Banning of Conservatives on Social Media (Page 1/13)
82-T/A [At Work] JAN 10, 11:27 AM
Before anyone immediately disregards this entire post because there is a Fox News logo in the lower left corner, let me state that I have not watched Fox News in over 4 years, a friend sent this to me. Also note, the information comes from Axios.


Trump has been banned from the following social media sites:




Additionally, Parler, the only well-known site that hasn't taken to banning conservatives, has just been removed from the Apple Store, Google Play Store, and AWS (who hosts them) has stated they are removing them from their servers tonight.

I think some are aware, but most of these companies are run by individuals that have a heavy bias towards China due to the fact that they want access to the huge Chinese market. While they are technically allowed to do what they are doing (they are private companies after all), the moral and ethical aspect of what they are doing is extremely dangerous.

Furthermore, it's also hypocritical. I don’t think anyone can justify banning Trump, when you have dictators of foreign countries *LITERALLY* calling for the death of America every day on these sites. The Ayatollah has 11 Twitter accounts, one for each different language that he wants to have outreach to. Every other Twitter post calls for the extermination of Jews, and death of America. Not once has he been banned, or a “warning” put on his feeds. Trump on the other hand, never actually said... “invade the capitol building” despite the fact that some are suggesting that’s what he meant. Big contrast to the things that Kim Jung Un and the Ayatollah say (as well as others).

Did you know that the Taliban has a Twitter group? So does Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, Al-Shabab, Hamas, and several others. These “official” accounts also have 100s of thousands of followers who say and do the same things. Not to mention that there are constant threats of death and assassination to Trump every day on Twitter that get completely ignored.


Discuss...


maryjane JAN 10, 11:42 AM
I sometimes wonder, if he had been banned from social media 2 1/2 years ago, the election results would have been completely different.

I do believe that social media 'owners' hold POTUS to a much higher standard than they do Iran, NK, PLO. ISIS etc.
I do as well.

But I also think antitrust action is needed in this issue.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-10-2021).]

sourmash JAN 10, 12:07 PM
I watched some Tucker for the first time in the Summer and then steadily for about 2 months around the election. He cucked out to the China crap.

Now listen, people who know can tell the people who are still totally duped by mass media when they mention China and Iran as having significant impact to our system.
It's not the Chinese, folks. They're making inroads, and in 20 years might be getting there some day. But for now, it's not the Chinese. And Iran is meaningless.

It's the owners of these platforms and they aren't Chinese. They don't work for the Chinese. Stop being duped. It also wasn't the Chinese who testified against Trump in the impeachment proceedings. It wasn't the Chinese in the Attorney General's position who wouldn't go after criminals burning cities and destroying national monuments. It wasn't the Chinese heading the FBI while they had the Biden laptop during the impeachment proceedings which proved the President wasn't guilty of Russian influence.

When they came for so-and-so, I said nothing because I wasn't so-and-so.
When they came for blah-blah, I said nothing because I wasn't blah-blah.
When they came for the President, I took the bait and blamed China because I didn't want them calling me names.

Now they're talking about compiling a list of Trump supports so they can go after them. The people making the list aren't Chinese. They are AOC and Democrat radicals in our government who openly call to take away things from people of a certain skin color to give to people of a different skin color.

[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 01-10-2021).]

williegoat JAN 10, 12:37 PM
I don't expect things to get better anytime soon. With a leftist executive and legislative stranglehold, there is nothing to stop them. I wonder how many Justices will be Scalia-fied over the next eight (sixteen?) years.
Blacktree JAN 10, 02:08 PM
Big Tech is angry about President Trump wanting to remove Section 230 protection. So they're lashing out at him.

Big Tech is basically a cabal. They compare notes, and coordinate with each other. Since they're private entities, they can censor and oppress people at their discretion, without fear. They basically have the power to control public discourse. They can't be voted out of office, and the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to them. This is like the robber baron situation, all over again.

To make matters worse, Big Tech has aligned themselves with one of the political parties. So by default, a large number of politicians will be unwilling to confront them.

I remember watching the Max Headroom TV show back in the day. It was set in a dystopian future, where media megacorporations ran the country. Looking back, it seems prophetic.
Synthesis JAN 10, 02:47 PM

quote
Originally posted by Blacktree:

Big Tech is angry about President Trump wanting to remove Section 230 protection. So they're lashing out at him.



The issue with the removal of Section 230 is that the internet will cease to exist as it does today. Section 230 offers certain protections to sites for the content they contain. Without these protections, the sites become vulnerable to prosecution for the content they contain, regardless of whether that data is provided by the site or the site's users, if there isn't a good policing process by these privately owned sites that manage the data they contain. The protections offered by Section 230 are specifically meant to allow the online forums that exist to continue to do so in a manner the complies with additional laws such as the distribution of CP, the advocation of violent and/or criminal actions, etc. Removal of this subjects sites and site owners to criminal prosecution for the content they contain as if they themselves posted the content that led to the criminal prosecution. Source: I am an IT Systems Engineer who works closely with the Legal and Security teams for privacy and security, including GDPR and content management. You can read Section 230 in its entirety here.


quote
Originally posted by Blacktree:
Big Tech is basically a cabal. They compare notes, and coordinate with each other. Since they're private entities, they can censor and oppress people at their discretion, without fear. They basically have the power to control public discourse. They can't be voted out of office, and the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to them. This is like the robber baron situation, all over again.



This is true.


quote
Originally posted by Blacktree:
To make matters worse, Big Tech has aligned themselves with one of the political parties. So by default, a large number of politicians will be unwilling to confront them.



They have. Historically, Facebook has aligned themselves with the Republican party. Twitter has been relatively neutral, allowing anyone/everyone to post, and removing most tweets that violate terms of service, with the exception of the President's account, as it became an official form of communication over the last four years and is subject to the Presidential Records Act of 1978. 44 U.S.C. Chapter 22


quote
Originally posted by Blacktree:
I remember watching the Max Headroom TV show back in the day. It was set in a dystopian future, where media megacorporations ran the country. Looking back, it seems prophetic.



I enjoyed that show.


This isn't a case of banning conservatives from Social Media, but more a case of the knee-jerk reaction to the violence perpetrated by far-right extremists on Wednesday at the instigation of the President. Many social media sites are knee-jerk reacting to this and just blanket banning anything that may cross a threshold as defined by them, without giving consideration to the actual content of the message. I do not believe it is being applied fairly across the board. I applaud the reaction solely because it is blocking hate speech and calls to violence and the like, but do not support the ideal of blanket banning everything just because.

When the dust settles, the damage will be done, and the nation will be further divided into us vs them.
Jake_Dragon JAN 10, 03:03 PM
Tear down the walls but lets be careful not to tear down our foundation at the same time.

Section 230 protection gives them immunity, what do they have to fear?
This flexing is just as bad if not worse than any thing Trump has said on social media.

Perhaps that's the plan. Keep the fires burning. Just remember we all live in this house.
82-T/A [At Work] JAN 10, 04:49 PM

quote
Originally posted by Synthesis:

The issue with the removal of Section 230 is that the internet will cease to exist as it does today.




This is a bit dramatic. I remember you saying essentially the same thing about the proposed FCC "Net Neutrality" regulation. The internet will be fine. The United States does not own the internet anymore, and does not control ICANN. If the United States magically disappeared, the internet would still function for the rest of the world except a few small outlying Caribbean nations who's primary pipe runs through the US.

Personally, I'm not sure we need to get rid of it, but the whole point of 230 was protection of freedom of speech, which clearly... these corporations (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) are not at all following. Funny enough, had we passed Net Neutrality, the Federal Government would have been allowed to place restrictions on these companies which they would have been forced to abide by.

Currently though, what's going on is that companies are ganging up on one or more companies to exact their supremacy in the name of something else. Private companies can do what they like, but they cannot gang up to defeat their competition, which they are presently doing with Parler.



quote
Originally posted by Synthesis:

They have. Historically, Facebook has aligned themselves with the Republican party. Twitter has been relatively neutral, allowing anyone/everyone to post, and removing most tweets that violate terms of service...





This is not at all a view that is consistent with anything I've seen. I would say Facebook as remained relatively neutral, but Twitter has very candidly been far left radical. If you're telling me you think Twitter has been neutral, then I think you perhaps do not know who Jack Dorsey is?
sourmash JAN 10, 05:13 PM
Synthesis JAN 10, 05:32 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

This is a bit dramatic. I remember you saying essentially the same thing about the proposed FCC "Net Neutrality" regulation. The internet will be fine. The United States does not own the internet anymore, and does not control ICANN. If the United States magically disappeared, the internet would still function for the rest of the world except a few small outlying Caribbean nations who's primary pipe runs through the US.

Personally, I'm not sure we need to get rid of it, but the whole point of 230 was protection of freedom of speech, which clearly... these corporations (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) are not at all following. Funny enough, had we passed Net Neutrality, the Federal Government would have been allowed to place restrictions on these companies which they would have been forced to abide by.



I think you are misunderstanding "Freedom of Speech" here... There is absolutely no way that "Freedom of Speech" can be impeded by a private business that offers a platform for end users to use to express their various viewpoints. Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government. Private entities as defined in my previous statement are not a part of that. Cliff can ban you from here because you said Happy Birthday to someone, if he wanted to, and that is not a violation of Freedom of Speech. With that in mind, applying that to Facebook, Twitter, etc, as you outlined in your comment is not viable.

When I said "cease to exist as it does today", I didn't say it would disappear. What that means is that all of these sites that allow you to express your opinion would have to start heavily policing the content. There goes the "Freedom of Speech" you just complained about. The slightest misinterpretation of a statement you make could result in your account being banned simply so they avoid any trouble. Section 230 is necessary in order to allow you and I have to have a conversation such as this without putting the website we are choosing to use at risk of prosecution because one of us says something that is potentially illegal. If Cliff were in the US and the site were hosted here, he'd be at risk of being prosecuted for the content you or I posted that was illegal. Instead, with Section 230, the US Government can go after you or I for the content by reaching out to Cliff to get our IP Address as part of a discovery and investigation process, and Cliff as the site owner would be safe. He's not in the US, so therefor this is not a risk for him.

As for the Net Neutrality portion of this discussion, we are already seeing the negative consequences of this. XFinity has instituted additional data caps for higher fees, because apparently data is a commodity that is rare. They have also "accidentally" blocked legitimate sites that are in direct competition with services they offer. Net Neutrality is a requirement to prevent Comcast from dictating what you or I see, and instead allow us to make those decisions ourselves, even if it means we choose to use one of Comcast's competitor services over Comcast's internet connection.



quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Currently though, what's going on is that companies are ganging up on one or more companies to exact their supremacy in the name of something else. Private companies can do what they like, but they cannot gang up to defeat their competition, which they are presently doing with Parler.



Violation of an organizations terms of service and being kicked off the service is not "persecution". AWS is not in competition with Parler, but Parler's content by its users directly violates AWS' terms of service. AWS has every right to kick Parler off of their service. Section 230 allows Parler to not be sued by the US Government because people on Parler are calling for violence in the Capitol on Inauguration Day. Google and Apple's Terms of Service were violated by Parler. Apple's letter to Parler that explicitly calls out the various sections that were violated. This may be somethin that is not being enforced equally, but I don't know of any other right-centric social media platforms that have no moderation process to remove threats of violence, which are not subject to Freedom of Speech protections. WeMe is another right-centric platform, but I am not familiar with their terms of service or moderation process.


quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
This is not at all a view that is consistent with anything I've seen. I would say Facebook as remained relatively neutral, but Twitter has very candidly been far left radical. If you're telling me you think Twitter has been neutral, then I think you perhaps do not know who Jack Dorsey is?



Facebook is very right-centric.I know who Jack Dorsey is. I've met the man multiple times as the CEO of the organization I used to work for is good friends with him. He's a nice guy. As for Twitter being far left radical, I'd really love for you to provide evidence to back up your words.