Republican Sen. Mike Lee said fact-checking is a form of censorship

[skeptic llc]

If you don't know anything about facebook, why open up on the subject?

Oooh, I know this one. Because they are a company. I know a lot about that. In the United States, I know a lot about that too. And these are legal issues, have some expertise there as well. You don't need to have a FB account to participate in the country, thank &*^%ing god.

 

[trouble13]

We aren't talking about grocery stores, places of public accommodation, restricted by the CRA, or a highly regulated utility company, often/generally granted a local monopoly. But with a grocery store, I'm aware of no law that would prevent it from posting a sign saying "WE DON'T SERVE BIDEN VOTERS!!!" They can't discriminate based on race, etc. but they can discriminate on political views. In most states, they can refuse to serve racist trash or gays or Democrats or MAGA hat wearers, because those aren't protected by the CRA. Your church can kick out anti-religious trolls, or LGBT, if they want. Etc....

So it's not at all dishonest. You have a right to free speech. You're not obligated on your forum to be neutral. You and your forum can be as hostile to a particular government, president, Congressman, Senator, political party, or viewpoint as you want because the 1A protects your right to free speech, and if it doesn't protect your right to be unbiased towards government in your political speech it is worthless.

FWIW, I don't know why the so-called libertarian, so-called lawyer liked your comment versus explaining the obvious about how the 1A actually works, and the dangers of government getting into the business of enforcing 'neutrality' or requiring a social media company or DP or anywhere else to be 'unbiased.' That's a form of government oppression, in fact. If you and your private forums cannot ruthlessly attack what you perceive as a government/party/movement/supporters engaged in wrongdoing harmful you believe to this great country, what good is 'free speech'?

I think its very debatable if these mega platforms should be treated like a utility or not but let's stick with your point that they are not.
Nowhere in their TOS do they define conservative views as a violation of their rules. If they want to be progressive bigots, they do have an obligation to be transparent about it. What they are doing is accepting something of value from their customers AKA a fee under false pretenses. In most cases that is a crime.

 

[skeptic llc]

I think its very debatable if these mega platforms should be treated like a utility or not but let's stick with your point that they are not.
Nowhere in their TOS do they define conservative views as a violation of their rules. If they want to be progressive bigots, they do have an obligation to be transparent about it. What they are doing is accepting something of value from their customers AKA a fee under false pretenses. In most cases that is a crime.

It has become difficult to distinguish between "conservative views" and hate speech, demonstrably incorrect assertions, and so forth. Most of our society is not well prepared for a major political party going completely off the rails.

 

[trouble13]

It has become difficult to distinguish between "conservative views" and hate speech, demonstrably incorrect assertions, and so forth. Most of our society is not well prepared for a major political party going completely off the rails.

Is it hate speech when a border agent tweets that the border wall is working against illegal immigration?

 

[skeptic llc]

Is it hate speech when a border agent tweets that the border wall is working against illegal immigration?

Nope. Is that the whole poll? That was an easy one.

 

[Oborosen]

Oooh, I know this one. Because they are a company. I know a lot about that. In the United States, I know a lot about that too. And these are legal issues, have some expertise there as well. You don't need to have a FB account to participate in the country, thank &*^%ing god.

So you don't know that the company has been actively censoring one side, while allowing the other to have almost it's entire leave to do whatever it pleases?
That may be a bit hyperbolic, but it just came out not long ago that they implemented controls to allow them to censor individuals private messages as well.

As a premise, should a company not treat all of it's customers equally and fairly?

 

[trouble13]

Nope. Is that the whole poll? That was an easy one.

You said its difficult to distinguish between conservative views and hate speech. The example i gave you was recently flagged by twitter.
Im sure if i put some effort into it i could find some hateful things espoused by progressives on twitter that has not been flagged by them.
If it makes you feel better to deny it or pretend like conservatism is a form of hate speech, be my guest, but we all know who the bigots are here.

 

[Oborosen]

Is it hate speech when a border agent tweets that the border wall is working against illegal immigration?

Apparently twitter thought so. Though they didn't think the people sending him death threats and racial insults in response, broke that rule either. So what do we know...

 

[skeptic llc]

You said its difficult to distinguish between conservative views and hate speech. The example i gave you was recently flagged by twitter.
Im sure if i put some effort into it i could find some hateful things espoused by progressives on twitter that has not been flagged by them.
If it makes you feel better to deny it or pretend like conservatism is a form of hate speech, be my guest, but we all know who the bigots are here.

Highly doubt it was phrased that way. Screen shot or something?

 

[skeptic llc]

So you don't know that the company has been actively censoring one side, while allowing the other to have almost it's entire leave to do whatever it pleases?
That may be a bit hyperbolic, but it just came out not long ago that they implemented controls to allow them to censor individuals private messages as well.

As a premise, should a company not treat all of it's customers equally and fairly?

As a premise, I don't get to tell companies what to do. Free market and all that stuff. Not sure why anyone would still be on FB or Twitter anyway.

 

[trouble13]

Highly doubt it was phrased that way. Screen shot or something?

U.S. Border Chief Says Twitter Removed Pro-Wall Tweet, Suspended Account

"My tweet intended to educate the American people that borders matter and the great things done by the men and women of CBP and [the Department of Homeland Security] as a whole," Mark Morgan said.

www.newsweek.com

 

[skeptic llc]

U.S. Border Chief Says Twitter Removed Pro-Wall Tweet, Suspended Account

"My tweet intended to educate the American people that borders matter and the great things done by the men and women of CBP and [the Department of Homeland Security] as a whole," Mark Morgan said.

www.newsweek.com

Ty! Reading now.

 

[skeptic llc]

Did I miss something in there? Looks like they blocked a post, reviewed it, and let it through. That's the controversy?

"When asked directly about Morgan's tweet, a Twitter spokesperson told Newsweek that the site "took enforcement action" on the referenced tweet, "but the decision was reversed after further evaluation from our team.""

 

[Oborosen]

As a premise, I don't get to tell companies what to do. Free market and all that stuff. Not sure why anyone would still be on FB or Twitter anyway.

Tribalism has it's benefits. Though it does backfire more than a few times in it's operation.
You keep kicking everyone off of your platform that you claim to be unfit, or to have broken the rules and you are eventually left with the worst of the worst inhabiting your side. While the most polished and upstanding are left in response. That's how twitter had that issue of Richard Spencer being left on their platform, juxtaposed to a raging anti-Semite like Farrakhan.

Spencer was well mannered, cleaned pressed and did say anything that broke twitter's interpretations for their ToS. While Farrakhan was allowed to stay and spread his bile, simply for ideological reasons.
In Facebooks case, it's been shown that they were actively censoring conservative accounts and blocking stories for some time. Even banning conservative profiles, for people who did not even break the ToS.

I've had issues with such social media giants in the past, but it's gotten worse with them publically favoring political parties and actively trying to stub the other from getting their message out.

 

[skeptic llc]

Tribalism has it's benefits. Though it does backfire more than a few times in it's operation.
You keep kicking everyone off of your platform that you claim to be unfit, or to have broken the rules and you are eventually left with the worst of the worst inhabiting your side. While the most polished and upstanding are left in response. That's how twitter had that issue of Richard Spencer being left on their platform, juxtaposed to a raging anti-Semite like Farrakhan.

Spencer was well mannered, cleaned pressed and did say anything that broke twitter's interpretations for their ToS. While Farrakhan was allowed to stay and spread his bile, simply for ideological reasons.
In Facebooks case, it's been shown that they were actively censoring conservative accounts and blocking stories for some time. Even banning conservative profiles, for people who did not even break the ToS.

I've had issues with such social media giants in the past, but it's gotten worse with them publically favoring political parties and actively trying to stub the other from getting their message out.

Well, don't get me started on anti-semites. Or Farrakhan. Oops, repeating myself there. But just cut the cord, these social media giants have nothing if we stop using them.

 

[trouble13]

Did I miss something in there? Looks like they blocked a post, reviewed it, and let it through. That's the controversy?

"When asked directly about Morgan's tweet, a Twitter spokesperson told Newsweek that the site "took enforcement action" on the referenced tweet, "but the decision was reversed after further evaluation from our team.""

Yes they unblocked it after it started getting media attention.
I bet you can't find any similar examples of this happening to progressives. Do you find that tje least bit odd?

 

[Oborosen]

Well, don't get me started on anti-semites. Or Farrakhan. Oops, repeating myself there. But just cut the cord, these social media giants have nothing if we stop using them.

Unfortunately it's grown too far beyond that now. Where will you go and who will you use, if you are used to being active in social media?
Some platforms are just too small, or too unknown and google, another company that's had it's fair share of screwing around with censoring people. Is one of the same companies that holds a majority of power for allowing those sites to have access to a base of people to work with.

I would be like going out to buy bread, but the bakers and distributors in half of the country are actively not allowing you to have it.

 

[Oborosen]

Yes they unblocked it after it started getting media attention.
I bet you can't find any similar examples of this happening to progressives. Do you find that tje least bit odd?

Nah, when it comes to progressives, they get job offers.

 

[bubbabgone]

I'm not talking about censoring political ideas. I'm talking about censoring opinions that would cause harm if acted on.
Facts aren't negotiable. Not if presented honestly. It might be impossible for someone to say that 97% of climate scienists agree but it could be a fact that I polled 100 climate scientists and 97 of them said climate change was caused by humans. It's a fact presented one way, an opinion presented the other.

Well if you would present something like that as a fact, and while risible it may be factual, you want the reader to draw a conclusion that wouldn't be.
But the question remains, would, or should, Twitter censor you for posting it?

 

[bubbabgone]

You are quoting me, and ignoring all my arguments, to cherry pick a few comments out of context. If you want to address my actual arguments in full, and not ignore everything that puts things into a broader context, I am happy to engage.

Take that last comment - of course I think it's FINE for DP among others to censor whoever/whatever they want for any reason or no reason. I've explained that repeatedly. It's what 'free speech' means, free association, free markets. Look at what you've ignored several times for more explanation...

You tend to string a half page of undeveloped thoughts together in your posts with no regard for anyone who doesn't care to write a half page response and then you get pissed if the response you get doesn't address everything you said.
I detect what appears to be the foundation of your opinion so it gets the attention.

ANY WAY ...

If you read these excerpts from Section 230 ... (Pay close attention to the distinction between publisher and provider.)

(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
and this ...
(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.​

(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]​

It should be obvious that censoring "political discourse" that isn't "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable," was not an anticipated action of a provider.

 

[JasperL]

can a media site engage in promoting a candidate without complying with campaign contribution limitations? There is a limit to free speech. I cannot go out and spend 20,000 dollars airing a commercial supporting say My Congressman, Steve Chabot, over the big spending socialist he is running against. That limits my free speech.

The bigger question is what should we call the Big Brother commission that monitors speech, decides if it's too biased in the eyes of the big government bureaucrats, arbitrarily assigns a dollar value to the unapproved speech, then prosecutes the offenders of the insufficiently neutral political speech if the dollar amount arbitrarily determined by unaccountable bureaucrats is excessive.

What do you think, counselor and "libertarian"? Fair and Balanced Speech Commission?

It's amazing how readily right wingers are taking a wrecking ball to their principles and integrity to serve the interests of the right wing and the deplorable asshole in the White House as we speak. It's a sickness.

 

[JasperL]

I really wish you'd voice your opinion on a topic that you actually knew something about, or at least one that you were legitimately interested in having a discussion on.
Because you actively skirted the problem that such entities have a strangle hold on such information as to what they believe is correct, for both ideological and now even political reasons.

Let's start at the beginning. What law or constitutional principle requires FB's political speech to be neutral or unbiased?

Every conspiracy theory that has come out against Trump in the last four years has found a easy sewn seedbed on sites like Facebook. Yet information, that is publically verifiable and is legitimately covered by actual news network. Gets snuffed out simply because it harms their own ideological agenda.

I this that I should warn you, that continuing to abide this kind of thing could will only end to it being bad for everyone.

IMO, FB is a force for evil and I'd cry no tears if it is dissolved. IMO, Zuck is a sociopath who'd be first in line in Nazi Germany if FB existed back then holding weekly meetings with Goebbels on how to amplify the Nazi message and target it more effectively, and will suck up to any amount of evil if it helps his bottom line. But you're making claims with no evidence. I've never seen actual evidence of a persistent bias against conservatives on FB. FB wants to make the most amount of money possible - the end. So I don't buy the premise that there IS a bias. The right wing is told there is, and so it's accepted as gospel.

But even if there is a bias, that's allowed in a free country. I think we can agree Fox News has a bias. Should government punish them and/or require the network to hire Rachel Maddow for a prime time slot because they don't cover stories critical of Republicans often enough, in the eyes of some bureaucrat in the new AOC administration?

I don't see how neutrality could be enforced, who'd do it, what the punishment might be, who it would apply to other than outlets mean to right wingers of course, which is the actual sin, or how any of you so-called constitutional fake conservatives square this government regulation of political speech regime with the 1A. The only principle I can see is "**** the liberals, it's unfair for a lever of power to be aligned against white male conservatives, who have a divine right to rule this country."

 

[JasperL]

You tend to string a half page of undeveloped thoughts together in your posts with no regard for anyone who doesn't care to write a half page response and then you get pissed if the response you get doesn't address everything you said.

I'd settle for you addressing ANYTHING. Or of I've addressed your point a half dozen times, maybe respond to one of those replies instead of asking the same damn question again.

ANY WAY ...

If you read these excerpts from Section 230 ... (Pay close attention to the distinction between publisher and provider.....

[deleted excerpt of sec. 230]

It should be obvious that censoring "political discourse" that isn't "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable," was not an anticipated action of a provider.

I do not care about your opinion. It's wrong. But if you want to prove your case, show me a court decision that interpreted 230 to prohibit censoring political speech in a way that's not neutral or unbiased, or else the offender of insufficiently non-neutral or biased political speech loses the protections. Just one. It's been law for 24 years now. Should be easy.

You'll fail. But here's a summary of 500 cases involving 230. You can show me which ones back up your view if you want:

Internet Association - We Are The Voice Of The Internet Economy.

Internet Association's mission is to foster innovation, promote economic growth, and empower people through the free and open internet.

internetassociation.org

... Of the decisions reviewed pertaining to content moderation decisions made by a provider to either allow content to remain available or remove or restrict content, only 19 of the opinions focused on Section 230(c)(2). Of these, the vast majority involved disputes over provider efforts to block spam.

The remainder were resolved under Section 230(c)(1), Anti-SLAPP motions, the First Amendment, or for failure to state a claim based on other deficiencies.

Another reason (c)(2) has not been invoked more often in cases where providers are sued for removing content is that many of those lawsuits are based on assertions that the provider has violated the First Amendment rights of the user whose content was removed.

As the First Amendment only applies to government actors, these cases have been dismissed for failure to state a claim without the necessity of defendants asserting or a court analyzing Section 230. In fact, courts have found that service providers have First Amendment rights on whether and how to display content.

 

[JasperL]

I think its very debatable if these mega platforms should be treated like a utility or not but let's stick with your point that they are not.
Nowhere in their TOS do they define conservative views as a violation of their rules. If they want to be progressive bigots, they do have an obligation to be transparent about it. What they are doing is accepting something of value from their customers AKA a fee under false pretenses. In most cases that is a crime.

FB and Twitter are chock full of conservatives. If you want to show me some evidence they routinely kick off or delete conservative comments, or conservative users the floor is yours. And they have the right to moderate their platform without interference from Big Brother.

I seriously cannot believe how the entire right wing is turning to Big Government because FB and Twitter are allegedly mean to them. I'm sorry but the right wing doesn't have some god given constitutional right to peddle their crap on a private forum, especially false and misleading crap, and that's determined by the platform, not government bureaucrats, which is their right under the 1A.

 

[Grand Mal]

by who? the government? or Face Book? or DP?

By whomever is responsible for the platform. I don't mean by legislation, I mean by policy.
I've practiced censorship myself. I was once in an on-your-feet confrontation in a lunch shack full of Ironworkers over some mouthpiece breaking off about Natives but I wouldn't want the government involved.