It's all the political version of people crying about forum moderation. And I can't help but laugh, because this is such a self-inflicted wound. You could see it coming a mile away. Twitter has never been under any obligation to be a neutral ground. If you don't like it, go elsewhere. It wouldn't be that big a deal if Trump's FCC hadn't killed off net neutrality. Now you can't build that elsewhere, because no ISPs have to carry your bits to actual customers. Of course, the Republicans will probably try to fix it all by having the FCC step in and throw senseless and unenforceable regulations at Twitter. Which works wonders with CNN.
Indisputable Proof Of Propaganda
- Thread starter redrumloa
- Start date
It's all the political version of people crying about forum moderation. And I can't help but laugh, because this is such a self-inflicted wound. You could see it coming a mile away. Twitter has never been under any obligation to be a neutral ground. If you don't like it, go elsewhere. It wouldn't be that big a deal if Trump's FCC hadn't killed off net neutrality. Now you can't build that elsewhere, because no ISPs have to carry your bits to actual customers. Of course, the Republicans will probably try to fix it all by having the FCC step in and throw senseless and unenforceable regulations at Twitter. Which works wonders with CNN.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 14,961
- Reaction score
- 2,152
Good, then you agree with immediately repealing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. With that point, I agree with you.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 14,961
- Reaction score
- 2,152
No, I don't agree with repealing Section 230. Section 230 sets up a baseline protection for websites to guard against frivolous crap like this. But yeah, that's pretty much the scenario I expect the government to try next. So much for being against big government, eh? Fixing Net Neutrality actually opens the market up to competitors who can market their better services, instead of opening the floodgates for more lawsuits against the existing players and endless litigation. That's what I favor.
- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,255
- Reaction score
- 2,691
The problem here is the same problem as it has been for a few years now and no-one dares bring down the hammer. The big companies like twitter and facebook want the protections afforded a common carrier (that they are not responsible for what their users post) baring safe harbour provisions of the DMCA (if a valid case is brought for copyright infringement then the infringing work shall be removed) but the want to have the editorial power of a publisher. If twitter and facebook are censoring certain posts or links etc, they are not a common carrier and they become legally liable for what is posted. They want to be not responsible for what users post and they want control over what users post. The longer the government doesn't make a decision about it, the more it becomes fait accompli.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 14,961
- Reaction score
- 2,152
Exactly. They simply CANNOT have it both ways. Either they are a common carrier, or they are a publisher. They have chosen to be a publisher.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 14,961
- Reaction score
- 2,152
Meanwhile the President is retweeting parody news stories thinking they're real...
-edit-
They're already cashing in:
That's an alleged screenshot. Do you have a link to the original? Too easy to fake such a tweet.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 10,800
- Reaction score
- 6,525
They're certainly not a carrier. They do no transport. They are a service running on top of a transport. A useful way to determine this is to ask if there is a company or interoperable service that if removed irreparably breaks their service. And without ISPs and backbone providers (WHAT SHOULD BE AND WERE) the actual common carriers, they can't function. Period.
They're an online publisher. Section 230 is for them. And I support it.
I really don't know what else to say here. If you're twitter, you're free to delete whatever the hell you want. And that is as it should be. [What you can't do is edit content. (ie, you can't take a Tweet from President Trump and edit it so it quotes him as endorsing Joe Biden.) But we were never talking about that scenario.]
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 14,961
- Reaction score
- 2,152
They most certainly are.
By the way, you've shifted further left than even the WSJ. That's pretty hard to do!
WALL STREET JOURNAL: ‘Twitter’s Partisan Censors Went Far Beyond Normal Content Moderation’
Silicon Valley's partisan interference flies in the face of American instincts about democracy, fair play, and the spirit of the First Amendment.
- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,255
- Reaction score
- 2,691
One thing the (Democrat lead) House Judiciary Committee on Antitrust seems to agree on is that many of these tech giants are monopolies that need breaking up. But perhaps that just a stick they wave to get them to play nice.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 14,961
- Reaction score
- 2,152
Kevin McCarthy: ‘It’s Time to Scrap’ Section 230 Protection for Social Media Giants
“The biggest social networks are selectively censoring information,” McCarthy wrote in a tweet, linking to his press conference on the matter. “It’s time to scrap their special protections under Section 230 and start over.”
“Less than three weeks away, many Americans are eager to learn about the candidates,” McCarthy said. “It is imperative our information channels are open and Americans can access stories by the press and their own social circles.”
McCarthy then began discussing Section 230 and the censorship of the New York Post‘s story that alleged Hunter Biden “facilitated” a meeting between his father, former Vice President Joe Biden, and a Ukrainian gas company.
Congress believed in the power of information so much they created special liability protections for information platforms, technology companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google. It is called section 230. I believe in the principles outlined in the law. But is clear Section 230, in its current form, is not working.
It is time to scrap the law and start over. Yesterday, the New York Post, one of the country’s largest newspapers, published a piece on Hunter Biden, and his work on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma. She had no qualifications. It is an important story as most Americans would be appalled… The response from many in the media and Twitter and Facebook bring to light an even bigger concern, the biggest social networks censoring information. If you are a citizen and posted information in the story, your account was locked.
Did big tech censor the media and Americans when they posted about the unverified later debunked steel dossier? Did big tech censor the media and Americans when they posted about Trump’s taxes which were, of course, obtained illegally? Did big tech sensor the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism, the supreme leader of Iran? The answer to all three questions is no.
“The biggest social networks are selectively censoring information,” McCarthy wrote in a tweet, linking to his press conference on the matter. “It’s time to scrap their special protections under Section 230 and start over.”
“Less than three weeks away, many Americans are eager to learn about the candidates,” McCarthy said. “It is imperative our information channels are open and Americans can access stories by the press and their own social circles.”
McCarthy then began discussing Section 230 and the censorship of the New York Post‘s story that alleged Hunter Biden “facilitated” a meeting between his father, former Vice President Joe Biden, and a Ukrainian gas company.
Congress believed in the power of information so much they created special liability protections for information platforms, technology companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google. It is called section 230. I believe in the principles outlined in the law. But is clear Section 230, in its current form, is not working.
It is time to scrap the law and start over. Yesterday, the New York Post, one of the country’s largest newspapers, published a piece on Hunter Biden, and his work on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma. She had no qualifications. It is an important story as most Americans would be appalled… The response from many in the media and Twitter and Facebook bring to light an even bigger concern, the biggest social networks censoring information. If you are a citizen and posted information in the story, your account was locked.
Did big tech censor the media and Americans when they posted about the unverified later debunked steel dossier? Did big tech censor the media and Americans when they posted about Trump’s taxes which were, of course, obtained illegally? Did big tech sensor the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism, the supreme leader of Iran? The answer to all three questions is no.
Oh c'mon, now, Red. Even I'm a leftist now because I disagree with a Wall Street Journal article? Which, by the way, the WSJ has a history of bad takes on technology nearly as impressive as Forbes, and that is really an accomplishment to be that wrong that often.
You offer no evidence that Twitter is a carrier. There are some manager-speak nonsense ways you can consider them such, but if you regard technology and sanity, they are not. They are a publisher.
Common carrier law was written to ensure my Verizon phone could call your AT&T phone, and that both of those phones could call emergency services.
Effectively, we need that Common Carrier law extended into the internet. I need backbone providers to be interoperable. I need to be sure that bits I'm paying to put on the internet will be accessible to people who are subscribing to internet service. Regardless if my business is on Xfinity Fiber and my customer happens to be on AT&T Fiber. I NEED THAT INTEROPERABILITY. And that is what the FCC killed off. And it was a really backwards decision.
Well, that is effectively true. Your link is to a few companies that are somewhat of a different problem. Amazon and Google are certainly in need of monopoly review. You have monster companies that own certain markets throwing their weight around in others. For example, Amazon is a behemoth in sales and AI, and is using both of those together to squash out independent specialty suppliers in favor of their own brands in every market. I mean, if that isn't the very definition of monopoly predatory practices, I don't know what is.
As for Facebook and Twitter... Without net neutrality, they were effectively granted their own monopoly status. There is no one that can enter the market and be the disruptor, anymore. And that is a really big problem to me. No matter how bad Facebook gets, you can't turn Facebook into the next MySpace anymore, because no one can become the next Facebook without either hundreds of billions of dollars to burn, or net neutrality. That market is effectively closed. That's no longer capitalism. At least not in the way it actually works.
Personally, I think this was by design. The way to control the flow of information on the internet is to make it impossible to publish anything you disagree with. You start by making it impossible to start a new site. Basically check. (If you want more than a couple thousand users, you're going to have big problems with getting your bits delivered.) Then you let the existing publishers consolidate down to a handful of behemoths. Check. Then you regulate those behemoths into your submission. And that's where we are right now.
Section 230 needs to remain. It's important for blogs and forums to still exist. Hell, you couldn't even have this site without Section 230. If you want to carve out some exceptions to Section 230 for Twitter and Facebook and anyone else over say 10 million active users a day, well, I don't like that approach, as it's still playing into the hand of the scenario above. But it at least makes some sense, given the mess we're in. That doesn't seem to be what Red's wanting, though.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 14,961
- Reaction score
- 2,152
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 14,961
- Reaction score
- 2,152
Seriously, how can you say this with a straight face?
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 14,961
- Reaction score
- 2,152
A vote for Biden is a vote for beating women. A vote for Biden is vote for child sex trafficking.
Trump supporter says Facebook deleted her account after she posted video recap of BLM protesters assaulting her
“My expectations for the Left are very low,” DeLuca told the Washington Examiner, "but I definitely didn’t expect to be assaulted at a Women’s March by other women.”
DeLuca took issue with some on social media who challenged her version of events, saying it’s “sad” she has to defend herself against “disgusting leftists” and maintained she was not the aggressor in the attack.
Two days later, DeLuca shared on Twitter that Facebook had removed her “entire account” after she posted a video of her account of the attack.
“Facebook took my entire account down after I posted what happened to me,” she tweeted.
DeLuca told Washington Examiner Tuesday afternoon her Facebook “is still down at the moment.”
Trump supporter says Facebook deleted her account after she posted video recap of BLM protesters assaulting her
“My expectations for the Left are very low,” DeLuca told the Washington Examiner, "but I definitely didn’t expect to be assaulted at a Women’s March by other women.”
DeLuca took issue with some on social media who challenged her version of events, saying it’s “sad” she has to defend herself against “disgusting leftists” and maintained she was not the aggressor in the attack.
Two days later, DeLuca shared on Twitter that Facebook had removed her “entire account” after she posted a video of her account of the attack.
“Facebook took my entire account down after I posted what happened to me,” she tweeted.
DeLuca told Washington Examiner Tuesday afternoon her Facebook “is still down at the moment.”
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 10,800
- Reaction score
- 6,525
The plot thickens:Meanwhile the President is retweeting parody news stories thinking they're real...
-edit-
They're already cashing in:
