Big Tech is going to come for you Mr. President

So Alot of us have been yelling and trying to bang the alarm about big tech censorship. And say to the president you have to do some thing about this issue. This is a huge first amendment freee speech issue that needs to be addressed right now. Of people Getting banned and censored from platforms some times people are getting banned at the same time from all of the platforms.

Fact checking president Trumps tweets

Now since I am guessing that if Trump was not president he would be banned already from Twitter. So since Twitter can;t ban the president. I guess they are going to try and do the next big thing.

www.forbes.com...

I dont need you to talk about Flynn or ballot fraud anymore I need you talk about censorship by big tech. And evlove the conversation I think like JOe rogan is trying to do. I read somewhere That he said myabe big tech should be looked at like public utilities. We have to do somme thing now. before Big tech and Main stream media become one form of streaming consciousness.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Problem is, none of these are first amendment issues. Those are all non-government companies and they can do what they want. You don't have to use them, there are alternatives to Facebook that aren't doing the same thing. Before you say "but they don't have any users!", neither did FB or Twitter when they first started.

It's not hard to just not use them. If you're addicted to those social media sites, maybe you should re-evaluate your priorities.

a reply to: American-philosopher

Why would he or any other president care about what you can say with a private companies service?

You do realize every recent president has pushed for more government overreach on your privacy in ways worse than these companies.

originally posted by: HalWesten
Problem is, none of these are first amendment issues. Those are all non-government companies and they can do what they want. You don't have to use them, there are alternatives to Facebook that aren't doing the same thing. Before you say "but they don't have any users!", neither did FB or Twitter when they first started.

It's not hard to just not use them. If you're addicted to those social media sites, maybe you should re-evaluate your priorities.

You are right but they are Monopolies. That is fact. Just like AT&T used to be the incumbent phone company with minor rural and fake competition, these monopolies need to be broken up or and regulated.

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: HalWesten
Problem is, none of these are first amendment issues. Those are all non-government companies and they can do what they want. You don't have to use them, there are alternatives to Facebook that aren't doing the same thing. Before you say "but they don't have any users!", neither did FB or Twitter when they first started.

It's not hard to just not use them. If you're addicted to those social media sites, maybe you should re-evaluate your priorities.

You are right but they are Monopolies. That is fact. Just like AT&T used to be the incumbent phone company with minor rural and fake competition, these monopolies need to be broken up or and regulated.

So deal with them like AT&T and so on, but there's no 1st Amendment issue here so that needs to stay out of the discussion. By including it in any discussion not related to government censorship you just inflame the anti-government people and distort what's going on.

Can't believe I'm taking this side, but we have no right to dictate to a private company that's big, just as we don't to the small ones. They have T&C, we ignore it and click, "I agree", then complain when we find out little bits of what we actually signed away. I'm just as guilty. But the Constitution is important, and we can't pick and choose what to follow.

a reply to: HalWesten
These tech companies enjoy immunity because of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. On one hand tech companies say they aren't publishers so they can't be held liable for what someone posts on thier platforms. While at the same time censoring individuals they politically disagree with. I remember back when tech companies were censoring Alex Jones at infowars. Nobody wanted to stand up and say it was wrong then because they didn't want to be seen as defending his political views.

Now this censorship has been expanded and used towards conservatives on a larger scale. Twitter now is "fact checking" the president' s tweets? Pretty outrageous. They get to pick who they want to Fact check and when. The thought that this won't be abused is Naive. These companies rules about posts are ambiguous and up to interpretation. Some instances they can't even cite what rules were violated.


"Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has been protecting Big Tech from accountability for decades. Specifically, Section 230 provides tech companies immunity regarding user-posted content. From a legal standpoint, it’s what makes Big Tech companies such as Google, Twitter, and Facebook “platforms” instead of “publishers.” In other words, instead of providing editorial control over users’ content, the law envisions them acting like bulletin boards, simply providing a forum to host whatever views their users want to share"

link


In reality they use these terms of conduct to censor political views they disagree with.

originally posted by: HalWesten
Problem is, none of these are first amendment issues. Those are all non-government companies and they can do what they want. You don't have to use them, there are alternatives to Facebook that aren't doing the same thing. Before you say "but they don't have any users!", neither did FB or Twitter when they first started.

It's not hard to just not use them. If you're addicted to those social media sites, maybe you should re-evaluate your priorities.

No one is being forced to use these platforms.

However, no one else is getting those sweet loans from 3 letter agencies either.

In reality they use these terms of conduct to censor political views they disagree with.

Yes they do and until the laws are changed they will continue to do so. It's still not a 1st Amendment issue. I agree with you that they are going out of their way to censor conservatives, but unless they are broken up as monopolies - or - turned against by their users, it's going to go on.

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: HalWesten
Problem is, none of these are first amendment issues. Those are all non-government companies and they can do what they want. You don't have to use them, there are alternatives to Facebook that aren't doing the same thing. Before you say "but they don't have any users!", neither did FB or Twitter when they first started.

It's not hard to just not use them. If you're addicted to those social media sites, maybe you should re-evaluate your priorities.

You are right but they are Monopolies. That is fact. Just like AT&T used to be the incumbent phone company with minor rural and fake competition, these monopolies need to be broken up or and regulated.

Do you have any idea how many social media site's there are? They're not monopolies.

influencermarketinghub.com... took me 5 seconds to do the research for you.

trump accused Joe Scarborough of murder on twitter.

globalnews.ca...

originally posted by: HalWesten

In reality they use these terms of conduct to censor political views they disagree with.

Yes they do and until the laws are changed they will continue to do so. It's still not a 1st Amendment issue. I agree with you that they are going out of their way to censor conservatives, but unless they are broken up as monopolies - or - turned against by their users, it's going to go on.

The only way this will be changed is if congress revisits section 230 of the communications decency act. Which won't happen under a Democrat controlled congress. Democrats see no problem with censoring conservatives.

originally posted by: network dude
Can't believe I'm taking this side, but we have no right to dictate to a private company that's big, just as we don't to the small ones. They have T&C, we ignore it and click, "I agree", then complain when we find out little bits of what we actually signed away. I'm just as guilty. But the Constitution is important, and we can't pick and choose what to follow.

Why can't you believe it?

You believe in free markets.

What else would you say.

originally posted by: Meniscus

originally posted by: HalWesten

In reality they use these terms of conduct to censor political views they disagree with.

Yes they do and until the laws are changed they will continue to do so. It's still not a 1st Amendment issue. I agree with you that they are going out of their way to censor conservatives, but unless they are broken up as monopolies - or - turned against by their users, it's going to go on.

The only way this will be changed is if congress revisits section 230 of the communications decency act. Which won't happen under a Democrat controlled congress. Democrats see no problem with censoring conservatives.

As I said.

originally posted by: HalWesten
Problem is, none of these are first amendment issues. Those are all non-government companies and they can do what they want. You don't have to use them, there are alternatives to Facebook that aren't doing the same thing. Before you say "but they don't have any users!", neither did FB or Twitter when they first started.

It's not hard to just not use them. If you're addicted to those social media sites, maybe you should re-evaluate your priorities.

If social media sites want to keep "platform" protection, they shouldn't be allowed to censor or manipulate information. Twitter, Facebook, instagram, Youtube and Reddit censor/manipulate. They promote Corporate media above all another news sources. Majority of US media is left wing.

a reply to: Echo007

Can you expand on what you mean by platform protection?

a reply to: American-philosopher

As fact-checking does not remove the falsehoods, free speech is retained. There is no censorship because everything is still open for the public to view.

Also, preventing these companies from presenting what they believe best for their brand is censorship, too. Two-edged sword that free-speech legislation.

That the President of the USA is broadcasting misinformation, suggesting he has a right under free-speech legislation, is of concern. Someone in public office should be careful about what they present to the public.

a reply to: chr0naut

Publishing false information opens one to libel.

Not Twitter; the President.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: chr0naut

Publishing false information opens one to libel.

Not Twitter; the President.

But he is a politician. How could we trust him?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: chr0naut

Publishing false information opens one to libel.

Not Twitter; the President.

But he is a politician. How could we trust him?

Well, according to our Attorney General, its not illegal if THIS President does it.

I honestly don't know anymore, Chronaut.

originally posted by: Echo007

originally posted by: HalWesten
Problem is, none of these are first amendment issues. Those are all non-government companies and they can do what they want. You don't have to use them, there are alternatives to Facebook that aren't doing the same thing. Before you say "but they don't have any users!", neither did FB or Twitter when they first started.

It's not hard to just not use them. If you're addicted to those social media sites, maybe you should re-evaluate your priorities.

If social media sites want to keep "platform" protection, they shouldn't be allowed to censor or manipulate information. Twitter, Facebook, instagram, Youtube and Reddit censor/manipulate. They promote Corporate media above all another news sources. Majority of US media is left wing.

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. The claim was made that it is a 1st Amendment violation and it's not. That's all I'm saying.