HOW THE LEFT IS OUTSOURCING CENSORSHIP OF THE INTERNET

Powerline ^ | AUGUST 17, 2018 | John Hinderaker

[SES1066]

Unfortunately, most political conversation these days occurs not on the “free” internet, where independent sites like Power Line reside, but rather on social media–Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and so on. Other players include Google (in its search capacity), Apple, Pinterest, Spotify, etc. Happily–if you are a leftist–all of these tech companies are run by liberals. And because they are private companies, they are not constrained by the First Amendment. They can restrict or ban conservative communications on the ground that they are “hate speech,” or on no grounds whatsoever, with impunity.

[SES1066]

I readily admit to being on the horns of this dilemma, as a libertarian and believer in private enterprise, I abhor governmental intervention here. On the other hand, as someone who acknowledges the realities of these de facto monopolies and their embedded LEFTist values, I wonder what solutions there are available to such shadow-banning of items like the cited PragerU offerings. What is especially distressing is where a corporate spokesperson, when alerted to the action that removes non-LEFT content, mere cites nebulous rules as the reason and offers no solution for restoration.

Perhaps, just a thought, as many of us are investors / shareholders in these corporations, directly and through ETFs & mutual funds, we should mount a shareholder revolt, demanding a more balanced behavior.

[FrankR]

The only way to fight them is, to stop using them. Believe it or not, you will survive without Facebook, Twitter, and other liberal, social, media.

Get a hobby, do something constructive with your time and effort.

The number of “likes” you get determines neither your popularity, nor your self-worth.

A like is merely a “go along to get along” statement.

During my time on Facebook, I rarely, really “liked” a post, most of a time it was just to support a friend to let them know I was there, and I had seen their post.

“Likes” are beginning to be like addictive drugs to some people, who seem to base their life on them.

I say, “Phooey”, there are a lot more things to do in life besides vegetate behind a computer screen...except for FR, of course.

[mosaicwolf]

Why would anyone have a Facebook or Twitter account anyway. Must be an ego thing. Think OPSEC.

[Lagmeister]

Well, actually by law they are either a net 'service' or a net 'content provider' - so, now that they censor political speech they are a provider and can be sued.

All it would take is one major legal case for the uncensored trash connected to a riot, murder or terrorist act.

They can claim they are a service provider all they want, but a court case will change it. Sadly, we cannot depend on a government agency to change their status.

[Libloather]

Get to see the grandkids from far away.

[Paine in the Neck]

There was also the Photobucket purge which I’m sure was intended to wipe out a vast library of memes that the Left couldn’t counter. PostImage has also gone PC.

The Right is much more effective in using these platforms for messaging, not because they are more skilled users but because their message is inherently more attractive. That’s why the Left wants censorship. It’s the same reason they always want censorship. It’s why they constantly lie about their real intentions. No one wants what they’re selling.

[Liz]

CORRECTION---FACEBOOK IS A PUBLICLY-HELD COMPANY SUBJECT TO SEC RULES
The SEC looks askance when publicly-held companies misrepresent their value to investors and/or falsifies Annual Reports.

This Facebook Prospectus is what Zuckerberg used to dupe investors when he went public. The prospectus describe "a public forum where all viewpoints are equally tolerated." That's what he said....what he did was radically different.

CONTACT enforcement@SEC.gov

=======================================

HAT TIP POLITICALJUNKIETOO From Facebook's IPO Prospectus dated May 3, 2012:

Our mission is to make the world more open and connected. People use Facebook to stay connected with their friends and family, to discover what is going on in the world around them, and to share and express what matters to them to the people they care about.

Developers can use the Facebook Platform to build applications (apps) and websites that integrate with Facebook to reach our global network of users and to build products that are more personalized, social, and engaging.

Advertisers can engage with more than 900 million monthly active users (MAUs) on Facebook or subsets of our users based on information they have chosen to share with us such as their age, location, gender, or interests. We offer advertisers a unique combination of reach, relevance, social context, and engagement to enhance the value of their ads.

We believe that we are at the forefront of enabling faster, easier, and richer communication between people and that Facebook has become an integral part of many of our users’ daily lives. We have experienced rapid growth in the number of users and their engagement.

[snip]

How We Create Value for Users

Our top priority is to build useful and engaging products that enable you to:

Connect with Your Friends. With more than 900 million MAUs worldwide, our users are increasingly able to find and stay connected with their friends, family, and colleagues on Facebook.

Discover and Learn. We believe that users come to Facebook to discover and learn more about what is going on in the world around them, particularly in the lives of their friends and family and with public figures and organizations that interest them.

Express Yourself. We enable our users to share and publish their opinions, ideas, photos, and activities to audiences ranging from their closest friends to our 900 million users, giving every user a voice within the Facebook community.

Control What You Share. Through Facebook’s privacy and sharing settings, our users can control what they share and with whom they share it.

Experience Facebook Across the Web. Through apps and websites built by developers using the Facebook Platform, our users can interact with their Facebook friends while playing games, listening to music, watching movies, reading news, and engaging in other activities.

Stay Connected with Your Friends on Mobile Devices. Through the combination of our mobile sites, smartphone apps, and feature phone products, users can bring Facebook with them on mobile devices wherever they go. Foundations of the Social Web

We believe that the web, including the mobile web, is evolving to become more social and personalized. This evolution is creating more rewarding experiences that are centered on people, their connections, and their interests. We believe that the following elements form the foundation of the social web:

Authentic Identity. We believe that using your real name, connecting to your real friends, and sharing your genuine interests online create more engaging and meaningful experiences. Representing yourself with your authentic identity online encourages you to behave with the same norms that foster trust and respect in your daily life offline.

Authentic identity is core to the Facebook experience, and we believe that it is central to the future of the web. Our terms of service require you to use your real name and we encourage you to be your true self online, enabling us and Platform developers to provide you with more personalized experiences.

Social Graph. The Social Graph represents the connections between people and their friends and interests. Every person or entity is represented by a point within the graph, and the affiliations between people and their friends and interests form billions of connections between the points. Our mapping of the Social Graph enables Facebook and Platform developers to build more engaging user experiences that are based on these connections.

Social Distribution. Over time, people are consuming and creating more kinds of information at a faster pace across a broader range of devices. The growing volume of information makes it challenging to find meaningful and trusted content and to effectively make your voice heard. Facebook organizes and prioritizes content and serves as a powerful social distribution tool delivering to users what we believe they will find most compelling based on their friends and interests.

Express what matters to them?

Richer communication between people?

Integral part of users' daily lives?

Discover and learn more about what is going on in the world around them, particularly in the lives of their friends and family and with public figures and organizations that interest them?

We enable our users to share and publish their opinions, ideas, photos, and activities to audiences ranging from their closest friends to our 900 million users, giving every user a voice within the Facebook community?

The growing volume of information makes it challenging to find meaningful and trusted content and to effectively make your voice heard. Facebook organizes and prioritizes content and serves as a powerful social distribution tool delivering to users what we believe they will find most compelling based on their friends and interests?

[Liz]

mashable.com

Google Went Public 10 Years Ago, But It’s Still Not a ‘Conventional’ Company / BY SETH FIEGERMAN / AUG 19, 2014

Just one week before Google officially became a public company, it looked like the IPO would have to be delayed. The reason: Playboy.

Google’s founders had given an interview to Playboy magazine, a move that some analysts assumed would raise a red flag with the Securities and Exchange Commission because it violated the “quiet period” in the leadup to an IPO. The SEC ultimately decided not to delay the IPO, but the incident was just one of several bumps on the road to Google’s public offering.

SEE ALSO: How Tech Companies Prepare for Life After the IPO

At every step of the process, Google seemed to be operating by its own rule, much to the chagrin of some on Wall Street. It planned to sell shares through an unusual kind of auction process. It kicked off the IPO filing with a letter from the founders, which began with the memorable line: “Google is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one.”

And then there was the hype and scale of the offering: Even after lowering its proposed share price at the last minute, Google raised $1.7 billion from its IPO making it by far the largest public offering of any Internet company to that point.

All of which is to say that Google was viewed as anything but a sure bet when it finally went public 10 years ago this week.

“In an unusual 768-page filing that eschews legalese and refers to its executives by their first names, Google also spotlighted some of the huge challenges the company now faces,” The Wall Street Journal wrote after Google put out its first IPO paperwork. “The straight talk underscored that as exciting as the financial world may find the IPO, an investment in Google will not be risk free.”

Allan Sloan at The Washington Post urged readers not to buy Google stock at the IPO and doubled down on that stance weeks later despite the stock surging above the IPO price. “I’ll repeat what I said three weeks ago,” he wrote. “This price is insane. And anyone buying Google as a long-term investment at $109.40 will lose money.”

Even Steve Wozniak, the cofounder of Apple, which had gone public more than two decades earlier, could be heard pouring cold water on the IPO. “I’m not buying,” Wozniak said in one interview. “’Past experience leaves the taste that a few people — never ourselves — will make out the first day, but that it’s not likely to appreciate a lot in the near future or maybe even the long future.’’

[VRW Conspirator]

Mixed feelings, too. I would like for the entire world to know that these companies are biased and are censuring those they disagree with.

I take comfort in knowing the lefties knows that they have to cheat in order to “win”. They are insecure in their belief and wicked in their ways.

[Liz]

The individuals who run publicly-held sites such as Google, Twitter, Reddit, Youtube, Facebook, etc, decide what is allowed on the internet.

Maxine Waters told us the Halfrican had a huge unprecedented data base of American to use in Democrat campaigns. Hmmmmmmm........how'd the half cast imbecile do that? How many visits did Facebook's Zuckerberg have w/ the Halfrican in the White House ? Dozens + dozens....but, hey, they were just talking golf and kids, surely. And when candidate Obama looted Facebook of personal data for his campaign. Zuck was right there helping Obama take whatever he wanted.

An extraordinary moment caught on film...tech masterminds of the universe in one place, toasting each other for screwing Americans in the name of Obama. Tech titans holding vast info on Americans plot the plan to compile a data base on Americans to be used in Democrat campaigns.

THE ORIGINS OF OBAMA'S POLICE STATE---DATA BASE ON AMERICANS CAUGHT ON FILM. (Mercury News photo)

Freeper edzo4 hat tip.

============================

What electronic frauds are being perpetrated that allow tinpot Obama to use the US govt against innocent Americans....and Republican candidates that stand in his way?

[Honorary Serb]

....Perhaps platforms fitting a particular legal definition should be regulated as public utilities....

RIGHT!!!!

And stay off of Facebook, anyway! Facebook SPIES on all its “members” and sells their info to corporations, politicians, and governments!!!! I would LOVE to see Facebook go out of business!!!!

[I want the USA back]

They ARE the left. They willingly use their power to suppress normal human thoughts and to promote insane leftist idiocy.

[Liz]

For a long time, the US government had various relationships with all the major tech companies.
One big relationship is the PRISM program, wherein the government is allowed to vacuum up
data from lots of social media databases.

Some questions that could use answers:

<><>1) How many tax dollars do social media companies suck-up from giving government agencies access to their data?

<><> 2) How much influence does this give US govt agencies over the policies of the social media company?

<><> 3) Has the Deep State been using its influence for political purposes?

<><> Has the Deep State used its power to (a) oppose certain voices, and, (b) to support other voices in the social media environment?

Call President Trump: Comments: 202-456-1111 Switchboard: 202-456-1414

US CONGRESS SWITCHBOARD: (202) 224-3121

U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Comment Line: 202-353-1555
Switchboard: 202-514-2000

[TheConservativeBanker]

I think that even libertarians should be comfortable with action against corporate monopolies when: 1) They act in concert (think cartels and business trusts) to violate human rights. 2) They take up the power of governments (Set the rules of commerce and become law givers. Google’s, Twitter’s Facebook’s and Apple’s private morality has become more powerful than statutory law). 2) Incite violence against citizens who disagree with them by granting asymmetrical free speech rights on their platforms. 4) Collusion to eliminate lawful competition. 5) Defrauding, manipulating and stealing from their customers and shareholders. All of which the “Big 4” have participated in.

The faux libertarian argument that “private companies can run their businesses any way they want” is not supported in statutory or case law in the United States. The grant of limited liability to corporations is a privilege granted by societies, not a natural right. So long as corporations want to retain limited liability, conformity to public policy in business conduct is not an unreasonable restriction on business freedom. On the other side, public policy should not go beyond protection of natural rights for citizens.

The issues facing our country are complex and dealing with them adequately requires genuine thought and lots of evidence in addressing them. Sloganeering won’t win the day.

BTW, I consider myself a Biblical, traditionalist, libertarian. I too get queazy at the thought of government interference in commerce. I understand that there are bad actors in market economies, but gangster government makes the problems worse. Hence, the imperative to demand that corruption in government be rooted out and severely punished. “Draining the swamp” is only a first step.

[SoCal Pubbie]

People seem to fail to realize that PragerU is not trying to preach to the choir, but convert those on the left. By banning or restricting content, YouTube is undermining that goal.

[gunnyg]

all the usual suspect.....and more!
;)
+++++++++
GyG@PlanetWTF(THE World)
Trump.45IF? We Can Keep Him???
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[generally]

I think there are many who feel that same ambivalence. Trump seems to express the exact same thing in his tweets!

Here’s something I’ve been mulling for a while: What about a government comms service? I have no idea as to the workability or the details of this, but I was thinking about how the Constitution establishes the Postal Service and also freedom of the press. I assume that both were meant to guarantee communication for all citizens. (Correct me if I’m wrong!).

It seems that in the tech era, we should have another amendment (and believe me I’m not one for shoveling in tons of stuff to the Constitution) that guarantees our ability to freely communicate. Yes, there would be restrictions. it’s illegal to mail child porn, so it should also be illegal to transmit it electronically.

This would have to be carefully crafted in order to prevent takeover or abuse the way the left has taken over the MSM and most internet platforms. AFAIK, the left is not preventing me from sending email or snail mail. But the virtual monopoly of mass communication is problematic.

[generally]

Excellent points. Well thought out post. Many thanks.

[FrankR]

People who are not interested are not going to read it, censorship, or no censorship. If I see a liberal post on there, I just invoke the “hide” feature, without even reading the content...problem solved.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Dennis Pargwr’s radio show features frequent calls from young people who were liberals and changed their views after watching PragerU videos, so I think your premise is false. Young people are the primary target of Prager’s efforts in this regard.