I agree, but then that would be 'government regulation' which people freak out over. You would need a law that says you can't do it, and then, if you delete my post on GAW, I could lodge a complaint. It would be a massive undertaking, pursuing every report of an infringement. If the law put the burden on the site owner, this would potentially damage many smaller operators. Limiting it to companies with a certain number of ... what - users? Posts? threads? market share? Revenue? would be appropriate.
Am I understanding this wrong, or is protection from Section 230 only applicable against content posted (i.e. generated) by users, and therefore not applicable to actions taken by the platform against lawful speech?
Sec 230 simply says a platform is NOT liable for content it allows to appear on it. So if I say 'you are a child eating monster' on FB, you can't sue FB for allowing that.
FB is, completely independent of Sec 230, at liberty to define its own 'Terms of Service' that can say 'you must not call someone a child eating monster'. When you first sign up for an account on these platforms, they present you with their 'terms of service' and you have to check a box saying you have read and agreed to them. So they can ban you because you violated the TOS you actually agreed to.
So FB (and twitter, parler, gab, etc), as private corporations, have no obligation to respect the 1st amendment, as that only pertains to the government, not private corps. Now, where this can get tricky is - even though FB (and others) are private companies, they could not exist without the presence of a vast public infrastructure (the 'internet') (well, its a mix of private and public, but it's certainly some federally funded pieces). So the federal govt. does potentially have some leverage over them. Think about broadcast companies (Fox, CNN, etc); they use a scarce public commodity (frequency bandwidth) that is licensed by the FCC (they are granted a limited form of monopoly), and thus, under their control. That's why the FCC can and do stop broadcasters from broadcasting 'undesirable' content.
I agree FB can and shall delete content and eventually ban you should you break TOS.
Maybe my question then should be rephrased: should social media platform be able to delete content and ban people for TOS-compliant speech? I.e. there is nowhere in the TOS that forbids you from saying "abortion is murder" or "Lynch a cracka on your way to work". Yet one will get banned, the other won't, which appears as politically motivated "moderation".
You mention that the Constitution only applies against the government, and as such not on big tech (which are about to get a beating, as a lot of Biden's appointees are Big Tech agents).
The 2nd Amendment applies against the government too, yet the now famous 2008 case DC v. Heller has made precedent the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, that is the use of firearms for self-preservation against other citizens close to harming you to death.
What would it take to bring a 1st Amendment case against Big Tech to the Supreme Court to make precedent the spirit of the 1st Amendment? Is there any recourse?
I really despise 'social media' in most forms. I despise the way they incentivize anger and discord. It's been proven that people engage more on Social Media when there's conflict, so they have absolutely no incentive to stop mis-information and anger. So they allow crazy claims to be made, because they know that will trigger more reaction. Sadly, I see the revocation of Sec 230 as the only way to address this; let them be sued. But while the FB's and Twatters of the world will roll with it and eventually adjust (maybe), it will kill off many smaller operations who simply don't have the time or capacity to moderate sufficiently. So maybe an exemption for smaller operators.
To your example, though, 'abortion is murder' would be allowed I would have thought - it's your opinion - while 'lynch a cracka ...' would be banned because it's a clear incitement to violence. Not sure what your point is. If you said, 'kill an abortion doctor', that would be banned, but not 'abortion is murder'.
It's been proven that people engage more on Social Media when there's conflict
Taking a page out of newspapers: war sells paper.
The pure removal of section 230 would be a disaster for this board. I believe I explained the real issue here well-enough. What we'd get with pure removal of section 230 is removal of anything that isn't an MSM outlet, and that's it.
Regarding the "lynch a cracka...", I was remembering this tweet which has since been "deleted" (don't know by whom), after "backlash". It is unclear whether it was "moderated" or not, my guess is not but that's only my guess.
Aside from that, Twitter has a clear anti-white bias in their algorithm, as has been demonstrated by several people on T_D, and others like Candace Owens, who got suspended for tweeting the same thing Sarah Jeong said and only replaced "white" with "Jewish". Twitter said it was "an error". https://www.newswars.com/candace-owens-swaps-white-for-jewish-in-sarah-jeong-tweet-gets-suspended/ Can we agree there is no call to action there?
Twitter also "temporarily" banned the pro-Life movie's account "Unplanned" and reinstated it after backlash...
This is scary: how many are banned for wrongthink that we don't hear about?
"Due to a risk of violence." They are turning truth and words into violence, and will eventually use it to come after us physically. Edit, Matt Bracken an ex navy seal was on Alex's show and warned of this.
Friend's FB account DELETED with no strikes or warning. Doesn't post politics, most likely AI sniffer detected 'where we go one we go all' acronym in profile
If we don't use Facebook and Twitter they can't censor us and will eventually go away..demand will create new platforms the free market as we are seeing already. Stop giving them your business because that's what we are to them
They basically don't have enough man-power to review all posts so the algorithm finds the keywords and applies some censorship rules based on the user's profile (left vs right leaning ratio).
That's why Q said we've got the power as a population and that's why they're terrified that everyone can wake up.
TBH I hope we do both. On one hand, I want the conservatives to build a wonderful platform that's tailored towards them. On the other, I don't think we can cede ground in the information war. If we just give up Facebook and Twitter we are losing that battle.
Thank you! I've noticed an influx of posts with no sources to the information provided, both on Patriots and GA.
Honestly the easy way or the hard way, something needs to stop this anti-free speech bullshit from Big Tech.
American companies should be totally beholden to the individual's liberties from the Constitution, period.
If you serve, say, 50M users, at that point you should be considered something different than "muh private company (btw Twitter ACTUALLY isn't)
I agree, but then that would be 'government regulation' which people freak out over. You would need a law that says you can't do it, and then, if you delete my post on GAW, I could lodge a complaint. It would be a massive undertaking, pursuing every report of an infringement. If the law put the burden on the site owner, this would potentially damage many smaller operators. Limiting it to companies with a certain number of ... what - users? Posts? threads? market share? Revenue? would be appropriate.
Am I understanding this wrong, or is protection from Section 230 only applicable against content posted (i.e. generated) by users, and therefore not applicable to actions taken by the platform against lawful speech?
Sec 230 simply says a platform is NOT liable for content it allows to appear on it. So if I say 'you are a child eating monster' on FB, you can't sue FB for allowing that.
FB is, completely independent of Sec 230, at liberty to define its own 'Terms of Service' that can say 'you must not call someone a child eating monster'. When you first sign up for an account on these platforms, they present you with their 'terms of service' and you have to check a box saying you have read and agreed to them. So they can ban you because you violated the TOS you actually agreed to.
So FB (and twitter, parler, gab, etc), as private corporations, have no obligation to respect the 1st amendment, as that only pertains to the government, not private corps. Now, where this can get tricky is - even though FB (and others) are private companies, they could not exist without the presence of a vast public infrastructure (the 'internet') (well, its a mix of private and public, but it's certainly some federally funded pieces). So the federal govt. does potentially have some leverage over them. Think about broadcast companies (Fox, CNN, etc); they use a scarce public commodity (frequency bandwidth) that is licensed by the FCC (they are granted a limited form of monopoly), and thus, under their control. That's why the FCC can and do stop broadcasters from broadcasting 'undesirable' content.
I agree FB can and shall delete content and eventually ban you should you break TOS.
Maybe my question then should be rephrased: should social media platform be able to delete content and ban people for TOS-compliant speech? I.e. there is nowhere in the TOS that forbids you from saying "abortion is murder" or "Lynch a cracka on your way to work". Yet one will get banned, the other won't, which appears as politically motivated "moderation".
You mention that the Constitution only applies against the government, and as such not on big tech (which are about to get a beating, as a lot of Biden's appointees are Big Tech agents).
The 2nd Amendment applies against the government too, yet the now famous 2008 case DC v. Heller has made precedent the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, that is the use of firearms for self-preservation against other citizens close to harming you to death.
What would it take to bring a 1st Amendment case against Big Tech to the Supreme Court to make precedent the spirit of the 1st Amendment? Is there any recourse?
I really despise 'social media' in most forms. I despise the way they incentivize anger and discord. It's been proven that people engage more on Social Media when there's conflict, so they have absolutely no incentive to stop mis-information and anger. So they allow crazy claims to be made, because they know that will trigger more reaction. Sadly, I see the revocation of Sec 230 as the only way to address this; let them be sued. But while the FB's and Twatters of the world will roll with it and eventually adjust (maybe), it will kill off many smaller operations who simply don't have the time or capacity to moderate sufficiently. So maybe an exemption for smaller operators. To your example, though, 'abortion is murder' would be allowed I would have thought - it's your opinion - while 'lynch a cracka ...' would be banned because it's a clear incitement to violence. Not sure what your point is. If you said, 'kill an abortion doctor', that would be banned, but not 'abortion is murder'.
Taking a page out of newspapers: war sells paper.
The pure removal of section 230 would be a disaster for this board. I believe I explained the real issue here well-enough. What we'd get with pure removal of section 230 is removal of anything that isn't an MSM outlet, and that's it.
Regarding the "lynch a cracka...", I was remembering this tweet which has since been "deleted" (don't know by whom), after "backlash". It is unclear whether it was "moderated" or not, my guess is not but that's only my guess.
Aside from that, Twitter has a clear anti-white bias in their algorithm, as has been demonstrated by several people on T_D, and others like Candace Owens, who got suspended for tweeting the same thing Sarah Jeong said and only replaced "white" with "Jewish". Twitter said it was "an error". https://www.newswars.com/candace-owens-swaps-white-for-jewish-in-sarah-jeong-tweet-gets-suspended/ Can we agree there is no call to action there?
Twitter also "temporarily" banned the pro-Life movie's account "Unplanned" and reinstated it after backlash...
This is scary: how many are banned for wrongthink that we don't hear about?
I don't know that's the same thing the leftists are saying
"Due to a risk of violence." They are turning truth and words into violence, and will eventually use it to come after us physically. Edit, Matt Bracken an ex navy seal was on Alex's show and warned of this.
So not only do we have censorship, but a double-standard where certain people can say things, but other people cannot say the exact same thing.
"Ah no but it's more than that, it needs to be a pattern" - that woman with @Jack in front of Tim Pool on Joe Roegan's show (paraphrased).
As if there wasn't a pattern of pantifa advocating for violence and have still been kept up by Twatter.
It says "owner," and is referring to Bezos, which is not untrue I suppose. The hypocrisy of it all is astounding in any case.
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-01-15/amazon-workers-in-alabama-union-vote-by-mail
Friend's FB account DELETED with no strikes or warning. Doesn't post politics, most likely AI sniffer detected 'where we go one we go all' acronym in profile
Just a conspiracy theory, right? What are they so afraid of?
My Twitter was suspended and I was given no warning nor reason.
That’s what happened to mine.
STOP USING TWITTER
If we don't use Facebook and Twitter they can't censor us and will eventually go away..demand will create new platforms the free market as we are seeing already. Stop giving them your business because that's what we are to them
Dude, this isnt the start of it. It started decades ago, you are only aware of the reality now.
They basically don't have enough man-power to review all posts so the algorithm finds the keywords and applies some censorship rules based on the user's profile (left vs right leaning ratio).
That's why Q said we've got the power as a population and that's why they're terrified that everyone can wake up.
Twitter has serious and systemic flaws and should not be used!
Fuck Jack Posobiec, confirmed by Q to be a Mossad asset multiple times.
Certainly there's someone else being censored out there who can be highlighted who hasn't tried to destroy the Q movement?
Why in the hell would anyone treat JP being censored as more noteworthy than Trump's entire twitter account being banned?
These AI responses are starting to look ridiculous.
JUST GET OFF TWITTER!!! do GAB Crowd Fund a new Platform!!
fediverse.
TBH I hope we do both. On one hand, I want the conservatives to build a wonderful platform that's tailored towards them. On the other, I don't think we can cede ground in the information war. If we just give up Facebook and Twitter we are losing that battle.
Anyone been seeing a big publicly push for ‘Infotagion’?
Pushing the idea that they will separate the fake news from the real ones..!
WWG1WGA
Maybe tonight at 4am some big drops of signatures will show up? Or maybe some suitcases under a table?
Happy to be the one to point it out to you Twitter! It's being replied to, reposted, and liked here.
Oh, the good old days not long ago when they only dispooted what you said.
Even more ridiculous is the Twitter flag about election fraud, oh the irony.
some of the media is changing tune now because they know what is going down?
People will evetually understand that free speech will eventually come back to twitter. Hypocrisy needs to be shown over and over until we all get it.
Yes, that could happen but I just think it can play out as an alarm clock for the unwoken.
Those Hunger Games. You think we'll have to play them or just everyone inside the walls of Washington?