Banning of Conservatives on Social Media (Page 11/13)
2.5 JAN 19, 05:03 PM

quote
Originally posted by Old Lar:

I do believe that at least Facebook is blocking people with conservative leanings. I know that I am blocked from posting comments on political topics.. All my posts get an error message that: you cannot post at this time, try later. Other non political topics, I can post comments. I never had a twitter account. Facebook for me, just has advertisement after advertisement which I try to block, and will not support any Facebook advertisers. The only way for Facebook to stop "free speech" is to hit them in the pocket book. When advertisers leave, the Facebook money stream dries up.



The vid I just posted a few posts up mentions among other things how this is what they are attempting to do on youtube. But it is far from the only way. 1st thing they did was make a video incapable of supporting paying ads if it talked about something they didnt want it talking about, even if it gets tons of views.
Another simple way facebook does it is they choose words and things that are talked about and decide they are unacceptable (I'm not talking about profanity). AI acts on it 1st. They determine what they think is inaccurate as well, mark it on the post, or drop the post, or temporarily limit your ability to post.

*Like I mentioned before. It seems it is legal for these social media corps to do this because they arent the gov, but the gov can make sure they are successful, back them, set up systems to keep them on top.
Many folks left Facebook for Parler, then Parler was shut down.

"Parler was booted offline a week ago after Amazon Web Services cut its services, a move that followed decisions by Apple and Google to stop distributing the social network's mobile apps. The conservative microblogging site has sued to have its service restored."

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 01-19-2021).]

82-T/A [At Work] JAN 19, 05:56 PM

quote
Originally posted by theBDub:

Any forum hosted in the U.S. would change to require approval before your comment goes through. In other words, since Twitter would be responsible for a Tweet that you post, when you click "send," it would actually go to their backlog for approval, not directly posted. They'd likely have a human interpret the message (maybe AI if they trusted it well enough--they're on the line for it in the end), then approve your Tweet to post.

Given how many users there are vs. approvers/administrators, I wouldn't expect any posts, comments, Tweets, Facebook photos, etc. to post in less than a week if a human is to interpret them.

So when people say the sites will suddenly start censoring, that's what they mean. It will mean everyone has to wait for some arbitrator to decide if their post meets the host's legal threshold. Most sites would likely go offshore, if I were to guess, vs. hiring all the manpower required for manual approvals.




I'm not entirely sure. There's lots of parallels to things in the rest of the world that we could compare it to. I suspect there would need to just be some sort of agreement that you accept digitally... something like, you waive your right to sue by using this platform... or something to that effect.

If I go to the junkyard / pic-n-pull, by paying the admission, I waive my right to sue if I'm injured while working on a car. So, I think something like that could apply...
theBDub JAN 19, 06:05 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
I'm not entirely sure. There's lots of parallels to things in the rest of the world that we could compare it to. I suspect there would need to just be some sort of agreement that you accept digitally... something like, you waive your right to sue by using this platform... or something to that effect.

If I go to the junkyard / pic-n-pull, by paying the admission, I waive my right to sue if I'm injured while working on a car. So, I think something like that could apply...



But it’s not necessarily the user that would be suing the platform.

Let’s say Section 230 is revised, Twitter is now a publisher. I log into Twitter, click “I AGREE” to their legal mumbo jumbo, Tweet out “Todd stole a pencil from me in 5th grade.” It is a lie, but I tweet it anyway. You don’t use Twitter and haven’t agreed to their EULA. Brad then screenshots that Tweet and posts it on PFF. Your boss sees the screenshot and fires you.

You can now sue Twitter for damages because it was on their platform.

Edit: autocorrect from my phone...

[This message has been edited by theBDub (edited 01-19-2021).]

Wichita JAN 19, 06:15 PM

[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 01-19-2021).]

82-T/A [At Work] JAN 19, 06:21 PM

quote
Originally posted by theBDub:

But it’s not necessarily the user that would be suing the platform.

Let’s say Section 230 is revised, Twitter is now a publisher. I log into Twitter, click “I AGREE” to their legal mumbo jumbo, Tweet out “Todd stole a pencil from me in 5th grade.” It is a lie, but I tweet it anyway. You don’t use Twitter and haven’t agreed to their EULA. Brad then screenshots that Tweet and posts it on PFF. Your boss sees the screenshot and fires you.

You can now sue Twitter for damages because it was on their platform.

Edit: autocorrect from my phone...





I would have the right to sue you for libel... but not necessarily Twitter. But I see what you're saying... I haven't agreed to the EULA... but I'm not sure that there's a precedence for suing anyway... with or without section 230.
maryjane JAN 19, 07:03 PM

quote
Originally posted by 2.5:


I don't follow. How does any mean all?*
Prove to whom? **


* You placed no minimum or maximum limit or other quantitative measure on your statement. I'm on various other boards similar to PFF. A couple forbid any posting or discussion of any religious or political topics and issues. Any, without a limit, is all inclusive.

Not related to this post or thread, in Cliff's Forum Rules, one of the things he states is " In fact, I can ban anyone at my discretion if I deem it in the best interest of the forum.".
That means, IF he so desired, he could ban ALL members that he deemed put the best interest of the forum in jeopardy. For that matter, all members at his discretion if he wanted to.

** The readers upon whom you (via the video) are attempting to push that particular narrative.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-19-2021).]

maryjane JAN 19, 07:11 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
I would have the right to sue you for libel... but not necessarily Twitter. But I see what you're saying... I haven't agreed to the EULA... but I'm not sure that there's a precedence for suing anyway... with or without section 230.


It has been attempted more than once, tho the following article doesn't go into detail regarding the grounds for dismissal.


Washington — California Rep. Devin Nunes is suing Twitter — again — and a man who previously lived in his district, alleging a widespread stalking and harassment campaign against Nunes that he says was conducted on Twitter.

The complaint by Nunes provides almost no specific examples to support his stalking and harassment accusations. The man he is suing has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit under California’s anti-SLAPP law, which discourages frivolous lawsuits.
Nunes has been on a legal mission to find out the identity of the DevinCow Twitter account for nearly two years. He sued the account, as well as Twitter, in March 2019, trying to use discovery to find the identity of whoever was running the account. The account’s followers went from around 1,000 people to well over 600,000 people after that lawsuit was filed.

Nunes has filed a total of nine lawsuits in the past two years. He has sued media outlets such as The Washington Post, CNN, the owners of Esquire Magazine and McClatchy, the owner of the largest newspaper in Nunes’ district, The Fresno Bee. He also has sued political operatives, his own constituents and anonymous people on Twitter.

All of his lawsuits have been dismissed by judges, withdrawn by him or have dismissal motions pending. He has appealed or re-filed in cases where judges dismissed his lawsuits.

More at the link:
https://www.detroitnews.com...-stalking/115187992/

And of course this:

"ACalifornia man is suing Twitter and two progressive congresswomen in connection with President Donald Trump's suspension from the social media platform, citing "overbearing pain and suffering."

In the complaint filed in a U.S. District Court in California on Tuesday, Erik Estavillo argued that he and every "follower that was, without a doubt, emotionally and mentally damaged as a result of the Presidents' ban" is entitled to $88.7 million each.

Estavillo, who is representing himself, is also seeking the reinstatement of Trump's account and a retaliatory Twitter ban on Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, who, he argues, promote "Eastern communist philosophies."
https://www.newsweek.com/ao...ue-trump-ban-1561917

and
https://www.theverge.com/20...google-facebook-loss

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-19-2021).]

theBDub JAN 19, 07:13 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
I would have the right to sue you for libel... but not necessarily Twitter. But I see what you're saying... I haven't agreed to the EULA... but I'm not sure that there's a precedence for suing anyway... with or without section 230.



The precedent is what created 230 in the first place. I don’t remember the cases in detail, but there were two cases that were treated differently, both basically forums that were sued for the content.
maryjane JAN 19, 07:35 PM

quote
Originally posted by theBDub:


The precedent is what created 230 in the first place. I don’t remember the cases in detail, but there were two cases that were treated differently, both basically forums that were sued for the content.


Wolf of Wall Street lawsuit.


quote
Stratton Oakmont, a brokerage firm, sued Prodigy Services, an internet service provider, for defamation in the 1990s. Stratton was founded by Jordan Belfort, who was convicted of securities fraud and was portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio in the Martin Scorsese film about financial excess. An anonymous user wrote on Prodigy’s online message board that the brokerage had engaged in criminal and fraudulent acts.

The New York Supreme Court ruled that Prodigy was “a publisher” and therefore liable because it had exercised editorial control by moderating some posts and establishing guidelines for impermissible content. If Prodigy had not done any moderation, it might have been granted free speech protections afforded to some distributors of content, like bookstores and newsstands.



There were 2 lawsuits after the regulations were implemented that involved (allegedly) pornography.

One of the tenets of free speech is that everyone and anyone also has the right NOT to speak, and that is the tact Twitter, FB etc take.

rinselberg JAN 20, 10:49 AM
Here's one that I think is particularly interesting. About the Trump-friendly Mike Lindell. (I'm not going to call him a "conservative" because that's too dignified a word.) Banning of MyPillow products from retailer store shelves and on-line shopping websites.
https://www.nbcnews.com/new...referral_taboolafeed

Just last week (the last few days) Mike Lindell was photographed outside the White House after he visited with some of Trump's ranking staff in the National Security adviser portfolio (so to speak.) I'd have to look for the reports to say who exactly the media thought that Lindelll was talking to at the White House. The photographs revealed that he had some handwritten notes, one being to the effect of an "11th hour" maneuver to install a Trump political appointee, Kash Patel, as--was it the director of the CIA? To replace Gina Haspel, who I see just resigned at the last possible moment before Biden is inaugurated?

As I said when I was talking about pardons, "Don't sleep on Mike Lindell."

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-20-2021).]