Skip to comments.Twitter is running a blackmail operation — cooperate or no traffic for you
Posted on 10/28/2020 4:45:09 PM PDT by conservative98
For all their talk of neutral platforms, the Big Shots at Big Tech Twitter, Facebook and Google are running a protection racket. They figure they can dictate what Americans get to see and read, and what other media companies must do to reach the public via those platforms.
Its a clear threat to a healthy democracy and Congress has noticed. On Wednesday, the Senate launched a hearing to investigate Big Techs bad behavior.
Center-stage: Twitters strong-arm tactics to censor The Post ever since we began reporting on Hunter Bidens e-mails. First, it froze our account and banned our stories; then, amid a public backlash, it agreed to unfreeze us but only if we deleted our original tweets.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey sounded like every mob enforcer and shakedown artist in history: Nice paper you got there, New York Post. Shame, should something happen to it. He knows full well media outlets depend on social media, and Google search algorithms, to help readers access our reporting.
Some folks think the paper shouldve just caved immediately and deleted the story. Yet the problem isnt The Posts failure to squelch stories its Big Techs heavy-handed shakedown.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Time for an anti-trust lawsuit.
Thats a ridiculous statement. Millions of people get their news from Twitter and if Twitter is suppressing some of the biggest news of the day not allowing it to trend and locking out conservative accounts of course they are able to influence elections. https://t.co/zeWoBZEB0c— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) October 28, 2020
WATCH: Ted Cruz and Jack Dorsey clash at a Senate hearing after the Twitter CEO says his platform does not have the ability to influence elections. https://t.co/GnfXzXbck6— Axios (@axios) October 28, 2020
Then these media outlets probably shouldnt even exist anymore.
It would seem to me that Twatter has no more of an obligation to provide unfettered access to the NY Post than the NY Post would be obligated to post links to articles in the NY Daily News.
Am I missing something here?
Dorsey looks like Junkie
Reminds me of the mob enforcers in New York from back in the day.
It has always been extortion for Big Tech. Always. But hey, they’re private companies so they can do what they want, right? </s>
Why do conservatives want to be on a site that eats you alive and drags you through the mud.. and throws hate at you..
The point is that social media companies advertise themselves as neutral platforms for the public to express themselves freely without fear of censorship beyond the "common sense" censorship of blocking pornography, violence, and criminal acts. Their actions of shadow banning accounts that express certain political views is counter to the social contract they have made with the public. Then, when they are called on their bad faith actions, they cite nebulous or superficial reasons or don't give any reason at all for the hypocrisy. The NY Post story really doesn't violate any rules and is a clear case of political censorship, which Dorsey has repeatedly said in the past that Twitter does not do. Dorsey lied, freedom died.
Twitter either needs to change their tune and declare that they have a bias against conservatism, or do a 180 deg. turn and be truly neutral in their censorship efforts. Lying to the public is verboten.
“Am I missing something here?”
Yes, the government is subsidizing the social medias via special privileges and exemptions. Remove them - and then ask again.
Also, the ongoing restraint of trade on conservative interests is something that needs to prosecuted as a civil rights violation - especially grievous considering the government perks the socials get.
I second the Anti-Trust motion.
crack head and meth head combined.
It’s kind of like the phone company saying they don’t like what you are saying so you can’t talk on their lines.
1. I've never read or heard anyone from any of these social media platforms make this claim.
2. Even if they did, I don't see how any of this would be covered under "false advertising" protections because I don't know anyone who actually PAYS to use any of these stupid things.
Other than the Section 230 protection that is given to many types of media platforms, what "subsidies" are these companies getting?
For the life of me, I can't even understand how any of them make money ... since I don't know what kind of revenue streams they have.
It's hard to complain about the conditions you find on a free platform, I'd say.
Except you're paying for the phone service, and phones are considered a public utility by many legal standards. I don't think the internet is there yet, and even if it was I'd say there's a very clear line between guaranteeing access to infrastructure and access to content.
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.