Posted on 12/14/2018 2:18:33 PM PST by DiogenesLamp
How did this happen? Big Tech lobbyists orchestrated the quiet insertion of a seemingly innocuous provision (Article 19.17) into the deal that is based on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230, much beloved by big tech, and an essential building block of their monopolistic dominance, holds that platforms like Facebook cannot be held liable as a "publisher or speaker" of their users' content.
(Excerpt) Read more at acecomments.mu.nu ...
The government is now an owned and operated subsidiary of Monster Tech."
Will you learn? Will you finally understand that when you get enough power, the lines between "private" and "public" become so blurred as to be nonexistent?
What the hell are you going on about? Do you want Jim Robinson held accountable for everything that gets posted on FR? This is a WIN for free speech and Web forums, not a loss.
My main issue with this is : if they can’t be held liable they shouldn’t be allowed to pick and choose what customers say either - or they should at least have to hire outside to make the decision if they are getting off the hook.
Free Republic is not a threat. It is an asset.
Google is regulating it's traffic to suppress conservative speech, and to promote liberal speech. Their search results routinely reflect their own preferred biases, and not a objective search result that people think they are getting.
Google is becoming a serious threat, and other communications companies are becoming threats as well, although lesser threats than Google.
/s
Absolutely wrong, on all counts. The legislation being proposed to end social media censorship (SMACA) applies only to social media that are so large that they are the public square. There are only about three of them. Small forums like FR are exempt.
I grabbed some of your names from previous discussions on similar subjects to this. I do not have, nor do I intend to create a "ping" list. This is a one time thing for this particular bit of news that I thought was newsworthy to people interested in the subject of Big Tech suppressing public speech.
Participate or not as is your preference.
Muh Private Monopolistic Overlords: Google Schemed To Block Breitbart from Making Money on Ads
""THE GOOD CENSOR" An internal company briefing produced by Google and leaked exclusively to Breitbart News argues that due to a variety of factors, including the election of President Trump, the "American tradition" of free speech on the internet is no longer viable. Despite leaked video footage showing top executives declaring their intention to ensure that the rise of Trump and the populist movement is just a �blip� in history, Google has repeatedly denied that the political bias of its employees filter into its products.""But the 85-page briefing, titled "The Good Censor," admits that Google and other tech platforms now "control the majority of online conversations" and have undertaken a "shift towards censorship" in response to unwelcome political events around the world."
That's news to me that Goodlatte is an employee of Google.
And yet he says Use of Antitrust Laws 'Needs to Be Reviewed'
"It's clear that companies like Google are doing more to edit the content that appears on their platform, making them more hands-on. If it were just, 'here's out platform, put whatever you want on it,' that's totally free speech. But if it's not free speech, why do they get a free pass on protection against libel, for example?" he asked, urging Americans to view the questions and answers from the hearing.
This is a much better written article than that blog that makes a specious claim regarding Goodlatte: How The New NAFTA Trade Deal Lets Big Tech Squelch Conservative Speech
He’s been accountable for it for well over 20 years and hasn’t had a problem.
This is FB/Twitter etc. wanting to not be liable for their censorship regime. This is like the phone company being able to deny you service because they don’t like your opinion... and getting away with it.
I see the writing on the wall also, but there is a difference between online tech companies like Facebook or Goggle and the telecommunications companies or ISP’s having these liberties.
One you can choose not to visit or use, the other most do not have much choice because they are locked into contract to let them do as they please just to also have phone service. You have to agree to the contract or you can’t even get phone service.
The power to censor or control use should never have been handed to telecommunications or Internet Service Providers. They should just be legal to provide a door to the internet or not without the power to control where in the room you go after you go through the door.
It’s like going to a restaurant and having the service provider dictate what you can or cannot have from the menu. You could get up and go to another restaurant, but in this case they will all be doing the same thing. So everyone is stuck with this abusive unfair business practice against your FREE CHOICE.
It should be one way or the other.
If they are publishers, they’re liable for what they allow to remain on the site. This means Twitter and Facebook can be sued for tolerating liberals calling for actual violence against conservatives.
If they are neutral platforms, then they are not liable for content created by users - but they cannot CENSOR as well.
From what I see, it looks like this treaty provision lets them have their cake and eat it too, censoring to their heart’s delight while not being liable for the liberal hate speech that remains.
It makes perfect sense to harmonize the regional NAFTA rules with US law, which is what this provision does.
The biggest unsolved problem is shadow banning.
Google is regulating it's traffic to suppress conservative speech,
It is quite obvious that Google hires libs and they hate conservatives, but it is very difficult to quantify. The bias tests developed by this expert: http://www.benedelman.org/hardcoding/ are now broken. They can be easily broken by google and replaced with other algorithmic biases. Worse, the regulators will not hire neutral experts but defer to political hacks. You can bet your browser that any imagined bias against any liberal or leftist site will be litigated. Worse still, the bureaucracy is full of liberals who cannot be fired.
Regulation will not solve our problems, and in the long riun it will make them worse with Google, Facebook and other giants using their public utility status to cement their monopolies.
It hasn't. Not only that, but everyone has at least three wireless providers to choose from and most people have at least two wired. Of course there are people who are greedy and say they will only accept the fastest provider so they can stream HD video. But it is incredibly stupid to push "net neutrality" over video streaming. Nothing else can be censored, only video.
Thanks for the ping, BTW.
Think the name has already been taken.
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.
