Trump Blasts Social Media ‘Censorship': ‘Discriminating Against Republican/Conservative Voices’

Oh! Rubbish!

What about when the NRA introduced legislation in Florida to prevent Medical officers asking about guns in the house? They were set to roll that out across numerous states

 

Facebook, youtube, twitter, itunes, etc, have a monopoly where content sharing and social media is concerned. That didn't happen overnight, and nobody is going to be able to create something equivalent anytime soon. These companies know this, which is undoubtedly why they feel so free to blatanly discriminate. They know that they force people into ideological submission, or simply allow them to die off in obscure parts of the internet.

 

Uh, what?

 

Read for yourself

https://www.newsweek.com/nra-backed-law-limiting-doctors-gun-speech-struck-down-557944

 

i disagree. in fact their austerity has created the perfect opportunity for an enterprising party who wishes to take advantage of an underserved marketplace.

i have already stated that banning content you don’t like is bad business... but guess what? you have a right to run a bad business.

i also take issue with your suggestion that silicon valley platforms you reference above are monopolies. the world wide web is an infinite resource. these platforms may be overwhelmingly popular, but there are infinite alternatives not even including the thousands of new sites, blogs, and rss feeds that will be published tomorrow, the day after, and the day after that...

 

Seriously man? I can't recall a time I've seen someone go so far off topic. This thing has nothing to do with the other thing... which is social media platforms censoring conservatives. Do you have anything to say concerning this topic or not?

 

Ok, well go solve the problem. Go create a platform that won't discriminate against conservatives. It should only take you 20mins, as you stated earlier.

 

it’s not my problem to solve. i have no stake in facebook, youtube, twitter, et al. noted, however, that you avoided actually responding to my post, choosing instead to deploy your red herring.

 

Lol, alrighty then.

 

i graciously accept your concession.

 

No, it's just that you're not here to have a discussion, you're here to impress yourself and others with some copy/paste talking points. Have a good night.

 

first you dodge substantive debate with your red herring, and now you make unsubstantiated allegations. please cite the locations from which you allege i “pasted talking points.” it would appear that you are the one disinterested in having a discussion... which is why i already graciously accepted your concession.

but by all means, link my alleged talking points and i will withdraw my acceptance of your concession and will permit you to reopen the debate.

 

It isn't remotely equivalent. You can access content from any & all conservatives you wish to with a few keystrokes. You don't have to drive a few miles. You don't even have to get off your lazy arse. Just use your fingers and your mouse. Takes a few minutes at most, then just bookmark the appropriate sites.

This is basically like whining that you can't read Michelle Malkin in the New York Times, or that Noam Chomsky doesn't get a weekly show on Fox. It is like complaining that the letters page of the Boston Globe won't publish a letter claiming 9/11 was an inside job. Publishers aren't required to publish anything that is submitted to them. Radio & TV networks aren't required to provide a platform for anyone who wants to use them to get out their message, yet all of these forms of communication are much harder to compete with in their own formats than anything on the internet.

Put simply, if you can't access any content you want without Facebook, Youtube or twitter then it is because you are lazy or stupid. If you don't know about the existing alternatives it is your fault for not looking. If conservative commentators are too lazy or stupid to put their content on other platforms or websites & then tell people where it is then they don't deserve to be heard. of course, you can access anything Jones has to say in the time it takes you to read my post. You do know that, don't you?

The whole argument here seems to be 'conservatives are too lazy & dumb to type a few keystrokes so the government should force private companies to host any content someone wants to put up'. Not a very compelling argument.

 

So essentially you're okay with the blatant discrimination of conservatives.

It doesn't bother you that they'd be forced into venues where their reach is drastically diminished?

It's not simply about the discrimination against the content providers and those who reguraly enjoy their content, it's also about the ability of these providers to reach a larger audience who would've never found that content... because I'll be darned... they use facebook, youtube, and twitter like everyone else, and they're completely unaware of these small obscure platforms that conservatives will be pushed into, or forced to create themselves.

People need information to become informed. People in general don't seek out information, often they simply stumble upon it. What we have now is a situation where those who control an absurd portion of information have decided that they're going to decide what information people stumble upon. This is wrong. This is not something which is defensible, unless you're willing to admit that you approve of biased censorship.

 

Gee, we're writing/typing aren't we? Mainstream news sources now have online sites right? I'd say that's pretty much speech and the freedom of it.

 

you do understand facebook is not the government, right? re-read the 1st amendment and get back to me.

 

I approve private content providers deciding what content they provide. I'm frankly amazed anyone would think otherwise. I'm not fussed whose ideas this is applied to.

No, it doesn't.

I live in a nation where the vast bulk of the print media is controlled by Rupert Murdoch - a foreign citizen who also runs Fox. This happened before the internet, so it gave him greater reach than any other person or company to determine whose opinions did & did not get published. In some cities he controlled all the newspapers. I don't like his publications or their strong right wing slant, but I've never once heard anyone demand that he be forced to print left wing views. Noe of the right wing 'free speech warriors' seemed the slightest bit concerned that in some cities the only newspaper to read would be controlled by Rupert. I certainly didn't argue he should be forced to print views he disagreed with. People who didn't agree with him still informed themselves. Worlds did not end. Now that the internet is big there are a variety of online publications people who lean left can access.

Ok, so the 'people are lazy or stupid' argument.

Do you get how fluid online environments are? No one forces anyone to use any of these sites. As I said, it takes next to no time to find an alternative. So little effort it is laughable.

Four or five years ago twitter had 300 million monthly users. Go back that many years and it had about 30 million. Flash forward to today and it still hasn't passed 350 million. When twitter hit 300 million Instagram was at 90 million. Now it has topped 1 billion. In 2006 the mot visited website on the net wasn't google or Facebook, it was Myspace. As for youtube, videos can be accessed in a variety of ways.

All of this is user driven. All conservatives have to do is put out the word that there are friendlier websites. Use notice boards like this. Use other forums, of which there are a bewildering variety. Put up a post on Reddit. Start a Tumblr site to spread the word. People who want to go will go.

And we are back to 'people are lazy and stupid'. Finding alternative information is the easiest thing in the world. Setting up platforms to host content isn't much harder, though alternatives already exist. If the people you see as potential recruits to your cause are so lacking intelligence or curiosity that they can't be bothered doing an online search then you have a problem that no online provider can fix.

You say that private companies deciding what content appears on their platforms is 'not defensible', yet you limit that to certain sorts of platforms. You aren't upset about Fox or the WSJ, yet it is as easy for people to find an alternative to FB or Youtube as is is to find an alternative to those, and it is infinitely easier to create an alternative.

Lets game this out a bit.

What should be done about the current situation and by whom? What content should providers be allowed to block & what should they be compelled to carry? Which providers should this apply to? Everyone with an online presence, or just the platforms you don't like? Why should those particular platforms be targeted? How is this to be enforced?

 

One more thing while I'm at it. There hasn't been some blanket purge of 'Conservative voices' (of whom the most prominent is a mentally ill/completely fake conspiracy nut) from the listed platforms. If that were the case no one here would be able to post. There are still plenty of right wing content providers. By all means argue the merits or otherwise of removing a handful, but lets not act like this is wholesale.

 

I can't say the same. I couldn't support fb, youtube, etc selectively targeting progressives. It's wrong.

You're comparing newspapers to online content? Pft, next...

People use these platforms because they're so massive. In fact, most smartphones already come with youtube, google, fb apps. This is how most people found these conservative voices, during a time when these platforms were less hostile. Conservatives can "spread the word" all they want, but that's not going to do much good if they're doing so from said platforms, or from platforms which few people use.

That's not how it works. The typical person isn't out there looking, they're clicking on shared or recommended links while on these platforms. People who've STUMBLED upon the most popular conservative commentators we have today, the same ones who've been singled out, did so through a shared or recommended link on youtube, fb, etc. This isn't a trait of conservative fb, youtube users, this is youtube, fb users in general. It's based on algorithms, and even those have been altered to discriminate.

Again, you're trying to compare print and television to online content. It's a non-starter. The biggest difference being that online content is interactive. Television and print were never intended to be platforms for basically anyone with a keyboard or a webcam.

How about this; youtube, fb, etc simply moderate incitement, slander, and libel... then let the ideological chips fall where they may.

 

There should definitely be laws that forbid registrars from engaging in political discrimination. A specific social media site has the right to have political censorship, but companies that manage the Internet itself do not. Otherwise it's a trust.

What if your phone company shut down your line because they heard you engage in wrongthink through automatic speech recognition?

That's what we're dealing with here.

 

As I stated earlier in the thread, it's only been Alex Jones who's been so obviously and blatantly censored. Literally everyone else I listen to or watch has been, demonitized, had content removed, or banned, even if temporarily. It's not conspiracy theory, it's actual conspiracy. But you wouldn't know, because you clearly don't consume conservative content, plus you don't care either way.

 

Unwanted.

There's no shortage of leftist pages being removed from social media site. It wouldn't take much research on your part to confirm it.

 

Like who? Vox, The Young Turks, Vice? Who?

 

You people really don't understand how the 1st ammendment works do you?
The government is threatening a private company for how it choses to express itself, THAT is when we invoke the 1st ammendment. You Trump supporters spent years arguing and fighting for companies to have unlimited free speech in the form of money, but now that a companies expression displeases you, you would like to see them punished, and by the government?
You folks have zero consistency and no morals

You can try to argue about monopolies if you chose (but remember when the right argued that all these mergers leaving only a few companies holding vast monopolies was a great thing?) but you have zero understanding if you are invoking 1st amendment here.

 

Here is the great thing, you can withdraw your support for them right now. Don't use them. Use something else. Tell your friends.

Yes, I am, though I admit it is an imperfect comparison. It is WAY easier to get alternate views online now than it ever was when newspapers, TV & radio were the only alternatives.

This is getting sillier & sillier.

1) no one is compelled to use those apps. I have never used two of those on my smartphone, and could skirt the third tomorrow if I chose. You can install other apps to do the same things.

2) People can find 'conservative voices' on those platforms right this minute and you know it. I can google Alex Jones right now. There are countless conservative youtube channels. I see conservative stuff all the time on my FB feed.

3) You can still use those platforms to 'spread the word'. Set up third party sites to host the 'banned' content & tell people where to go. Easy!

4) There are PLENTY of places people can go to find this stuff out. This website is one of them. There are millions of others.

You keep inventing non reasons why this is impossible and then falling back on 'lazy & stupid' as an excuse.

OK, so now you are relying on an invented idea of the 'typical person', who is apparently so lazy, stupid & disengaged that they have to have Conservative ideas forced down their throats to even notice them. And you want private companies who don't want to promote those ideas to do it for you. Sorry, this is a non-argument.

No, they weren't that easy to access, so their discrimination against certain ideas should be even more concerning because it is so much harder to compete with. It is precisely because the online world is so open that it is so hard to create monopolies & control information. People found alternative information when it was much more restricted, yet somehow in an age when users move from platform to platform with a keystroke, and anyone with a child's knowledge of the net can create a website, it is suddenly impossible to find alternative voices? Sorry, you are making my argument for me.

You have deliberately avoided the questions I posed. We have established that they are doing more than that, so what should be done & by whom? To whom should it be limited - every news organisation has an online presence too. Just saying 'I want what I want when I want it' isn't a solution.

Of course have already provided you with solutions. You could stop using the platforms in protest. Tell all your conservative friends to do the same. Put those companies in a situation where what they are doing hurts business. Set up forums & web pages where Conservatives can locate the information they want. Drive traffic elsewhere. Stop relying on someone who doesn't agree with your ideas to promote them.