Posted on 08/11/2020 11:04:10 AM PDT by Kaslin
Two weeks ago, I wrote that the social media giants are refusing to allow people to publish anything about the Wuhan virus that contradicts information from the World Health Organization. This censorship hit close to home on Monday, when Facebook banned an American Thinker reader from posting William Sullivan's post about Sweden's successful decision not to implement lockdowns.
Nobody questions the fact that the social media giants — Twitter, Facebook, and Google/YouTube — have way too much control over American discourse. Americans believe they're participating in a free exchange of ideas, but they're learning that they're actually communicating within a censorious, controlling environment that takes its marching orders from the Democrats and, even more worrisomely, from China (at least indirectly):
Think about this: the largest platforms in America for ordinary citizens who want to share and learn information have made it clear that no one can talk about Wuhan virus issues if the WHO has not preapproved the data. Frankly, it's a terrible idea to have the WHO as the gatekeeper.
The Wuhan virus began in China. It may have been accidental, or, as even the most level-headed people are wondering, it might not have been. Regardless, China consistently lied about it, either to hide its mistakes or to spread the virus and damage the world economy.
The WHO actively aided China's deceit. Katie Pavlich summed up the evidence, showing that the WHO had information in December that there was a dangerous virus on the loose but that it continued to report Chinese propaganda as fact, even after it was apparent that China was lying. Mike Pompeo asserts that U.S. intelligence shows that China paid to install WHO's current head, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. (Tedros denies this charge.)
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Title says it all.
So why should we or any news/opinion platform incorporated in the US care what the WHO's position is?
Because China is...
I quit Face Book a long time ago, and this is one reason why.
Ping
GOOGLETWITTERFACBOOKYOUTUBE is a communist organ................
As free enterprises, Twitter, Facebook, and Google/YouTube have every right to tailor their product however they want. The feds have no constitutional say.
What about the people? Well that’s the beauty of the market economy free from government interference. As buyers/consumers, people are free to go elsewhere.
Those on the Right need to quit sniveling and come up with their own Twitter, Facebook, and Google/YouTube with whom they can compete and prevail over the Left.
Bump
Wow, Facebook is getting more and more fascist. I would love to see their demise but they are keeping themselves relevant with their new marketplace feature.
Impossible. Why would your friends and family just uproot themselves from Facebook to join some unknown other site? No, Facebook and Google need to be destroyed. Trump needs to revoke their US business licenses.
You misunderstand one thing: Twitter, Facebook, and Google/YouTube are protected from liability for damages for what is posted because they have said they will operate as a platform, not as a pubisher. So, yes, when they operate as a platform they are restricted to limiting speech to a few areas like pornography and overt violence.
You mean they have the right to tailor the content as content PUBLISHERS. Wonder if you have any inkling of what that implies.
Yeah, it implies speech free from government interference - that on which America is founded.
Get a clue.
Protected from liability for damages by whom?
Bullcrap. They are not free enterprise at all. They are partners in a fascist arrangement with the Government. The government gives them special protection from competition and litigation, and in return, they do things that would be illegal for government such as suppression of free speech, massive surveillance which they share with CIA/NSA/FBI.
And then of course, many of them have benefitted from US Government and DARPA money.
Last, they are government contractors. Think Raytheon or Lockheed could announce they are no longer hiring blacks or something like that? Think a University could announce they are no longer going to have women’s sports? No, because they take US government money.
If they accept US Govt contracts, they can be held accountable for all US law.
Look freedom and economic disruption isn’t perfect, but it is WAY ahead of whatever’s in second place.
It means liability in lawsuits from every day citizens (see Sandmann vs Washington Post) who have been slandered.
Get a clue.
I have one, thanks. You, not so much.
Although I still am on Facebook, I agree with you. I have Nieces on Facebook, my husband’s nieces are also on it. (He isn’t, as he doesn’t even know how to use a computer. He was never interested in it. One of my brothers is also on it and as is my other brother’s Son, my Nephew. Every once in a while I check in, but leave after 5 minutes or so, as I have absolutely no use for it.
Then it is the unconstitutional totalitarian feds who are committing the crime, not the free enterprise the feds have benefited. Any businessman who wouldn't accept free money would be an idiot. Business and free enterprise is about profits (and we ALL want to profit). The culprit is the culpable feds.
Raytheon or Lockheed...If they accept US Govt contracts, they can be held accountable for all US law.
Bona-fide military contracting is another story under the feds constitutional duty to defend our country. If the contract involves a constitutional federal endeavor like defense, then I suppose the contract could contain those caveats and conditions. It would depend on the terms of the contract.
But the feds have NO constitutional purpose in contracting with Twitter, Facebook, and Google/YouTube and, thus, the feds are committing illegal acts which should cease immediately.
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.