulation for everyone? Even if you accept the ridiculous premise that this is a better way of dealing with crime, it's not going to be faster. It will get tied up in courts just the same.

[TECSHARE]

I just explained why, but you enjoy being full of shit and pretending like I didn't anyway.


"33 Examples of Twitter’s Anti-Conservative Bias"

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/techwatch/nb-staff/2020/05/28/33-examples-twitters-anti-conservative-bias

[TwitchySeal]

~

Going to respond to this - don't have time now.

These companies are illegal monopolies

What you are describing is a 'free market'.
A 'monopoly' is when one (1) company dominates an industry and prevents any sort of competition - not when when more than one company does something similar...even if you'd prefer they did it differently.

[Gyfts]

They should be state actors, that's the whole point, right everybody?

On what basis should they be state actors when they are a private company? They aren't a public utility and the only argument you could make for Twitter regulation is that it's a forum open to the public, but not a public forum, that alters discourse. Even then, you're talking about stepping on a private companies toes for the reason of wanting to shift a platform to benefit your political party.

[TwitchySeal]

They should be state actors, that's the whole point, right everybody?

On what basis should they be state actors when they are a private company? They aren't a public utility and the only argument you could make for Twitter regulation is that it's a forum open to the public, but not a public forum, that alters discourse. Even then, you're talking about stepping on a private companies toes for the reason of wanting to shift a platform to benefit your political party.

Twitter is  disrespecting (questioning) our dear leader.  That is never ok. /s

[TECSHARE]

These companies are illegal monopolies

What you are describing is a 'free market'.
A 'monopoly' is when one (1) company dominates an industry and prevents any sort of competition - not when when more than one company does something similar...even if you'd prefer they did it differently.

Monopolies have a legal definition (not the garbage you just pulled out of your ass), standards which these social media companies meet.

[logical fallacies, memes, and really stupid arguments]

Cool story bro. Funny you mentioned the fact that you stupid cunts were calling a few thousand dollars of Facefuck ads election interference, but selectively cutting off, censoring, and editorializing a political candidate and his party is not. Not really an argument that supports you, but maybe if you put it in Drake format no one will notice your hypocrisy.

They should be state actors, that's the whole point, right everybody?

On what basis should they be state actors when they are a private company? They aren't a public utility and the only argument you could make for Twitter regulation is that it's a forum open to the public, but not a public forum, that alters discourse. Even then, you're talking about stepping on a private companies toes for the reason of wanting to shift a platform to benefit your political party.

If they were state actors then they wouldn't harass Trump with fact checks and then they could have the legal right to close Twitter accounts on the basis that they are threatening the government's power. Seems like a win/win.

Twitter is  disrespecting (questioning) our dear leader.  That is never ok. /s

This guy gets it. But what does "/s" mean? I have no knowledge of this sort of thing.

It is all so simple when you get to define what facts are. Also forcing social media companies to obey laws is not equivalent to it being "state run", but whatever fuels your fascism LAARPing fantasy to give you an excuse to burn everything down and pretend you are freedom fighters while you literally destroy freedoms in the name of corporate behemoths trying to interfere in our elections.

[suchmoon]

I just explained why, but you enjoy being full of shit and pretending like I didn't anyway.

I'm just asking since you seem to have... uhm... unique knowledge on the subject so you should know the answers, like who the criminals are, what crimes they've committed, why haven't they been prosecuted, how is Trump going to avoid legal challenges to his EO, etc.

burn everything down and pretend you are freedom fighters while you literally destroy freedoms in the name of corporate behemoths trying to interfere in our elections.

I doubt anyone here is a big fan of Twitface. Personally for all I care the big social media sites could disappear tomorrow and I would hardly notice. They also have resources to fight the government's overreach or to comply with ludicrous bureaucracy. This attempt to overturn Section 230 is more likely to have a devastating effect on smaller sites and potential competition. But why should we care as long as Trump can tweet.

Also look up "literally". You literally don't know what it means.

[TECSHARE]

I just explained why, but you enjoy being full of shit and pretending like I didn't anyway.

I'm just asking since you seem to have... uhm... unique knowledge on the subject so you should know the answers, like who the criminals are, what crimes they've committed, why haven't they been prosecuted, how is Trump going to avoid legal challenges to his EO, etc.

burn everything down and pretend you are freedom fighters while you literally destroy freedoms in the name of corporate behemoths trying to interfere in our elections.

I doubt anyone here is a big fan of Twitface. Personally for all I care the big social media sites could disappear tomorrow and I would hardly notice. They also have resources to fight the government's overreach or to comply with ludicrous bureaucracy. This attempt to overturn Section 230 is more likely to have a devastating effect on smaller sites and potential competition. But why should we care as long as Trump can tweet.

Also look up "literally". You literally don't know what it means.

Of course it is going to be challenged, but he has a solid legal basis to stand on. Holding them to the same standards all other publishers are held to is not "over reach". Section 230 was created when the internet was a new thing, and it was an industry in its infancy. Now these corporate behemoths abuse this overly broad grey area carved out for them with rights granted, but no matching responsibilities enforced. There is a simple solution to the smaller sites problem, simply define these new restrictions as only applying to operations which pass a certain user base threshold. This approach is used in other legislation. Of course you don't care about any of this as long as only the people you agree with can tweet, or have any access whatsoever to the necessities of communicating in the modern world. Literally, yes, literally.

[suchmoon]

Of course you don't care about any of this as long as only the people you agree with can tweet, or have any access whatsoever to the necessities of communicating in the modern world. Literally, yes, literally.

As I said I barely use Twitter and most of that use is reading Trump's rants so I'm still suspecting that you don't know what "literally" means.

And assuming that what you're saying is true, shouldn't Trump stop using the platform run by criminals. That's not a good look. He could pick a smaller platform that doesn't discriminate against conservatives, his loyal base would surely follow, media would surely follow, sounds like a win for everybody. And he can still prosecute the criminals without letting them monetize his presence on their platform.

[TwitchySeal]

Poor guy had his constitutional rights violated for 7 days.

[squatz1]

Honestly I couldn't agree more with ya here SuchMoon. I'd still consider myself someone who agrees with the ideals of a Republican and a Conservative, but watching supporters of the party and the party itself attempt to bend over backwards to find some logic to support this EO is insane.

This is an attack on the rights of companies here, and in the past Republicans would've been appalled to hear the government is getting involved in capitalism and business. But no -- they're all just sitting around and complaining.

I'm against Twitter / Facebook / Instagram (etc) censoring, but they do have a right to do as it is their platform. If you don't like it - MAKE A NEW PLATFORM - DON'T GET BIG GOVERNMENT INVOLVED.

[DireWolfM14]

Only "big" ones?

Poor choice of words, geese and ganders and all.

These are basically on-demand services, they don't broadcast the same thing to everyone - users choose what they want to see, and there is no lack of "unpopular opinions" on those sites, or other sites all the way to 8chan or whatever it's called these days.

True, but not all unpopular opinions are treated equally.  Like it or not, these social media platforms have become the place where ideas congregate, where humans virtually "assemble," both things that are protected by the first amendment.  It's painfully obvious that they shadow ban, or out-right ban proponents of conservative ideals.  On the other hand they are businesses, which are free to conduct business any way they choose.  I would never condone restrictions on free enterprise.  However, when free enterprise are extended certain protections for one reason or another, they should not be allowed to abuse those protections.  It was our government that provided them with those protections in the first place, so it's up to us to act when there is abuse.

How far do we go with regulating the content?

I never suggested any regulation, I would be opposed to any, and I fear that specifically conservative notion could be the end of conservatives in this nation.  Conservatives are more likely to support the very freedoms that are currently being used and abused to paint them as evil racists.  That's a risk I'm willing to accept, however.

I am more likely to support an effort by our government to educate the public, but that begs the question of where and how?  Schools?  Colleges?  Can we really expect some of the most liberal organizations in this country to support such a conservative notion as freedom of speech?  Many of these organizations are directly responsible for political correctness, which is a form of suppression of speech.  

It's been a long time since I've been in a class room but I remember taking a critical thinking class in college.  However, I don't see many implementing those skills.  The most critical thing being ignored by liberals in this particular social media battle is that the shoe could very easily be on the other foot.  Imagine if Jack Dorsey was a bible thumping homophobe, shadow banning Planned Parenthood, and transgender-rights groups.  We'd have riots in the streets.  

Being a conservative in a very liberal environment, I'm fairly sensitive about these issues.  I feel like those who think and believe the way I do are under attack.  The movies undermine us, the news misrepresents us, intentionally many times, and now social media giants want to silence us.  This is an issue that should be of concern to all Americans, it is an affront on our most basic of rights.

[suchmoon]

I never suggested any regulation, I would be opposed to any, and I fear that specifically conservative notion could be the end of conservatives in this nation.  Conservatives are more likely to support the very freedoms that are currently being used and abused to paint them as evil racists.  That's a risk I'm willing to accept, however.

Trump is now demanding that FCC and other agencies come up with regulations. It's not a done deal that they will (FCC is supposed to be independent) but do you support what he's trying to do here?

I am more likely to support an effort by our government to educate the public, but that begs the question of where and how?  Schools?  Colleges?  Can we really expect some of the most liberal organizations in this country to support such a conservative notion as freedom of speech?  Many of these organizations are directly responsible for political correctness, which is a form of suppression of speech. 

The government can surely support certain education standards but conservatives tend to be against education spending.

Imagine if Jack Dorsey was a bible thumping homophobe, shadow banning Planned Parenthood, and transgender-rights groups.  We'd have riots in the streets.  

I doubt that. Most social media users (trigger warning - blatant stereotyping follows) don't really give a shit. Might explain why there's no right-wing social media (assuming the existing social media is leftist).

[TwitchySeal]

I think some sort of regulations are inevitable.  I'm not sure what it will look like, but I think it would have to be a long process and include some sort of agreement with many other countries.  

This EO is a political stunt, but say Trump gets re elected and finds a way to navigate or circumvent the courts and gain the power to actually control social media sites on his own without any actual legislation, why wouldn't they just relocate to another country?  If that happened, then what?  I guess they could sanction them?  The great MAGA firewall?

Actual Conservatives^^

[suchmoon]

why wouldn't they just relocate to another country?  If that happened, then what?  I guess they could sanction them?  The great MAGA firewall?

If they keep doing business in the US they would have to comply with US laws and regulations, regardless of where they're headquartered. Remember, "social media" or "search engine" are just euphemisms for "ad agency". And I doubt they would provide those platforms to US users for free without trying to monetize them. So they would have to either abandon the US market or cave to Trump.