Posted on 05/27/2020 9:56:09 AM PDT by Zenyatta
Google, youtube, twitter and FB are joined to stifle conservative speech. They have billions of views and subscribers. They systematically block opponents of democrats who are running against them in the election and rational gentlemen like Dennis Prager. They have the ability to effect the outcome of national elections by stifling political speech.
When FR reaches a billion subscribers and can significantly effect the election by stifling liberal speech, then it may be regulated.
When your e-mail and phone call contest are blocked you might take a second look.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation writes: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
47 U.S.C. § 230, a Provision of the Communication Decency Act
Tucked inside the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 is one of the most valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression and innovation on the Internet: Section 230.
This comes somewhat as a surprise, since the original purpose of the legislation was to restrict free speech on the Internet. The Internet community as a whole objected strongly to the Communications Decency Act, and with EFF's help, the anti-free speech provisions were struck down by the Supreme Court. But thankfully, CDA 230 remains and in the years since has far outshone the rest of the law. "Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230).
In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content.
Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish."
See how slick this statement is? I agree with this statement and I can easily PROVE it and FACT CHECK it. This moron just let a simple statement stand on its own because he knows full well that there are most who will take this by the left's biased view that conservatives are paranoid and want to actually silence them. It is the power of propaganda and projection.
There's absolutely nothing stopping my email provider (or yours) from blocking, editing or deleting my emails other than the terms of service we both agreed to when I started using the service.
Now, just like with the social media companies, the real governor is business. They wouldn't have many email customers if they behaved that way.
Also, don't be so sure your cell phone provider can't do the same thing - they aren't regulated the way AT&T was.
Twitter would be less that 1/3 what it is without Trump. Don’t think they’re THAT stupid.
And this bothered you?
Under what authority? I voted for Trump in 2016 because he promised us a return to small government. If I wanted to live in a country where the government censors social media I would have moved to China or North Korea.
We have the vast majority of small business owners and entrepreneurs on our side. If Facebook and Twitter are censoring conservative voices why don’t we just found our own conservative social media the way we did with Conservapedia when Wikipedia went full libtard on us? Let the liberal losers have Facebook and Twitter.
The problem with handing government too much power is it can and will be used against you when your opponents gain power. If Trump can shut down or force the liberal social media sites to host conservative voices what’s to stop a future Demonrat president from doing the same to FR to “defend liberal voices”?
FR is privately held.
“Twitter would tell you the same thing, and Jim removes content and zots users - just like Twitter.”
But Jim’s FR is not engaged in the overthrow of our constitutional republic, nor is Jim carrying out orders from the ChiComms.
Lunatic libertarians don’t understand that you can’t start a business and engage in treason.
your examples merely illustrate my point the googleyoutubeFBtwitter conglomerate can do it because thy are more powerful than my cell carrier. They can eliminate political speech online, a significant amount of it. They can control the election by controlling what many see.
I'll be charitable and assume that as usual you're misinformed, not dishonest.
Section 230 of the CDA applies equally to Twitter and FR. There's no special exemption for social media companies.
FR is privately held.
So was Twitter before their IPO. Your point is...?
The difference isn't power - your cell carrier has plenty of that.
The difference is your statements on the phone don't affect their ability to make money.
Unlike on Twitter, what you say doesn't alienate their other customers (or advertisers in the case of Twitter) so they have no reason to moderate your conversations.
If a large group of cell customers threatened to boycott your carrier because of your conversations your carrier would pay attention, trust me.
not that kind of power. How many hundreds of millions would have to boycott google/youtube/FB/twitter. you are ignoring the size and power of the cabal.
It’s like Ford, GM, and Chrysler combined in the 1930s and only Studebaker remained.
It was disconcerting to look at an article and with the second post two gay dudes appear out of the blue for seemingly no reason. Maybe it's an age thing. Young people are constantly doing that on social media, posting photographs or links with no description of what they are at all, and the viewer is assumed to be Sherlock Holmes, Miss Cleo and Perry Mason all rolled into one.
What would it have hurt you to state that this is the person to blame for what happens on Twitter? Instead I get a shock and wonder what your comment has to do with the price of beans in China.
Nobody in their right mind would even pretend to call FR a public utility.
I looked at your homepage and you claim to be a libertarian, so this explains your inability to interact in a normal manner. If you would, add misanthrope to your page description. Please don't reply back.
I wish the Bill of Rights had started with the first stating "Congress shall make no Law" and left it at that.
I actually classify myself as a Jingoistic Nationalist Objectivist Republican.
California Governor Ronald Reagan appealed to American libertarians in a 1975 interview with Reason when he said: "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism". ... Edward Feser emphasized that libertarianism does not require individuals to reject traditional conservative valuesTo me libertarian simply means AntiCommunist,AntiSocialist.
Individualism is synonymous with libertarianism.
If you had read through all of my profile you would have seen that I am not a Libertarian. I just had had enough of my Congressman, Newt Gingrich, who I helped to reelect year after year, caving in to Bill Clinton regarding the Budget.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.