Biden Aide Signals Push For Greater Censorship On The Internet

We leftists have a problem with people using FB to flat out LIE about our elections and yes flat out lying about our elections IS election fraud by definition. Republicans get all upset about anyone but them doing that since lying is their stock in trade.

Look, if conservatives don't like the way FB runs its own PRIVATE PROPERTY they are more than free to start their own. FB and Twitter and all the rest are basically just web pages with lots of features and there are virtually NO barriers to entry in that business. If someones thinks there's this huge advertiser's market based on Neo-Nazi Rants and racist screeds why don't they go for it? Someone might be the alt. right, Zuckerberg

 

lol, so is it election fraud to claim theres been election fraud?

Do you think FB should be protected from the liability of its users' speech as a public forum while its censoring their political speech?

 

If the claim is based on a flat-out lie then yes. Lying IS fraud.

If FB is lying they should be subject to the same sanctions as anyone else that's lying.

Again, it's only Republicans that seem to say they're being censored when FB tells them not to lie and that seems to indicate that it's only Republicans who are lying.

FaceBook ISN'T a public forum. Facebook is Mark Zuckerberg's Web page. You have a Web Page, should you be forced to put on things you strenuously disagree with?

 

If lying is fraud, then lying is illegal. But, of course, it isn't.

FB and Twitter are no longer public forums. Affording them liability protections as public forums while they do not operate as public forums is more demonstrably 'fraudulent' than anything anyone is being censored for on those platforms.

 

why do you think Trump should not have to follow the same rules everyone else does?

 

I know, he had black skin.

 

I don't follow those who get stuff deleted all that closely.
But comments from the twitter, fb, etc, claim they don't do any moderation based on pure politics.

As for Gab getting some short end of sticks. It's likely because reputable companies don't want to be associated with them. As is their right as a business.

The App Store and Google Play have removed Gab from their respective platforms due to "objectionable content" and "hate speech," respectively, which Gab says could have a negative impact on its business, according to the company's filings.

The platform came under fire after a Gab account attributed to Robert Bowers, the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooter, was discovered on the website, where he spread anti-Semitic messages.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/what-is-gab

 

Of course you don't have data backing that up.

For it's just the opposite. ATT wasn't regulated into a monopoly. It was regulated to break up.
Google, FB are not regulated into a monopoly, in fact, republicans want to regulate them to break them up.

So, I think you are way way off base.

 

You need to learn what fascism is.

Or what Chomsky's about...

Naw, both.

 

I dropped Chomsky after he defended Pol Pot.

 

It's not as if I believe you are actually open to reading information which oppose any opinions but your own, but yes there are arguments in basic economics 101 indicating that government regulation and intervention creates monopolies.

Ron Paul Explains How Government Creates Monopolies
https://www.capitalism.com/government-create-monopolies/

The Many Ways Governments Create Monopolies
https://mises.org/wire/many-ways-governments-create-monopolies

Government-Created Monopolies Are Everywhere
https://mises.org/wire/government-created-monopolies-are-everywhere

Governments Create Monopolies and Cause Worker Exploitation, Not Free Markets
https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom...s-cause-worker-exploitation-not-free-markets/


...but I usually don't provide links, because I seriously doubt people are interested in anything which is outside their personalized bubble of "truth".

 

From the Ron Paul link. A person I would have voted for.

“Monopolies and cartels are creations of government, not markets,” Paul wrote. “For example, the reason the media is dominated by a few large companies is that no one can operate a television or radio station unless they obtain federal approval and pay federal licensing fees.”
Can you imagine the mess in wireless communications and the Nat'l Security issues there'd be if the Radio waves were not regulated? We'd have plane crashing everywhere. Signals crushing other signals.

But I do agree, there are industries, such as pharma, where they bribe the gov't to squelch competition.
It's one of the reason's you hear about us so called lefties hate multinational corporations. Because they get favorable legislation from gov't because they bribe then with campaign funds.
But republican call us mean for hating corporations.

 

So Facebook, Twitter, Google, Microsoft and ISP get the benefit of not being held liable for what other post on their platforms but they can hold Gab liable? I disagree.

Also, ISP have certain monopolies, like you power company. The power company should not be able refuse service because they don't like your views. Neither should an ISP.

 

The walls of free speech are closing in.

This year several journalists got cancel cultured by the thought police at their large media outlets and went independent at Substack. Ex: Andrew Sullivan, Glenn Greenwald, Matthew Yglesias are a few.

Now the thought police are attacking Substack. This does reek of media control by The State.

 

I think people are responsible for their speech, but I think a business can give them the boot if they are speaking hate or inciting violence

would you like to go to a restaurant that was forbidden by law to kick people out that were screaming hate and inciting violence in their business?

 

if republicans get their way and make social media platforms responsible for their users speech.... Censorship will be the worse then you have ever seen

no free services would exist anymore, no anonymity

 

I agree it would be a very slippery slope. But let's also point out what it is exactly republicans were trying to do is hold platforms responsible for censorship (that is preventing views from being seen), which isn't exactly the same as what you suggested.
In some ways it could be seen as the complete opposite.

 

I never picked him up.

Tell me, do you think he's a Fascist?

 

all sites have a TOS, this one is no exception, Twitter and Facebook offer a free service, people just have to follow the TOS

 

We've discussed this in other threads. And your objection is an off-topic one in this thread.

Yes, some conservatives are a little bit hypocritical, in a way, but only in a way, not directly.
Do you have anything else? Anything else to show conservatives are trying to implement censorship?

 

Worse. He is a Communist.

 

He was arguing Chomsky was a Fascist..

Which was interesting in a completely uninteresting way. Really, how do they do it?

 

By using the same sort of logic whereby some people call Trump a fascist.

 

No. But thats not what the problem is. The problem is that social media are being afforded the liability protections of being a public commons while they are also discriminating against people for their political speech. They are reaping all the legal benefits of being a public commons while simultaneously censoring as a private entity.

If they're gonna censor some 'incitement to violence', they should be held liable for any 'incitement to violence' that they don't censor. But as a public commons, they arent liable for any of it.

Should a city park be able to ban MAGA hats? Should a city park be held legally liable if someone decorates it at night with effigies of minorities in nooses?

Either its a public commons or private property. It can't be both. Social media is being allowed to be both.

Im all on board with them censoring whomever they like. But when they don't censor something that is actually incitement to violence they should be held liable for promoting that violence.

 

they are a private members only club, same as a Christian church that doesn't let Muslims come there and preach

they can make the rules for their private club, usually referred to as a TOS

do you really want the government taking away that control from people that offer a free place to meet? like a church?

what about the churches web site, if they allow Christians to chat there, do they have to allow everyone?

someone else can set up a free far right wing site if that is what they want