Posted on 05/11/2019 7:48:18 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
Lost in the shuffle during last week’s several wins for President Donald J. Trump and his administration was the fact that Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) introduced a bill that would disallow Silicon Valley tech giants from exerting bias against conservatives.
“Social media companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google are now among the largest and most powerful companies in the world,” Gohmert’s office said in a press release. “More and more people are turning to a social media platform for news than ever before, arguably making these companies more powerful than traditional media outlets. Yet, social media companies enjoy special legal protections under Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, protections not shared by other media. Instead of acting like the neutral platforms they claim to be in order obtain their immunity, these companies have turned Section 230 into a license to potentially defraud and defame with impunity.”
That section of the Communications Act of 1934 allows social media companies the latitude for “blocking and screening of offensive material.” Oftentimes, companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google conflate “offensive” with “conservative,” like when Twitter banned “misgendering” on its platform, making it against the rules to point out the biological fact that a transgender woman is, scientifically speaking, a man. Twitter has quite literally engaged in Orwellian censorship of the truth.
“Representatives of social media companies have testified in Congressional hearings that they do not discriminate against or filter out conservative voices on their platforms. But for all their reassurances, the disturbing trend continues unabated,” Gohmert’s press release said. “Employees from some of these companies have communicated their disgust for conservatives and discussed ways to use social media platforms and algorithms to silence and prevent income to conservatives.”
Let them drown in legal claims. Death by a thousand cuts. And it doesn't cost us our principles.
You might find this to be a much more suitable solution to the “Facebook Question”.
I would love to see a conservative alternative to these. Some intrepid tech genius should start one. They would become rich very quickly!
My principles regarding the left wing social media monopoly is to break them up by any means necessary, but any effort to do this before the 2020 election isn’t going to happen.
What came to mind was the “law of unintended consequences”.
There will be unintended consequences to everything. But the status quo is unacceptable.
But as it stands, repealing protections like section 230 would put most of those unintended consequences on our side.
If we increase regulation, which now both of Facebook’s founders are begging for, or if we were to turn them into a utility. Then all of the unintended consequences would be on their side. This is a big government solution and these will benefit big government actors.
Repealing section 230 is a small government solution. Facebook currently has legal protections. They want increasing regulations to get even more protections. So let’s reduce those protections instead, and watch them squirm.
Divestiture of Instagram, WhatsApp and other competing platforms (or would be competing platforms if facebook did buy them up) also acceptable.
Rush said yesterday the big boys always want regulation because it cements their position in the market.
The article with Chris Hughes, a fellow originator of Facebook, says that Facebook either buys or copies any potential competitor.
So, the small government solution may be the best.
Gohmert’s bill isn’t going anywhere. It won’t pass in the House and McConnell will let it languish in the Senate. McConnell likes what the Silicon Valley tyrants are doing to the Right.
Trump should kick start Gab by posting there and deleting his Twitter account.
A LOT of businesses and industries in the US have become effective monopolies or oligopolies. Banking and investments, media and entertainment, trucking and many others would be much improved by having them broken up. To include mutually exclusive investment.
I wholeheartedly support it. If Democrats block this in Congress then bring DOJ anti-trust actions against Alphabet, Twitter, Facebook, etc.
After I posted my comment, I then thought the results from the law that allow social media to censor comments might be the “unintended consequences” of section 230.
Your post makes sense. Thank you!
I have only had one cup of coffee and am still fuzzy.
They exist; but, problem is that fb is so ubiquitously used.
I'm checking out gab.com now, and there are many others.
I would love to see a conservative alternative to these. Some intrepid tech genius should start one. They would become rich very quickly!
Same here
Don’t like what conservatives have to say facebook, google, twitter etc? Boo hoo! BAKE THE CAKE!
Sorry to stray from the point but why did Gohmert shave his head?
Individuals barred or suspended by social media monopolists should sue for libel. Any federal legislation should be directed to strengthening libel and slander laws.
>>>What came to mind was the “law of unintended consequences”.
If you take away their ability to remove “offensive” material, your Facebook and Twitter feeds could be quickly filled with some very interesting words and pictures.
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.