• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Google admits censorship under Biden

aociswundumho

Capitalist Pig
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
22,280
Reaction score
9,703
Location
Bridgeport, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right

Google Admits Censorship Under Biden; Promises to End Bans of YouTube Accounts of Thousands of Americans Censored for Political Speech

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, thanks to the oversight of Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), Google commits to offer all creators previously kicked off YouTube due to political speech violations on topics such as COVID-19 and elections an opportunity to return to the platform.
judiciary.house.gov

Here is a link to the letter from Google.

Here are the juicy parts:





You can't support censorship only when a democrat is in charge. If you support government censorship, then you must support it under Trump as well.
 
aociswundumho said:
You can't support censorship only when a democrat is in charge. If you support government censorship, then you must support it under Trump as well.
Click to expand...

Not that I agree with censorship, but this is obviously a dumb standard. If I support one war, do I support all wars? If I support one killing (say, state-mandated death penalty), do I support mob hits in the middle of the street? It seems I can remain perfectly ideologically consistent If I assert that a policy is good when applied in certain instances, but not good when applied in others.

I mean Washington and the founding fathers (who you ostensibly revere) had people executed via firing squad for sedition. Imagine the horror!
 
The Biden administration, and probably Google as well, believed, at the time, that running facts was important for the integrity of the business.

But times have changed and now conflict gets clicks and profits, so the model has to change to accommodate whacky right-wing conspiracy theories.

We have gotten to the point where the government now attacks the study of disinformation.

"Two ongoing lawsuits and two congressional inquiries into the Observatory have cost Stanford millions of dollars in legal fees, one of the people told The Washington Post. Students and scholars affiliated with the program say they have been worn down by online attacks and harassment amid the heated political climate for misinformation research, as legislators threaten to cut federal funding to universities studying propaganda."

Link

The government getting involved with advising media companies on content is troubling, but its attack on facts (in the name of free speech, natch) is even more troubling.
 
So Trump punishes media for contradicting him by suing and threatening them. How did Biden punish media for running disinformation?
 
j brown's body said:
So Trump punishes media for contradicting him by suing and threatening them. How did Biden punish media for running disinformation?
Click to expand...

Apparently, according to the letter excerpt (which mentions Biden three times ... bit of an obvious suckup to Trump), he "pressed" them. I assume not like a shirt.

That seems to be the extent of it. He "pressed" them.
 
Last edited:
Do you support Trump's censorship?

I ask because I notice you to never start threads about the worse shit that Trump is doing.
 
Bok Tuklo said:
Apparently, according to the letter excerpt (which mentions Biden three times ... bit of an obvious suckup to Trump), he "pressed" them. I assume not like a shirt.

That seems to be the extent of it. He "pressed" them.
Click to expand...

From Murthy v. Biden:

For months in 2021 and 2022, a coterie of officials at the highest levels of the Federal Government continuously harried and implicitly threatened Facebook with potentially crippling consequences if it did not … crack down on what the officials saw as unhelpful social media posts, including not only posts that they thought were false or misleading but also stories that they did not claim to be literally false but nevertheless wanted obscured.​
 
j brown's body said:
The Biden administration, and probably Google as well, believed, at the time, that running facts was important for the integrity of the business.
Click to expand...

So just to be clear, you think it is good for the Executive Branch to decide what is and isn't "true", and put pressure on private companies to force American citizens to conform to it's understanding of "truth" or be censored?
 

Did you read that decision?

 

That (bolded above) assertion is nonsense. Obviously, folks can be partisan hacks, since examples abound here on DP.
 
Bok Tuklo said:
Did you read that decision?
Click to expand...

Yep, the SCOTUS (majority) rejected the case based on a lack of (specific posts removed) standing.


*above quote is from Google’s AI Overview*
 
If you pay attention you hear many democrat members of the U.S. Congress say they will oppose, ABC by any means necessary. I think that's pretty clear what they mean, anything goes. Their speech is certainly volatile. Obviously some are much more than others.
 
Bok Tuklo said:
Did you read that decision?
Click to expand...

You are citing a discussion of standing built on whether or not those platforms chose to engage in their own censorship independent of government interference, not a rejection of the statement of the facts.

Continuing from the section you quote:

To be sure, the record reflects that the Government defendants played a role in at least some of the platforms’ moderation choices. But the Fifth Circuit, by attributing every platform decision at least in part to the defendants, glossed over complexities in the evidence.

The Fifth Circuit also erred by treating the defendants, plaintiffs, and platforms each as a unified whole. Our decisions make clear that “standing is not dispensed in gross.” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U. S. 413, 431 (2021). That is, “plaintiffs must demonstrate standing for each claim that they press” against each defendant, “and for each form of relief that they seek.” ​


Basically "Yes the government did do that, but you have bundled together unlike cases, because not all cases of speech getting shut down were the result of government action.
 
Gozaburo said:
Not that I agree with censorship, but this is obviously a dumb standard. If I support one war, do I support all wars?
Click to expand...

More like condemning Trump's tariffs because they raise prices for consumers and reward inefficiency, but then supporting tariffs when they are imposed by a democrat administration. Same policy, different jersey.
 
“While the Company continued to develop and enforce its policies independently…”

So, no. That’s not censorship.
 
cpwill said:
You are citing a discussion of standing built on whether or not those platforms chose to engage in their own censorship independent of government interference, not a rejection of the statement of the facts.
Click to expand...

I am citing what you provided.

cpwill said:
Basically "Yes the government did do that, but you have bundled together unlike cases, because not all cases of speech getting shut down were the result of government action.
Click to expand...

No. Basically, "this is bullshit and you have no standing to begin with."


Granted, it was the Supreme Court that said it, but given their absolute decent into lawlessness, it wasn't even solid enough for them to pretend it wasn't bullshit.
 
Bok Tuklo said:
I am citing what you provided.

No. Basically, "this is bullshit and you have no standing to begin with."
Click to expand...

I don't know what to do other than providing you the direct text (which I did) stating that.

You are trying to pretend that a discussion of mixed standing was a discussion of facts, even when they acknowledged and agreed with the presentation of facts inside the discussion of standing.

That is what this part:

To be sure, the record reflects that the Government defendants played a role in at least some of the platforms’ moderation choices. But the Fifth Circuit, by attributing every platform decision at least in part to the defendants, glossed over complexities in the evidence.​

means.
 

So, they say it is bullshit and the plaintiffs had no standing. Your attempts to turn that into the FCC threatening licenses is not compelling.
 
Bok Tuklo said:
So, they say it is bullshit and the plaintiffs had no standing.
Click to expand...

They do not. They state that it happened, but that the case before them inappropriately mixes in people who were the result of platform decisions with those who were the result of government pressure.

Bok Tuklo said:
Your attempts to turn that into the FCC threatening licenses is not compelling.
Click to expand...

.....Facebook does not to my awareness have an FCC license. It is simply an online media platform.
 
cpwill said:
They do not.
Click to expand...

They do. Specifically. They called out the 5th Circuit bullshit and told the plaintiffs you have no standing.

And that is THIS lawless Court doing it, which shows how absolutely pathetic the suit was.

cpwill said:
.....Facebook does not to my awareness have an FCC license. It is simply an online media platform.
Click to expand...

Yes. Welcome to your whatabout falling apart.
 
Bok Tuklo said:
They do.
Click to expand...

They do not which is why you are having to cut out those parts in your replies.

To wit:

To be sure, the record reflects that the Government defendants played a role in at least some of the platforms’ moderation choices. But the Fifth Circuit, by attributing every platform decision at least in part to the defendants, glossed over complexities in the evidence.​

The Fifth Circuit also erred by treating the defendants, plaintiffs, and platforms each as a unified whole. Our decisions make clear that “standing is not dispensed in gross.” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U. S. 413, 431 (2021). That is, “plaintiffs must demonstrate standing for each claim that they press” against each defendant, “and for each form of relief that they seek.” ​


1. It happened,
2. However, not everyone who was suppressed was a result of government interference, and this case inappropriately mixes those two groups.
 
There were already Google moderators that testified before congress this was happening some time back. Nice to know they are finally coming clean.

The Biden administration was very corrupt. this is just one example.
 
Is this supposed to take our minds off Trump extorting media companies in order to bring them under his control?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…