ADVERTISEMENT

Trump launches tool to report social media censorship

UCFWayne

Todd's Tiki Bar
Gold Member
Oct 7, 2011
21,061
10,519
113
39
Casselberry
https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/15/...agram-facebook-conservative-bias-social-media

https://whitehouse.typeform.com/to/Jti9QH
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS should advance FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Yet too many Americans have seen their accounts suspended, banned, or fraudulently reported for unclear “violations” of user policies.

No matter your views, if you suspect political bias caused such an action to be taken against you, share your story with President Trump.


i think these social media companies have been playing a 1 sided game and are about to get alot of regulation they never wanted.
 
https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/15/...agram-facebook-conservative-bias-social-media

https://whitehouse.typeform.com/to/Jti9QH
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS should advance FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Yet too many Americans have seen their accounts suspended, banned, or fraudulently reported for unclear “violations” of user policies.

No matter your views, if you suspect political bias caused such an action to be taken against you, share your story with President Trump.


i think these social media companies have been playing a 1 sided game and are about to get alot of regulation they never wanted.

I think it is strange that conservatives are now suddenly for regulating businesses. Denying someone a platform on a service isn't denying free speech, it is simply denying the use of that service, which isn't a government service. I think it also opens up and Pandora's box. Where does it stop? Are shows like SNL going to start being regulated if they are deemed one sided?
 
I think it is strange that conservatives are now suddenly for regulating businesses. Denying someone a platform on a service isn't denying free speech, it is simply denying the use of that service, which isn't a government service. I think it also opens up and Pandora's box. Where does it stop? Are shows like SNL going to start being regulated if they are deemed one sided?
i would like to know if these social media services are platforms of publishers.
 
i would like to know if these social media services are platforms of publishers.

Does it really matter? They are for profit businesses. Should they not be allowed to have a terms of service and ban or suspend people that violate it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crazyhole
I think it is strange that conservatives are now suddenly for regulating businesses. Denying someone a platform on a service isn't denying free speech, it is simply denying the use of that service, which isn't a government service. I think it also opens up and Pandora's box. Where does it stop? Are shows like SNL going to start being regulated if they are deemed one sided?
Not all conservatives are for this. Many are advising against this type of action.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crazyhole
Not all conservatives are for this. Many are advising against this type of action.

This is true.

And on the other side of that, not all liberals are for banning conservatives either, but I do think they should have the right to decide their terms of service and ban/suspend people who violate them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crazyhole
OK- this is dumb. Really dumb. I absolutely think that these social media sites are run by biased shitheads who love to parade themselves as beacons of free speech but aren't, but ultimately it's their company and their site so they can do whatever they want. Claiming your freedom of speech was violated because FB kicked you off is bullshit.

These companies are all raging hypocrites but they're free to be hypocrites.

That said, it's kind of ironic that the left wants to heavily regulate these sites and reclassify them down to basically being public utilities, at which point claims of restricting free speech actually would have some level of merit.
 
That said, it's kind of ironic that the left wants to heavily regulate these sites and reclassify them down to basically being public utilities, at which point claims of restricting free speech actually would have some level of merit.

This is where I was gonna go with it. We're moving more and more down the utility road and platforms like Twitter are becoming the de facto public town square. I don't know what the answer is but it certainly isn't to leave them alone to do as they please. Next thing you know we have underground communities where all the exiles go where they can stew amongst themselves and then what ?
 
This is where I was gonna go with it. We're moving more and more down the utility road and platforms like Twitter are becoming the de facto public town square. I don't know what the answer is but it certainly isn't to leave them alone to do as they please. Next thing you know we have underground communities where all the exiles go where they can stew amongst themselves and then what ?
Then someone sees a demand and goes into business to serve that demand. The downside is that it perpetuates the fracture of political discourse. Most people love an echo chamber.
 
Then someone sees a demand and goes into business to serve that demand. The downside is that it perpetuates the fracture of political discourse. Most people love an echo chamber.

Right. It's already happening and there are very good arguments to be made that it might not be the best path. There's a very good case that a nuanced discussion needs to take place about when do these platforms become more than just some privately message board with TOS being whatever they want.
 
This is where I was gonna go with it. We're moving more and more down the utility road and platforms like Twitter are becoming the de facto public town square. I don't know what the answer is but it certainly isn't to leave them alone to do as they please. Next thing you know we have underground communities where all the exiles go where they can stew amongst themselves and then what ?

4chan.
 
This is where I was gonna go with it. We're moving more and more down the utility road and platforms like Twitter are becoming the de facto public town square. I don't know what the answer is but it certainly isn't to leave them alone to do as they please. Next thing you know we have underground communities where all the exiles go where they can stew amongst themselves and then what ?

I think the possibility they are broken up exists, but I don't think they will ever be treated as public utilities. When it comes down to it, they are just websites/apps like any other, they just happen to be more popular than a lot of other sites.
 
I think the possibility they are broken up exists, but I don't think they will ever be treated as public utilities. When it comes down to it, they are just websites/apps like any other, they just happen to be more popular than a lot of other sites.

If you break them up but don't regulate them as a utility, why break them up to begin with? The big problem people seem to have is the usage of personal data to sell to advertisers or people wanting that data. That problem will remain with a company like Facebook regardless if you strip Instagram and WhatsApp from them and make them smaller.
 
Does it really matter? They are for profit businesses. Should they not be allowed to have a terms of service and ban or suspend people that violate it?
these services are becoming more and more like public utilities. the distinction matters. think phone company vs magazine company. a phone company cant be sued for allowing some terrorists to use their service. a magazine company publishes something illegal and they can be sued.
 
If you break them up but don't regulate them as a utility, why break them up to begin with? The big problem people seem to have is the usage of personal data to sell to advertisers or people wanting that data. That problem will remain with a company like Facebook regardless if you strip Instagram and WhatsApp from them and make them smaller.

I don't understand how they can be argued they are a public utility. And what kind of precedent does that set? Does every popular website become a public utility?

Plenty of businesses have been broken up that haven't been regulated as public utilities.

Let me be clear, I am not necessarily suggesting they should be broken up at this point. I am just saying, that would be the way to go more so than considering them a public utility without any explanation as to why are are public utility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crazyhole
these services are becoming more and more like public utilities. the distinction matters. think phone company vs magazine company. a phone company cant be sued for allowing some terrorists to use their service. a magazine company publishes something illegal and they can be sued.

How are they like public utilities? Several people on this thread have said that, but nobody has illustrated why or how they are like public utilities.
 
ITT conservatives trying to justify selling out their beliefs on regulating business and free market economics so their political team can win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NinjaKnight
How are they like public utilities? Several people on this thread have said that, but nobody has illustrated why or how they are like public utilities.
people use them to communicate, sometimes almost exclusively. not just people but business also use them to communicate with their customers.
 
If you break them up but don't regulate them as a utility, why break them up to begin with? The big problem people seem to have is the usage of personal data to sell to advertisers or people wanting that data. That problem will remain with a company like Facebook regardless if you strip Instagram and WhatsApp from them and make them smaller.
Not a fan of categorizing them as a utility. With the utilities, you're acknowledging that there is a monumental infrastructure cost to a business that is offset by them being a monopoly. The cost of entry and doing business tends towards natural monopolies anyways, so you then need to create the regulations necessary to ensure that the monopoly doesn't abuse it's position with a necessary service that lacks a competitive aspect.

This is in no way analogous to social media companies who have been so popular that they have put themselves in a position of strength and we have come to rely on them. But they've also been predatory in buying out competition and consolidating that we would have issues with in any other industry. I'm not a fan of breaking them up but I think their acquisitions should be afforded the same level of scrutiny that any other industry would have.
 
people use them to communicate, sometimes almost exclusively. not just people but business also use them to communicate with their customers.

That doesn't make them a utility, that just makes them popular. If you regulate them as a utility then there is nothing stopping someone from developing another app that people move too, and then round and round we go.
 
Not a fan of categorizing them as a utility. With the utilities, you're acknowledging that there is a monumental infrastructure cost to a business that is offset by them being a monopoly. The cost of entry and doing business tends towards natural monopolies anyways, so you then need to create the regulations necessary to ensure that the monopoly doesn't abuse it's position with a necessary service that lacks a competitive aspect.

This is in no way analogous to social media companies who have been so popular that they have put themselves in a position of strength and we have come to rely on them. But they've also been predatory in buying out competition and consolidating that we would have issues with in any other industry. I'm not a fan of breaking them up but I think their acquisitions should be afforded the same level of scrutiny that any other industry would have.

Exactly.
 
That doesn't make them a utility, that just makes them popular. If you regulate them as a utility then there is nothing stopping someone from developing another app that people move too, and then round and round we go.
fair enough. how about simply categorizing them as a publisher or platform. i would like them to come out and say which one they are.
 
I don't understand how they can be argued they are a public utility. And what kind of precedent does that set? Does every popular website become a public utility?

Plenty of businesses have been broken up that haven't been regulated as public utilities.

Let me be clear, I am not necessarily suggesting they should be broken up at this point. I am just saying, that would be the way to go more so than considering them a public utility without any explanation as to why are are public utility.

I’m not arguing for that either, I’m just saying that breaking them up doesn’t change the business model that exists today. Which is seemingly the problem people have with them (I don’t at all)
 
How are they like public utilities? Several people on this thread have said that, but nobody has illustrated why or how they are like public utilities.
They aren't. The simplest way to define whether a company is a utility or not is to determine whether a civil case against them can prove damages. With MaBell, it could be argued that the company had the only form of quick communication for their customers and by denying or overcharging service they were causing financial damages. With Facebook, there is no way to claim that there are no other options for communication. There is absolutely no case that can be made that Facebook has a monopoly because the nature of the internet dictates the fact that any person can compete with them. This whole thing is stupid, and thats coming from someone who gave up Facebook 9 months ago.
 
Social Media in itself is stupid. I gave up Facebook months ago, best decision I ever made. And it’s losing subscribers in droves.

Twitter is the same. How many millions of accounts aren’t even real people?

They aren’t representative of how people truly feel about anything but are just bitching platforms for the extreme on both sides.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ucfmikes
ITT conservatives trying to justify selling out their beliefs on regulating business and free market economics so their political team can win.

Not me, they are private and can do as they please. I think it’s bullshit that they are banning conservatives simply for their political beliefs but that’s their choice.
 
ITT conservatives trying to justify selling out their beliefs on regulating business and free market economics so their political team can win.
ITT: leftists who were anti free market economics when their team was trying to force a bakery to make a gay wedding cake have suddenly embraced the beauty of capitalism. Sorry to do this to you again :/

The government always tells people how to run their businesses in the spirit of protecting citizens. The government sets pollution limits, safety standards, reserve ratios, employment regulations, discrimination protections, and on and on and on.

So, why shouldn't the government protect citizens from discrimination? Many think they should just purchase a seperate but equal cake from a different bakery.

If you can't deny service to a black man or an Asian man or a Jewish man or a Christian man based only on those traits then you shouldn't be able to deny service to a gay man. The government does not recognize and protect prejudice and in no way is your ability to practice your religion impacted by baking a cake and it going into a mouth that has also housed a penis at some point.
https://ucf.forums.rivals.com/threa...-in-gay-wedding-cake-case.62948/#post-1300399
 
I think it is strange that conservatives are now suddenly for regulating businesses.
I would say the 'inflection point' was 2006. Since 2006 Conservatives have been complaining about jailing and spying on reporters. Same with banning and destroy people's career, and calling everyone Nazi's and assaulting them ... even innocent bystanders or, gasp, Democratic politicians who were mistaken as 'belonging.'

It scares me what the CEO of CNN keeps advocating. I also remember only Tapper at CNN sticking up for Fox News in 2009, and then we found out in 2013 that the Obama administration had gone after all media outlets, not just Fox News. Even Conservative heads of the US FCC haven't 'cracked down' on any US media lying, misappropriation of media, etc... In fact, the only time the US FCC got involved in any thing recent was when Sinclair -- a conservative media group -- was 'censoring' journalists.

That's why I have been 'forced' to argue against Democratic politicians more than Republican politicians since 2006. I also like how the Democratic party is 're-writing' their history on everything from criminal justice to gay marriage. In reality they are only 5-7 years ahead of Republicans, while still 35-37 years behind us Libertarians. ;)

Denying someone a platform on a service isn't denying free speech, it is simply denying the use of that service, which isn't a government service.
Yes, and no. The problem is that these services are now defacto standard monopolies. If you want to understand what I mean, see the recent EU rulings on various social media platforms.

The right of digital assembly is still being debated. But the monopolization of citizen profiles are absolute. Facebook has no right to take 1M Obama voter opt-ins and disclose the profile of all 2.2B Facebook profiles, as happened in 2012. Even more so when it comes to freedom of expression.

If Facebook, like Google, is outsourcing content review to non-American citizens, then that also is of great concern as well.

I think it also opens up and Pandora's box. Where does it stop?
Yes, what are 'the rules'? And what 'powers' does the federal have to 'enforce' anything? Is this just a 'complaint database' that a federal agency will 'reference if and when required' in a lawsuit, should they pursue it?

Are shows like SNL going to start being regulated if they are deemed one sided?
No, because SNL is not a monopoly platform that citizens can all use. It is completely unrelated, and any argument out of Trump should be laughed at, since no lawyer will even consider it ... not even his own.

Ironically the most pro-1st Amendment President we've had in the White House since Gerald Ford is W. Ironically, Ford was appointed under the 25th Amendment, and never elected to the job.
 
ITT: leftists who were anti free market economics when their team was trying to force a bakery to spend hours to make a custom gay wedding cake have suddenly embraced the beauty of capitalism. Sorry to do this to you again :/
https://ucf.forums.rivals.com/threa...-in-gay-wedding-cake-case.62948/#post-1300399
FIFY

The baker would sell a cake to gay couples. He just wouldn't make a custom wedding cake expending hours of his own time, as requested. He would, however, refer the couple to others who would, providing 'reasonable accommodation' under 'conscious objector.'

The state of Colorado said he must provide his own, personal "time'n materials" beyond just "standard products for sale," if he expends his own, personal time making custom cakes for heterosexual couples, and fined him. He lost his defense in the state.

So he stopped selling wedding cakes altogether, removing that problem. The state of Colorado said he could not do so, and fined him yet again, saying he must make wedding cakes, because he sells his "time and materials" for non-wedding cakes. He lost his defense in the state.

The SCOTUS eventually heard his appeals. They ruled, 7-2, with 2 liberal justices siding ...
  • The baker does not make Holloween cakes and other cakes on the grounds of 'conscious objector' as well, and stopped making any wedding cakes as a result of the first lawsuit, and refers people to others for 'reasonable accommodation'
And most specifically ...
  • The State of Colorado made a 1st Amendment claim that forces the baker to put anything on a cake desired, even language, but then turned around and sided with a gay bakery refusing a Christian couple from putting scripture on a cake, utterly against the 1st Amendment on religion
The state of Colorado utterly failed to address questions on the 1st Amendment, where they would not enforce it, and utterly did nothing to address religion and reasonable accommodation.

But beyond that ... why do Christian Bakeries get 'so radical' and 'fight this to the end'?

Have you see the vandalism that befalls them? Most of them would go bankrupt without the Christian organizations that not only donate money to their defense, but more importantly, give them loans and insurance to 'get back on their feet' after their property is destroyed by SJWs.

Welcome to 'Progressivism' in the 21st Century United States! "We don't need to explain ourselves, nor address the 1st Amendment." Glad Liberal justices on the Court smacked the state of Colorado there.
 
ADVERTISEMENT