Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Democrats at state level are installing curbs on 'misinformation' Claim algorithms can 'spread disinformation and hate speech'
dailycallernewsfoundation.org/ ^ | 12/30/2021 | Ailan Evans

Posted on 01/01/2022 6:52:14 AM PST by rktman

Democratic state lawmakers are proposing laws to curb “misinformation” on social media sites and other online platforms, mirroring efforts by Democrats in Congress.

“Social media algorithms are specially programmed to spread disinformation and hate speech at the expense of the public good,” said New York state Sen. Brad Hoylman, who announced a bill Monday aimed at preventing social media companies from promoting “false” or “fraudulent” content that could endanger the public. “The prioritization of this type of content has real life costs to public health and safety.”

California Assemblyman Ed Chau introduced a bill, AB 35, in December 2020 that would require social media platforms to disclose their policy and mechanisms for reducing misinformation and their plans for addressing manipulative or deceptive practices.

Democrats’ state-level efforts to combat alleged misinformation mirror the party’s efforts in Congress, where Democratic members have introduced legislation targeting social media companies over the content for which they provide a platform.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailycallernewsfoundation.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: californistan; lyingliars
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last
So, according to this, we'll be hearing a LOT less from the anti-American far left extremist socialist democommie lying liars on social(ist) media from now on?

Happy coronaless New Year.

1 posted on 01/01/2022 6:52:14 AM PST by rktman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rktman

Let’s Go Brandon on all democrats... Eff ‘em.

“No”, democrat filth - this is an attack on freedom of speech and it’s NOT OK.


2 posted on 01/01/2022 6:55:35 AM PST by GOPJ (Biden and his commie thugs don’t want us vaccinated - - they want us hated...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

How ignorant, the fool has it exactly backwards. Lets hope he pushes for elimination of algorithms across the board. Then we will have an even playing field again.


3 posted on 01/01/2022 6:58:03 AM PST by Openurmind (The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world it leaves to its children. ~ D. Bonhoeffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

I think you may have misunderstood it. Removing the algorithms that are currently hampering free speech is a good thing. He has it backwards with his understanding for which side is actually being suppressed with these algorithms. Good, remove them ALL and open the playing field back up! :)


4 posted on 01/01/2022 7:03:05 AM PST by Openurmind (The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world it leaves to its children. ~ D. Bonhoeffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Openurmind
Yeah, eliminating the algorithms is definitely not what they want. They want the algorithms turned up to 11 and companies forced to eliminate all unapproved speech. Like so:

Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico unveiled a bill in July which would remove Section 230 liability protections from social media platforms that promote “health misinformation,” as defined by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). This would enable private citizens to sue tech companies if they are recommended this content.

So social media companies will have to completely scrub “health misinformation” (and everything else the Democrats dictate) from their sites or else the shills at some Soros NGO will sue them to death for recommending government-defined misinformation.

5 posted on 01/01/2022 7:15:06 AM PST by fluorescence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Openurmind

Their definition of ‘algorithm’ is actually conservative speech. Conservative social media websites like FR have no algorithm. We have free speech which is what they want to do away with.

Remember. They name everything the opposite of what it actually is.


6 posted on 01/01/2022 7:15:36 AM PST by Pollard (PureBlood -- youtube.com/watch?v=VXm0fkDituE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Some speech is shocking. Even more shocking is restrictions on speech based on political interests.


7 posted on 01/01/2022 7:18:59 AM PST by Louis Foxwell (This is what you get when you put criminals in charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Openurmind

They aren’t talking about removing ALL algorithms. Ultimately, they want it to be THEM who decides what are misinformation algorithms and what aren’t. This means than ANY of THEIR tools and tricks are automatically approved. This is intended only for suppressing conservative thought, period.


8 posted on 01/01/2022 7:20:35 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rktman

So democrat lawmakers are gonna define “misinformation.”

So the dishonest media can be - what?- MORE DISHONEST?


9 posted on 01/01/2022 7:25:52 AM PST by period end of story (Give me a firm spot, and I will move the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Freedom of speech allows ALL opinions to be heard.

The U.S. Constitution does NOT recognize MISINFORMATION or DISINFORMATION because such terms imply the government is the only source of truth.

These terms are the language of TYRANTS.

They want the peasants subject only to PROPAGANDA put forth by a ROYAL SMART PERSON who is nothing but a dictator.

These terms demonstrate the Chinese Communist Party is in firm control of the Democrat Party in America because this is EXACTLY how the Chinese tyrants operate ALL THE TIME.


10 posted on 01/01/2022 7:32:19 AM PST by Gnome1949
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

These legislatures are idiots. The whole purpose of having private companies do the censoring is that it’s a private organization. Once the state mandates it, now we are in constitutional grounds boys.


11 posted on 01/01/2022 7:36:29 AM PST by Lockbox (politicians, they all seemed like game show hosts to me.... Sting)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gnome1949

Apparently those in current control are also the deciders of what is and isn’t mis/dis-information. Sadly, too many people believe that. So now we have the little faucui that cried wolf.


12 posted on 01/01/2022 7:39:53 AM PST by rktman (Destroy America from within? Check! WTH? Enlisted USN 1967 to end up with this? 😕)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer; rktman; GOPJ; Openurmind; fluorescence; Pollard; Louis Foxwell; period end of story; ...
"...Ultimately, they want it to be THEM who decides what are misinformation algorithms and what aren’t..."

Gaffer, your comment at post #8 cuts right to the chase on the real issue:

You either have complete freedom of speech and expression, or you do not.

If you do have complete freedom of speech, the antidote to wrong, hateful, ignorant, or insensitive speech is not to suppress the person speaking, it is more free speech to address what is being said.

If you do NOT have complete freedom of speech, who is the arbiter of what is allowed speech and what is not allowed speech?

It is in the arbitration of what is allowed and what is not where, as the saying goes, "There Be Dragons".

It is the communication (print, electronic, verbal) equivalent to the economic underpinnings of socialism and communism, in which out of a population of hundreds of millions, instead of a select few who decide how much of a product should be made and how much it will cost, a select few have the power to decide what can be communicated to others and what cannot.

And in that lies A Hell.

13 posted on 01/01/2022 7:43:20 AM PST by rlmorel (Nothing can foster principles of freedom more effectively than the imposition of tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Openurmind

I agree removing all algorithms sounds like a good thing. We’re on the same page with that one.

That said, when democrats are for something it’s usually something that restricts freedom for everyday citizens and enhances power for white liberal elites and their pets.

So my first reaction is they’ve found a way to exploit anything they support to the detriment of free citizens - and that I’m against it. That would include removing algorithms.


14 posted on 01/01/2022 7:50:07 AM PST by GOPJ (Biden talks big and carries a little stick.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rktman
"at the expense of the public good,”

Now where have I heard that before?

15 posted on 01/01/2022 7:51:35 AM PST by Don Corleone (leave the gun, take the canolis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Openurmind

I agree removing all algorithms sounds like a good thing. We’re on the same page with that one.

That said, when democrats are for something it’s usually something that restricts freedom for everyday citizens and enhances power for white liberal elites and their pets.

So my first reaction is they’ve found a way to exploit anything they support to the detriment of free citizens - and that I’m against it. That would include removing algorithms. But now that you mention it - it might be time to look closer and see how they’ve twisted a ‘good thing’ into something bad.


16 posted on 01/01/2022 7:51:41 AM PST by GOPJ (Biden talks big and carries a little stick.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lockbox
The whole purpose of having private companies do the censoring is that it’s a private organization. Once the state mandates it, now we are in constitutional grounds boys.

Good point.

17 posted on 01/01/2022 7:58:19 AM PST by GOPJ (Biden talks big and carries a little stick.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel
If you do have complete freedom of speech, the antidote to wrong, hateful, ignorant, or insensitive speech is not to suppress the person speaking, it is more free speech to address what is being said. If you do NOT have complete freedom of speech, who is the arbiter of what is allowed speech and what is not allowed speech? It is in the arbitration of what is allowed and what is not where, as the saying goes, "There Be Dragons".

Excellent comment rlmorel...

18 posted on 01/01/2022 8:02:51 AM PST by GOPJ (Biden talks big and carries a little stick.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

I completely understand, they are not to be trusted at all and would pull something sneaky if they could. But if they plan on removing algorithms that is good because right now 100% the algorithms are already in their favor and against us. Each one removed is a win for our side. I hope this fool runs with his ignorance of the true current situation and cuts his own throat. It would be like a quarterback purposely throwing the ball to a runner on the other team... lol :)


19 posted on 01/01/2022 8:09:52 AM PST by Openurmind (The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world it leaves to its children. ~ D. Bonhoeffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rktman

I gotta idea. Eliminate sec. 230 of the 1992 Communication Act.

And let free speech rain down upon the land.

5.56mm


20 posted on 01/01/2022 8:12:00 AM PST by M Kehoe (Quid Pro Joe and the Ho need to go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson