Skip to comments.President Trump Rips Into Social Media Censorship
Posted on 08/18/2018 8:42:11 AM PDT by Helicondelta
click here to read article
I have been boycotting FB since I detected the bias in the replies. I suggest you consider that too.
This is all prelude to a false-flag event, probably on September 11th.
After that nobody’s speech except theirs is going to be allowed in the runup to the election.
As long as democrats heap abuse on those with another point of view I pay them back in my own way....Silence toward them.
There are people here who believe Facebook is an essential utility, one that must be regulated.
Regulated by whom?
And just what is so essential?
Maybe...for hackers, burglers, child molesters, murderers, rapists, the "deep state" etc
About time. The liberals are trying to control Social Media just as they control
MSM TV Networks and Newspapers.
There are people here who believe that it usblegitimate to ban conservatives from social media. If you can believe it.
There are people here who believe that it is legitimate to ban conservatives from social media.
Man I thought that I had just learned a NEW Word, tried Searching it and everything to no availe.
Then I saw Your correction.🤪
I’ve always boycotted FaceCrap and believe it’s a platform for self absorbed people that play keep up with the Jones. I could give a rat’s ass if your child took its first dump or you bought a new house or took a vacation. If I wanted to know, I would ask you in a face to face conversation, no by reading yourFaceCrap page.
These people are the Compliant Conservatives who have taken it up the tailpipe for so long they actually enjoy it.
There's the "We'll just make our own internet, wires and everything, from scratch because, uh, free enterprise, or something like that!" idiocy.
They think that if we get banned from Twitter, we'll just make our own Twitter, hundreds of millions of people will flock to it, and that'll be the end of it.
Complacent, short-sighted, and naive.
And then there's the "I don't care if conservatives get banned from Facetweet because I don't use Facetweet. I just go outside and yell at clouds and President Trump needs to stop using Facetweet and start yelling at clouds because I don't use Facetweet and neither should anyone else!"
Clueless old Grandpa Simpsons who have no understanding of the power of modern social media.
I can’t think of a legal way to stop Facebook, Twitter or Youtube to decide for themselves who to keep or ban.
Just because we want them to stop discriminating against conservative thought doesn’t mean they will.
They weasel and twist to say it is hateful, discriminatory, anti-this and that... It’s very hard to fight them and prove they did anything wrong. And when you sign up for their services, you have to agree to their terms and conditions, ambiguous and nebulous as they are.
Right now, only shame can stop them, and if you expect them to be shamed, you’re expectations are higher than mine or anyone I know this side of fantasyland.
The only way is to either create vigorous competitors to these sites or pass legislation making the public utilities or try them as monopolies.
I do not think that last two will work. If either does, it will be challenged in court. There are too many liberal judges, and even a strict Constitutionalist will may trouble with such a law.
We need to stop using these social media sites. We need to use gab.ai and others as our ONLY social media sites. If enough people get on, these sites will grow and get better.
gab.ai = twitter.com
Social Media Alternatives for Conservatives click —> https://ricochet.com/503703/social-media-altenatives-for-conservatives/
Please provide the legal and judicial framework to force them, then.
I cannot think of a way. I really want to know how you think Twitter, Facebook and Youtube, given the plethora of Millennial SJW moderators, public and hidden, that are embedded into these companies.
If any thing, I see it getting much, much worse.
No, “regulation” is different than just not allowing them to regulate. The case is very simple: they enjoy an exemption from liability for content published on their platforms that publishers such as newspapers do not. The reason: promotion of free speech. Either they give up that exemption, and get sued every time someone posts libelous content on their platform, or get out of the business of regulating content on any other basis other than that it’s illegal under the First Amendment or not. In other words, they have no basis for removing content that is otherwise protected under the First Amendment.
Well, I'm not a lawyer and I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn last night but if I was, I'd say let's start looking at the laws that give these sites protection under the definition of being platforms and not publishers, laws like the DMCA.
If I post something illegal on Twitter, CEO Jack Dorsey isn't going to go to prison. He'll argue, correctly, that the DMCA protects him because Twitter, as a platform, is not responsible for what its users post.
Except... When Dorsey starts censoring posts that are otherwise perfectly legal, Twitter becomes a de facto publisher and should be held to the same legal standards that other non-platforms are.
Let's start there. If you want the legal protections offered to platforms, you need to get out of the business of censoring legal speech. If you want to censor speech, then prepare to be treated as a publisher, held responsible for everything posted on your site, and lose the protections offered to platforms under the DMCA and other similar legislation.
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.