Posted on 08/04/2020 12:18:05 PM PDT by knighthawk
A pro-Trump ad was removed from Facebook after claims that it contained false information, Fox News has learned.
America First Action PAC on Tuesday told Fox News that Facebook removed one of its ads, titled "On Hold," which was placed in Arizona, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on July 24. The ad was flagged by Politifact on July 29, according to the PAC.
"Facebook's decision to take down this ad shows its anti-conservative bias," America First Communications Director Kelly Sadler told Fox News. "America First Action has logged an appeal, but the threat of anti-conservative bias, targeting, and censorship remains ahead of Election Day in November and we must be vigilant in holding big tech, like Facebook accountable."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Who spends time flagging democrat ads on facebook for false info?
The Chinese are now censoring the Trump campaign.
The ad that none of us KNEW about until it was flagged and we all watched it? God these people are morons.
Cornell Law School
18 U.S. Code 595. Election Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments or by any recognized religious, philanthropic or cultural organization.
U.S. Code
Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States, or by any department or agency thereof, or by the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or any political subdivision, municipality, or agency thereof, or agency of such political subdivision or municipality (including any corporation owned or controlled by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States or by any such political subdivision, municipality, or agency), in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States, or any department or agency thereof, uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
This section shall not prohibit or make unlawful any act by any officer or employee of any educational or research institution, establishment, agency, or system which is supported in whole or in part by any state or political subdivision thereof, or by the District of Columbia or by any Territory or Possession of the United States; or by any recognized religious, philanthropic or cultural organization.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 720; Pub. L. 91–405, title II, 204(d)(6), Sept. 22, 1970, 84 Stat. 853; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, 330016(1)(H), (L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
The idea that a “Neutral Platform” is able to sensor political adds is frightening.
It’s taking us to a new level of political partisanship, and pushing us into further conflict, with violence being the inevitable result. I should say “more violence”, as the left has already started the beating, burning, murder and extortion.
One area where I’m most disappointed with President Trump is that he has done nothing about the blatant bias and censorship of conservatives on all the social media giants. They are willfully violating the terms of their exemption as “Platforms”, and getting away with it.
What happens when all big Social media, and all the networks flat refuse to air republican political adds?
Then what?
They “say” they are common carriers-—like planes, trains, cabs, buses........
Facebook is not a carrier-——it is a publicly-held company subject to the laws of the SEC.
====================================
To report your concerns about Facebook censoring Trump: email .... enforcement@SEC.gov
TALKING POINTS Some insist on likening Trump’s concerns as if it were govt interference in private businesses. Pres Trump, as the Executive, is responsible for enforcing the law. He is also given latitude to not enforce the law, at his discretion. So he would possibly be able to decide to no longer enforce the law for Twitter or Facebook.
Executive Order on Online Censorship
whitehouse.gov ^ | May 28, 2020 | President Donald J Trump
FR Posted on 5/28/2020, 6:05:35 PM by ransomnote
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.
In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.
The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.
Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.
As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.
Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.
Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.
At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.
Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.
Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.
In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.
(b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:
(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;
(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:
(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or
(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and
(iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.
Sec. 3. Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech. (a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms. Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.
——snip——
How the Tech Giants Contributed to the DEM/OBAMA Coup against Trump
American Thinker ^ | 05/15/2019 | Leo Goldstein
FR Posted on 5/15/2019, 10:12:04 AM by SeekAndFind
The role of the Tech Giants—Masters of the Universe (”MotU”) -—in the coup d’état is overlooked. As long as they are in control of the internet — the main communication line in our modern society — the coup is alive. With this control, handed to them by the Obama administration; huge financial resources; troves of private information on ordinary citizens, politicians, and officials; most revenues coming from abroad, their power cannot be overestimated.
Even a glimpse reveals an enormous contribution by MotU in launching and sustaining the coup. That includes but is not limited to the development of the conspiracy theories purporting to justify the coup: the allegations of Trump-Russia collusion and of Russian interference in the 2016 election. The impact is so pervasive that its many components need to be separated into multiple categories. Here, only Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, and Yahoo are considered.
Almost immediately after Trump’s inauguration, MotU and more than a hundred other tech corporations converged in opposition to the government. According to the MSM, they were triggered by the travel ban. Such extreme animus toward the elected administration, combined with extensive knowledge about its members and employees (practically everybody in the tech industry is on Microsoft LinkedIn), intimidated the whole industry against saying or doing anything perceived as beneficial to Trump, including challenging cyber-attribution and social media components of the Russian hoaxes. The climate of fear in the cyber-security community was almost palpable, although not entirely caused by Big Tech.
2. Google and Microsoft put their weight as technological powerhouses behind the DNC contractor CrowdStrike and its fraudulent methodology of cyber incidents attribution.
Google endorsed and propped up CrowdStrike by investing (together with other parties) $300M
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
There are no recognized conservative fact-check sites recognized by Facebook. That means the left is the only arbiter of the truth.
==============================================
Q. How does social media classify and ban certain groups
A. Watta coincidence (smirk). Obama compiled an "extremist list" that sorely resembles the groups being banned by social media.
Bkmk
Why would Facebook be biased against conservatism?
Conservatism is dead. It has conserved nothing, has no plans to conserve anything, and represents no threat to anything from the Left.
Facebook Hired Former Hillary Press Director To Inform Media Of Alex Jones Ban
Big League Politics ^ | Tom Pappert | 05/07/19
Posted on 5/7/2019, 3:25:24 PM by Enlightened1
The Facebook press contact has extensive work with the Clinton family and Obama White House
When Big League Politics contacted Facebook to clarify why Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Loomer, and Milo Yiannopoulos were banned by Facebook and Instagram, we discovered the Facebook employee assigned to handle these communications is the former Press Director of Hillary For America.
Sarah Pollack is the Policy Communications Manager for Facebook who responded to Big League Politics when we sought comment on why Jones, Watson, Loomer, and Yiannopoulos were banned. She explained that users are no longer allowed to share videos or links including videos of Jones, and explained that this decision was made, in part, because Jones interviewed Gavin McInnes on his radio and TV program.
According to her LinkedIn history, Pollack was hired by Facebook in October of 2017 as a Policy Communications Associate Manager, and was promoted to her current role in February of this year.
Prior to joining Facebook, Pollack was the Director of Press Advance for Hillary for America, the presidential campaign of failed Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton. She held this position from March of 2016 until Clinton lost in November of the same year, and worked as a Press Advance Lead for Clinton as far back as June of 2015.
(Excerpt) Read more at bigleaguepolitics.com ...
FaceBook and Mark Zuckerberg are a self-dealing, intrusive publicly-held corporate entity.
ZUCKER IS CAPABLE OF ALMOST ANYTHING (HAT TIP gaijin)
Stole business ideas
Stole all the shares from his BEST friend
Secretly sold users’ data
Stated in a confidential email to a friend that people who trust him are “dumb-f*cks”.
Married in the community property state of California, the very day AFTER he took Facebook public.
Requested nude photos of users to “protect them against the risk of revenge porn”.
Secretly tried to get hospitals to release vast stores of patient data “so I can help cure diseases”.
Initially pursued total rights ownership of images uploaded to FB; if you’d been photoed as a happy youth with, say, a can of Coors then later got really famous, Zuck could be paid by Coors for zero work and YOUR old photo in a new ad while you, the centerpiece of the ad, would get NOTHING.
Struck down after lengthy legal battles.
De-platformed numerous Conservatives because he didn’t agree with their views, couldn’t define hate-speech when asked by Congress.
Secretly requested banks give him his users’ financial data, including transactions, so “my users can check their balances on my site.”
Digitally permitted his housing advertisers to filter out customers whose search histories were strongly associated with terms like “handicapped” , “mobility scooter” and “guide dog”.
Admonished that people “build bridges instead of walls”, all while building walls around his Palo Alto homes and around the huge Kauai Estate he bought and then threw the Hawaiians off of, an effort requiring 300 seperate lawsuits against local Hawaiian land claimants.
Established a “trustworthiness index” for ALL his facebook users while disclosing it to none of them.
Altered FB algorithms to flag content from conservative publications as spam.
Reveres Augustus Caesar, leader of Rome who assured 200 years of peace via harsh rule, possibly arranging the execution of his own grandson. On a wedding anniversary trip to Rome, Zuck gushed so effusively over sculptures and monuments dedicated to Augustus that his wife joked that three people, not two, were on their trip.
For years, Zuck traditionally closed high-level Facebook executive meetings by shouting, “DOMINATION..!”, perhaps half-jokingly.
Proposed installation in the homes of FB users special Facebook cameras that would monitor users and follow them around as they went about their private lives inside their homes. But the cameras, Zuckerberg assured, would come with privacy settings which Facebook would, like, totally respect, or something.
Asked for user telephone numbers for 2 factor authentication but within weeks used that data for marketing purposes. If users chose to share their entire contact list, Facebook also shared that data with advertisers, even phone numbers of people who NEVER had a facebook account.
After the Cambridge Analytica scandal, FB vowed to reinvigorate user privacy but neither of these practices has stopped.
In the runup to the 2018 midterm elections, FB removed over 800 conservative political pages and accounts in a clamp down on what the social media company arbitrarily termed, “inauthentic behavior”. The ambitious political move affected 66 million FB users, most of them Conservative.
Permitted the search term “white genocide” to be used as a targeting criterion to aim advertising for products at 170,000 users who interacted with that subject.
When at their SF HQ in 2016 FB employees replaced a mural slogal, “Black Lives Matter” with the words, “All Lives Matter”, Zuck returned the slogan to its original and reprimanded the employees as, “malicious and disrespectful”.
In South Sudan in late Nov. 2018, Facebook permitted the auctioning of a CHILD BRIDE, age 16. The girl was sold for 500 cows, 3 cars and $10,000 and went into hiding. Five men, including some “high-ranking government officials,” bid on the girl, according to Children’s rights organization Plan International.
At the same time it was revealed that Mexican child molesters had been using Facebook’s Messenger app to collude regarding available kids and ongoing grooming prospects.
I still don’t know why there aren’t many solid competitors to facebook. I don’t get what makes facebook so protected from competition.
Who forms their political views from what they see on Facebook?
Many conservarives are going over to “Parler.”
Facebook is headed towards severe consequences. Lawyers are mounting a case Facebook will not know what hit them.
If cops can be prosecuted for denying someone’s civil rights
(ala Rodney King). Then Facebook moderators can be arrested for the same thing.
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.