Posted on 11/02/2020 3:59:53 PM PST by Red in Blue PA
Popular conservative talk radio host Mark Levin was targeted by Facebook on the evening before the 2020 U.S. presidential election.
“Facebook has now placed severe restrictions on my Facebook page on the eve before the election based on an extremely dishonest Politifact review of my link to an accurate story,” Levin tweeted November 2. He added: “I will not be intimidated or threatened by Facebook. You can also find my posts on Twitter and Parler.”
Attached to the tweet was a screenshot of the notification from Facebook explaining: “Your Page has reduced distribution and other restrictions because of repeated sharing of false news. People will also be able to see if a Page has a history of sharing false news.”
Politifact had fact-checked Levin’s post of a tweet from Richard Grenell, where Levin called Biden a “fraud” for not wearing a mask on a plane. Fact-checkers such as Politifact claimed the photo Levin shared was in fact from November 2019.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Parler is conservative but everyone is welcome as long as discussion is civil
I agree! I deleted all my facebook, netflix, amazon, etc accounts a few years ago. Don’t miss them at all! In fact, it makes me happy to know I shut them down, on my terms.
Parler is more BS
Except that he lost $4 million to Mark Steyn when Levin's Conservative Review TV fired Steyn over a breach of contract caused by Conservative Review TV's mismanagement of Steyn's contract agreements.
-PJ
What would the 230 exemption do to stop this? It will only encourage more of it. Maybe that is what you want, to crush their popularity?
They are a private company they can do what they want. 230 has nothing to do with the problem. In fact it’s newspapers like the NY Post that can be sued for libel, while FB/TW etc can’t which is all the more reason why these sites shouldn’t be censoring or limiting any content that isn’t explicitly illegal.
IMO the only way to stop them is to treat any platform with more than a few million users as a public utility. I am not a fan of regulation but we’re letting them create dystopia with their MK Ultra techniques, and this is not heavy regulation it would just say “you can’t stifle people’s conversations”.
I agree! I deleted all my face book, net flix, amazon, etc accounts a few years ago. Don’t miss them at all! In fact, it makes me happy to know I shut them down, on my terms.
Amazing how that works, when we decide to do it.
Maybe Levin can get his good buddy Mike Lee, chairman of a Senate committee with subpoena power, to look at this issue. Sadly, I doubt that will be happening now that Mumbai Mike is owned by the Democrats who run Big Tech.
They are a private company they can do what they want
Anything they want? You mean like interfere in an election? Haven’t we been told for 4 years that is a crime?
Today they shadowed banned Levin. Couple days ago they Banned a 29,000 women in the New Jersey for Trump women club. Have they banned any Fake Newers for spreading the false Trump-Russia conparcy for 4 years? Nope. The Democrats in Big Tech are acting in partisan manner. Any conservative who supports this type of behavior is a fool.
You misunderstand me. I don’t support this activity. But I do respect private property rights. Ordinarily I might say “let the free market settle it” but these companies have become monopolistic and predatory.
I was responding to the poster who mentioned repealing section 230. My thoughts are, if you open these companies up to liability for 3rd party posts, they will become shells of what they are now. Maybe that is what some people want. It’s not what I want, per se, unless the market decides these platforms are manipulating not just elections but the thoughts and information feeds to billions of people on earth. It is one giant MK Ultra experiment. Too bad more people don’t realize it. I am not on any of these major platforms and never was.
So my opinion is, force them to act like public utilities. They can’t, and don’t, shut off your power, phone or internet because they don’t like your dinner conversation or the newspaper you read. These platforms should be treated the same way. They should not be allowed to interfere with the free and open conversations and flow of information in any way, and heavily fined (or, sued) if they do.
And FWIW, that’s a separate argument than the antitrust matters. Twitter is probably not an anti-trust case they are just one platform. But facebook, google, amazon, apple and others are monopolistic and predatory. They should be broken up into small bits, and in the case of Amazon at least in such a way that the bits will compete with each other. There is plenty of precedent for this, from the railroads to Standard Oil to the movie industry and even more recently the case against Microsoft. The suit against Google is just the beginning of the problems with big tech controlling information, thought, speech, advertising, news and more.
Facebook censors...sheesh
Fakebook. May it go the way of Myspace.
Good to see where on the same page here. The big problem is young people live on their phones. They got all their information from Big Tech. In my opinion we need a new bill of rights for the internet age. Anything short of that and Democrats will use their power to create a one party state like California.
Also, Amazon is building a new warehouse down the road from my place. There are now more huge amazon warehouses than walmart STORES in my area now. And amazon warehouses are growing like weeds. In another decade or two they will dwarf even walmart. That’s definitely standard oil territory in my book.
My message to Facebook and Zuckerberg:
GO TO HELL!https://t.co/Hl52xRgnph— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) November 2, 2020
Definitely. If it were up to me, I’d start with breaking Amazon into about 8 or 10 different entities. Break the storefront into maybe 6-7 regional companies and let them compete with each other for the rest of the country and world. Break off their internet services division into a separate company; and then break off one or two pieces for their technology (streaming, devices etc) and their branded sundry items. None of these broken off entities really survive without subsidy from the other cash flows Amazon has (mostly from capital raises) so they would be forced to be competitive, but also profit minded as stand alone enterprises and that would end their predatory behavior.
“They are a private company they can do what they want.”
Facebook and all of the big social media companies are public.
“230 has nothing to do with the problem.”
It’s become a problem because social media platforms are abusing it. The purpose of 230 is to encourage free speech by limiting the damages that can be recovered by suing the platforms. 230 treats social media as platforms for free speech by removing liability from the companies. But, instead, the executives have decided they don’t want free speech. They want power and control.
“IMO the only way to stop them is to treat any platform with more than a few million users as a public utility.”
In general I agree. Can you imagine if your political views were used to determine whether you could have a bank account, cell phone, or Internet access? Companies view social media content for hiring purposes, and people can lose their jobs over content posted on them.
Demonetization and deplatforming should be treated as serious crimes. They are worse than theft or robbery. They are close to murder.
Fakebook is for women. Only women
BTTT!!
Thanks to Golden Eagle for the above!
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.