Big Tech Assault on Free Speech
-
The simple answer
That is not so simple.
which is it? Simple or not so simple?
Is starting the company "simple"? No, hardly ever is. But at least you have a vision of an idea.
I want these companies to at least be honest and transparent in how they operate if they want to claim to be neutral.
They don't claim to be neutral. They claim to ban things violating their ToS. Nothing more, nothing less.
It is obvious they are not going to self regulate themselves properly or in a fair and neutral way.
Again, they don't have to. But this is based mostly in perception.
For example: I'm lead to believe by the tone of this forum many democrats are skill-less freeloaders. It would appear that if Twitter, it's founders and Devs are bias vs Republican view points- it would stand to reason they are democrats showing that they're playing a high level game with a pretty solid corner on the market... While Not being skill-less freeloaders.
In short, you want to feel like these companies are banning equal "lefties".
Let's be real, you'll never be satisfied with their response and even if a detailed release concerning number of accounts banned was presented - some type of excuse would be made at some point. Doctoring of results and what have you.
Why? Because you feel a way that is subjective and that cannot be dismissed rationally by the enterprise you're lead to distrust by such theories.
Good night, Cleveland!
I have no doubt and there is enough evidence out there to show big tech discriminating against conservative voices.
In short, you want to feel like these companies are banning equal "lefties".
Let's be real, you'll never be satisfied with their response and even if a detailed release concerning number of accounts banned was presented - some type of excuse would be made at some point. Doctoring of results and what have you.
Why? Because you feel a way that is subjective and that cannot be dismissed rationally by the enterprise you're lead to distrust by such theories.
Good night, Cleveland!
In short simple fairness would suffice.
-
That's pathetic
Now you've got conservatives calling for regulation because people are mean to them?
You've got people agreeing with suing internet trolls... and those same people support Trump... The biggest troll there is. The guy that literally insults everyone he doesn't like. The guy that gained the support of internet trolls during the election.
But now you're soft and don't like the meanies online?
Oh fuck off...
-
"The homosexual lifestyle is evil and they're all sinners!"
"All Muslims are terrorists!"
"Everyone that follows me go attack this liberal!"
"Sandy Hook was a false flag!'
Tweets / accounts removed
"Big Tech is censoring conservative free speech!!!"
Bunch of dumb snowflakes
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Facebook censorship fast becoming an enemy of free expression for conservatives
-
if i go to nunes twitter feed, not being a twitter user myself....i cant see his feed right? and if i was a twitter user but didnt follow his nebbish ass...i still couldnt see it right? i would have to actually follow him to see his dumb shit right?
do i have this down?
No.
I don't have Twitter and his very public profile I can see (with responses) clear as day.
-
"They don't claim to be neutral. They claim to ban things violating their ToS. Nothing more, nothing less."
Zuckerberg says he wants Facebook to be seen as neutral..
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/09/the-false-dream-of-a-neutral-facebook/541404/
-
"The homosexual lifestyle is evil and they're all sinners!"
"All Muslims are terrorists!"
"Everyone that follows me go attack this liberal!"
"Sandy Hook was a false flag!'
Tweets / accounts removed
"Big Tech is censoring conservative free speech!!!"
Bunch of dumb snowflakes
"The homosexual lifestyle is evil and they're all sinners!"
"All Muslims are terrorists!"
"Everyone that follows me go attack this liberal!"
"Sandy Hook was a false flag!'
Tweets / accounts removed
"Big Tech is censoring conservative free speech!!!"
Bunch of dumb snowflakes
"Sandy Hook was a false flag!'
Let's take that one statement. Because of that statement I personally never go to Infowars or even want to listen to Alex Jones. I self censor him but that doesn't mean I think he should be censored on FB. I am surprised so many liberals who used to believe in protection of speech they didn't like but on principle defended it have so easily given up their ideals. More speech is better. Let people like Jones speak and let those who oppose him speak. Banning of speech should not be done so easily.
-
-
obf can u right now go to nunes's twitter feed and see everything? yes or no
-
"The homosexual lifestyle is evil and they're all sinners!"
"All Muslims are terrorists!"
"Everyone that follows me go attack this liberal!"
"Sandy Hook was a false flag!'
Tweets / accounts removed
"Big Tech is censoring conservative free speech!!!"
Bunch of dumb snowflakes
"Sandy Hook was a false flag!'
Let's take that one statement. Because of that statement I personally never go to Infowars or even want to listen to Alex Jones. I self censor him but that doesn't mean I think he should be censored on FB. I am surprised so many liberals who used to believe in protection of speech they didn't like but on principle defended it have so easily given up their ideals. More speech is better. Let people like Jones speak and let those who oppose him speak. Banning of speech should not be done so easily.
"Sandy Hook was a false flag!'
Let's take that one statement. Because of that statement I personally never go to Infowars or even want to listen to Alex Jones. I self censor him but that doesn't mean I think he should be censored on FB. I am surprised so many liberals who used to believe in protection of speech they didn't like but on principle defended it have so easily given up their ideals. More speech is better. Let people like Jones speak and let those who oppose him speak. Banning of speech should not be done so easily.
sigh
I'm always amazed how there is just a continued misunderstanding of what Free Speech actually is...
As myself, and many others have said on here many other times, in regards to situations like this (and what retailers can and can't do, etc) a private company has their own terms of service and can do as they please. Facebook could ban all Michigan fans from making accounts and it wouldn't be an attach on Free Speech.
Don't talk to me about "ideals" when the thing you base your life around, the bible, was thrown in the garbage when you voted for Trump.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
obf can u right now go to nunes's twitter feed and see everything? yes or no
obf can u right now go to nunes's twitter feed and see everything? yes or no
Yes but has that always been the case? The problem with Nunes lawsuit is even if shadow banning were proven it is still not illegal but I am glad to see him file the suit if nothing else but to have tech companies like Twitter coming under scrutiny for their discriminatory practices against conservatives. I have no doubt conservative voices are being discriminated against by FB, Google and Twitter by censoring conservative voices. Some voices on the left are being censored too but the evidence is clear much more of the censoring is against conservative voices.
-
"Sandy Hook was a false flag!'
Let's take that one statement. Because of that statement I personally never go to Infowars or even want to listen to Alex Jones. I self censor him but that doesn't mean I think he should be censored on FB. I am surprised so many liberals who used to believe in protection of speech they didn't like but on principle defended it have so easily given up their ideals. More speech is better. Let people like Jones speak and let those who oppose him speak. Banning of speech should not be done so easily.
sigh
I'm always amazed how there is just a continued misunderstanding of what Free Speech actually is...
As myself, and many others have said on here many other times, in regards to situations like this (and what retailers can and can't do, etc) a private company has their own terms of service and can do as they please. Facebook could ban all Michigan fans from making accounts and it wouldn't be an attach on Free Speech.
Don't talk to me about "ideals" when the thing you base your life around, the bible, was thrown in the garbage when you voted for Trump.
sigh
I'm always amazed how there is just a continued misunderstanding of what Free Speech actually is...
As myself, and many others have said on here many other times, in regards to situations like this (and what retailers can and can't do, etc) a private company has their own terms of service and can do as they please. Facebook could ban all Michigan fans from making accounts and it wouldn't be an attach on Free Speech.
Don't talk to me about "ideals" when the thing you base your life around, the bible, was thrown in the garbage when you voted for Trump.
I got my lesson on free speech many years ago when I wrote a letter to the editor and the editor edited half my letter to the point I felt like it was no longer my letter but the editors. I complained to the newspaper about free speech and learned that as a private company they set the rules however they liked. The only consolation I got was they agreed they at least should put a disclaimer on an edited letter that it had been edited by the editor. So I know these big tech companies are private and can set their own rules but if they are discriminating against conservative voices that needs to be brought to light.
I voted for president and not a pastor. When I felt I had a better choice with Cruz I voted for Cruz in the primary. In the general election Trump was the better candidate than Clinton and I have never regretted my decision to vote for Trump as he has been a great friend to Israel as well as being the most pro life president since Roe and defending religious liberties.
-
obf can u right now go to nunes's twitter feed and see everything? yes or no
Yes but has that always been the case? The problem with Nunes lawsuit is even if shadow banning were proven it is still not illegal but I am glad to see him file the suit if nothing else but to have tech companies like Twitter coming under scrutiny for their discriminatory practices against conservatives. I have no doubt conservative voices are being discriminated against by FB, Google and Twitter by censoring conservative voices. Some voices on the left are being censored too but the evidence is clear much more of the censoring is against conservative voices.
Yes but.....
stop right there, thread topic over. No "buts".
-
-
"They don't claim to be neutral. They claim to ban things violating their ToS. Nothing more, nothing less."
Zuckerberg says he wants Facebook to be seen as neutral..
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/09/the-false-dream-of-a-neutral-facebook/541404/
"They don't claim to be neutral. They claim to ban things violating their ToS. Nothing more, nothing less."
Zuckerberg says he wants Facebook to be seen as neutral..
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/09/the-false-dream-of-a-neutral-facebook/541404/
Fox also says they are fair and balanced . Sometimes people embellish. Both entities, Facebook and Fox, are private companies who can run it however they want.
-
"They don't claim to be neutral. They claim to ban things violating their ToS. Nothing more, nothing less."
Zuckerberg says he wants Facebook to be seen as neutral..
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/09/the-false-dream-of-a-neutral-facebook/541404/
Fox also says they are fair and balanced . Sometimes people embellish. Both entities, Facebook and Fox, are private companies who can run it however they want.
Fox also says they are fair and balanced . Sometimes people embellish. Both entities, Facebook and Fox, are private companies who can run it however they want.
For what it's worth Fox quit using the catch phrase fair and balanced a while ago. But pointing out that Fox obviously leans right doesn't mean the other news outlets don't lean left.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
"They don't claim to be neutral. They claim to ban things violating their ToS. Nothing more, nothing less."
Zuckerberg says he wants Facebook to be seen as neutral..
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/09/the-false-dream-of-a-neutral-facebook/541404/
Fox also says they are fair and balanced . Sometimes people embellish. Both entities, Facebook and Fox, are private companies who can run it however they want.
Fox also says they are fair and balanced . Sometimes people embellish. Both entities, Facebook and Fox, are private companies who can run it however they want.
Comparing Fox and the monopoly of Big Tech is not an apples to apples comparison except being private companies. Fox does not have the stranglehold over the news and wields the power of big tech.
"every big tech company has shown a tendency to discriminate against conservatives.
Twitter has shadow banned prominent Republicans and conservative pundits. Facebook branded Trump supporters Diamond and Silk as “Unsafe for the Community” and Google recently labeled the pro-life movie Unplanned “propaganda” in its search results....
The conservative bias is unfair, and it is wrong, but it pales in comparison to big tech’s ultimate goal: to force all advertising on the internet to run through their platforms. A move that would force conservative news sites to begin sharing their ad revenue with the very companies that are biased against them.
Google and Facebook—the Duopoly—control 63% of all digital ad spending in the US according to the State of Digital Media. Next 5 are also massive tech companies (Amazon, Microsoft, Oath, Twitter, and Snap) and they control another 12%.
Everyone outside these digital goliaths only has 25% of digital ad revenue in the U.S., a share that is shrinking because Google and Facebook account for 90% of all new digital ad revenue
Big Tech companies have already ravaged the print media business. Newspapers across the United States are closing their doors entirely or moving to online only distribution. News publishers have lost tens of billions in revenue and tens of thousands of journalists have lost their jobs while Google and Facebook have padded their wallets and enriched their founders.
Now online publishing is under threat from big tech. Google could begin blocking third party cookies. Third party cookies are nothing more than small anonymized data files that allow digital publishers serve advertisements to website visitors.
Third party cookies are an essential part of the digital media value chain. They enable highly relevant advertising to consumers, which in turn provides the necessary revenue for digital publishers to offer relevant content for free on the internet.
If Google has its way, instead of being able to sell their own advertising conservative news sites could be forced to sell their advertising inventory through Google and Facebook’s ad platforms. Such a change would be nice for big tech’s profit margins, but it would force digital publishers to share an increasingly larger share of their revenues with Google, and only Google.
Google will try to convince legislators that this change is in the interest of ‘privacy’ but we all know better. Google’s privacy argument is nothing but a strawman intended to district for their real interest, market domination. "
Read Newsmax: Big Tech Bias Could Get Much Worse For Conservative News | Newsmax.com -
Interesting:
Justice Brett Kavanaugh is Deciding Vote on Landmark Anti-Trust Case Against Big Tech
Kavanaugh bucked the so-called free market in a SCOTUS decision against Apple that bolsters consumer rights.
"Kavanaugh may be guilty of heresy to market orthodoxy for his ruling, but it shows that Big Tech is on his radar as monolithic social media corporations inflict Orwellian censorship against right-wing dissidents. It’s looking like Trump made the correct decision standing with Kavanaugh during last year’s witch hunt hearings."
-
President Trump’s Tough Talk on Big Tech Must Be Followed with Substantive Action
Strong rhetoric isn’t enough to stop Big Tech’s Orwellian, anti-American censorship measures.
Trump at least innately understands the power of the anti-establishment message, and social media dissidents were certainly thrilled that the President used his tremendous bully pulpit to amplify the message of the censored voices.
However, we cannot take for granted that Trump will follow through on his strong rhetoric. There have been times where Trump has stated that he would be “observing” important issues only to follow his declarations with total inaction.
Trump once claimed that he was intending to end birthright citizenship via executive order shortly before the 2018 mid-terms, but following the elections, no action was taken on this front, and it was quickly forgotten.
President Trump performs the best when he is being pressured by his base. When his supporters lose themselves in the euphoria of Trump’s constant ownage of the libs, he can veer extensively from his electoral mandate.
We are seeing it right now with on the crucial issue of immigration where foreign labor is being imported to the U.S. for low and high wage jobs to boost corporate profit margins at the expense of native workers.
Lawyers in the Trump administration should be considering all of the options at their disposal from using anti-trust laws to amending enforcement of the Communications Decency Act to classifying tech giants as public utilities. In fact, they should have been at this for quite some time already.
The time has passed for bromides about conservative principles and waxing poetic about the free market. Conservatism has conserved nothing except corporate power. The free market is a misnomer, as powerful multinationals dictate modern capitalism through government privilege.
It’s past time to shake off Chamber of Koch influence like a bad case of fleas, and proceed toward defeating hostile tech giants who are as rabid as AOC in their leftist activist push to destroy our bedrock freedoms.
We must keep the fire burning, with campaigns on problematic social media platforms as well as phone campaigns and other forms of agitation. This life-or-death struggle for freedom of speech cannot go down the memory hole. We owe it to our posterity to defeat the greatest evil of our times, Big Brother.
-
Fox also says they are fair and balanced . Sometimes people embellish. Both entities, Facebook and Fox, are private companies who can run it however they want.
For what it's worth Fox quit using the catch phrase fair and balanced a while ago. But pointing out that Fox obviously leans right doesn't mean the other news outlets don't lean left.
WSS
For what it's worth Fox quit using the catch phrase fair and balanced a while ago. But pointing out that Fox obviously leans right doesn't mean the other news outlets don't lean left.
WSS
As is their right to do so with their own privately owned company.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login