It's an outright violation of the First Amendment, no Judge or Jury could rule otherwise.
Ill admit though, watching the guy suggest Notown was essentially a hoax creates a LOT of bias in me on this one.
I disagree emg. If we are going to recognize these entities as private businesses, we need to be prepared to not have the outcome we want. I don't like it any more than you do and I think it continues to highlight the absolute moral bankruptcy of those on the left. However, the answer is to create tech platforms that compete with the ones which are progressive-led and blatantly biased.
Wish I had the money to back someone in that endeavor. I sure don't possess the knowledge.
There are a few out there, but the liberal-leaning entities dominate (similar to the MSM). Anything that looks like competition will probably be assimilated, or litigated out of existence.
I think this is the beginning of more broad censorship of "hate speech". Calling the Sandy Hook tragedy a hoax isn't hate speech just because people hate the message. It's not a private entities place to decide what opinions billions of people get to see. I find it alarming that the MSM is cheering this whole thing on. Independent thinking media could very well become extinct...at least on the conservative side of the spectrum.
That all may true, but until it is recognized as such in a legally defined way, it isn't illegal. Therefore, we cannot have our way, right now, unless we want it done by illegal overreach executed by government entities we (Constitutional conservatives) claim to want to have LESS power and control over our lives. I agree 100% that it is a problem that needs to be addressed. I vehemently disagree that the way to do it is to curb anyone's free speech or introduce more regulation onto private enterprises.
"It's not a private entities place to decide what opinions billions of people get to see."
It is if it is their privately owned platform. At this point in time, conservative voices dominate talk radio. Talk show hosts never have to let a lib have a voice if they choose not to. Using your argument, the left would possess the same philosophical 'right' to stop that market-based dominance.
These companies might be cutting their own throat if the pushback puts them in a position of being considered a form of public communication. I'm not for more regulation of anything under the sun pretty much. But these are the same people censoring these messages who are wanting to regulate private radio/tv station programing via the "Fairness Doctrine". They might want to be a bit more discrete in their discrimination.
I think this is a case in which we should remember that we are always reacting to attacks, so we are always playing defense. We need to be smarter in our defense than they are in their offense. And we need to adhere to The Constitution and the law, forcing them to step outside both as well as public sentiment. Taking the high road ain't easy or mess free.
.. .. .. . ..
.. .. .. .
Those Anti-Trust laws were passed to stop the mega-banks ( Private entities ) in the early 20th Century from colluding to control wages, prices, etc.
So if all of the private Social Media get together, and form a trust to control something, it is against Federal Law, in my understanding. ( I am a student of history, not a Scholar )
Maybe Bad Karma can weigh in on this.
No, it's not and a judge and a jury should and must rule otherwise.
Facebook, Twitter, etc. are private companies and how they choose to run their business is none of the government's business.
If people don't like it, they have the right to delete their accounts with those companies.
It's called 'freedom.'
"Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Where is the government (congress) restricting anything?
Though probably not technically illegal, it has the same impact on free speech (probably more) than a law passed by congress could have.
If MSNBC refused to give Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh an hour time slot, would that be a violation of their free speech rights?
Or how about if FOX News did the same to Rachel Maddow or Don Lemmon?
At the end of the day, Fox News has proven there is a market for a more conservative viewpoint, and nothing is stopping someone from starting their own conservative social media platform.
It just takes someone to put their money where their mouth is.
"It just takes someone to put their money where their mouth is.", noted.
The media lettered news outlets are different from social media. Facebook and other social media sites were created originally for open communication by those that joined or subscribed. Today, they openly censor their users who do not hold to the proREgressive agenda. And when caught and exposed, usually remove the censorship with an apologetic "OOPS".
Ironically, some of the very people that are outraged about FB or Twitter giving people the boot, are the same people that want that power here.
the "outrage", as always, comes from the left...as evidenced in the OP
I prefer the government not getting involved.
Notice that it's not the "lefties" that post here that are repeatedly demanding that Pat bring the TOTs back. It's those that claim to be conservative and champions of freedom of speech that want the ability to squelch those they don't agree with.
Funny how that works.
more verbal diarrhea, one demented troll does not a community make (or break)
social media is the new church, faceface & twitler are the new religions ....maybe when the outraged have their constitutional amendment conventions we can modify the 1st to reflect such triviality
Sometimes it's the freedom to run your business the way you see fit, and sometimes it's the freedom to disagree and start your own gig.
Difficult to respect a conservative when he's running for a safe space.
I am curious if it would be beneficial if conservative voices choose not to fight the social media war and just left social media all together.
I am not one who is clamoring for the government to enter this fray.
It is still de facto (shadow) government censorship, but they have found a way to do it legally.
As long as that platform is privately owned they can legally do this. They will get a rousing cheer from the lefties and alienate the right, so eventually it will cost them.
"I heard a rumour that Facebook didn't really kick InfoWars off the site. Alex Jones deleted it himself. It's a false flag attack and he's just a crisis actor. Don't be fooled."
It's a bit messed up, but you have to be able to see the humor in that!
It should also be noted that there is a difference between free speech and discrimination of a protected class. Last I knew, conservatives aren't a protected class. Liberals maybe, but definitely not conservatives.
Cake maker refusing service to a gay couple over religious objections - ok.
Social media refusing service to a known fake news peddler - unacceptable and a clear conspiracy against the “conservatives.”
I always get a chuckle any time one of you so called conservatives calls for a dialing back of our freedoms in private enterprise.
For the record, as a Libertarian, I’m all for people and companies having the right to refuse service to whoever they want. Let the market decide what shall be deemed “right” and “wrong,” not the government.
That is hilarious coming from the guy who defends his own family's dependence upon the GOVERNMENT as a laudable and necessary component to some morality-of-the-moment based society.
"I always get a chuckle any time one of you so called conservatives calls for a dialing back of our freedoms in private enterprise."
I always get a chuckle anytime one of you so called libertarians calls for an entitlement program requiring the working taxpayers of this country to pay the way of the stupid and lazy.
One thing is sure, BEGger. You are consistent in your inconsistencies. Just like any con calling for the forcing of private enterprise to conform to their will. Can you explain the moral and philosophical difference between your inconsistency and theirs? I mean, in a logical, libertarian-comporting way - not your usual doublespeak.
But hey, glad I make you laugh!
Obviously you're not. Your post above was calling out others on their inconsistencies which seem eerily similar to your own. Yet, in your worldview, your ideological inconsistencies are somehow acceptable while others' are not.
"It's not one business refusing service." I guess I see it differently, AT. To me, it's a company refusing a customer the use of its service. Yes, the transactions work different and feel different. But at the end of the day, these entities are deciding who they want to transact with, be it the selling of a cake or the providing of a digital platform.
The whole point of your initial post was to point out, snarkily, that some self described conservatives were not acting in a conservative manner. Or, were you simply finding common ground with them because you've finally owned that your own intellectual dishonesty about your own ideological inconsistencies is on the same level as those which you openly disdain?
I'll answer for you. You don't own your lies. You as much as tell us that when you post:
"...I have no problem with people who deviate from their ideological or political base at times, as long as they arrive their in a meaningful and thoughtful way. That said, with respect to this issue, the "there's a conspiracy to systematically silence conservative voices on social media" crowd doesn't register as meaningful and thoughtful in their rationale to me."
You now, being a proud, self-proclaimed, non-libertarian libertarian are going to decide what is "meaningful and thoughtful" for others. Yet you are okay with supporting policies that, using forceful compliance, take earned money from some and giving it to those who have done nothing to earn it.
Do you not find it odd that when you tout personal exemptions on the Free Market, that you are arguing against it? You are simply another liberal clamoring for safe spaces when the going gets tough. Wonder from whom you learned that lesson?
I think the free market solution should be the default solution among alternatives - but that doesn't mean I think it should always be the solution. Sometimes I favor solutions that aren't free market - but I understand what I'm sacrificing when I do and I have my rationale for doing it. You can agree or disagree as you like. As an avid outdoorsman who recreates on federal land all the time, I know the free-market solution says that we should put that land into private hands and let the market decide how to best use it. Personally, I believe that our federal lands are a crown jewel of this country and the fact that we the public own such an incredible amount of land that provides all Americans with the freedoms that it does is a favorable solution to the one that maximizes the economic output by putting it into private hands. With regards to wellfare, I feel that sometimes things happen to people, either by choice or by bad luck, or a combination of both and that we can all use a helping hand - and for a multitude of reasons I don't believe that charities are the solution to this issue.
If that makes me a "liberal" and not a "libertarian" even though I'm very pro-gun, pro-business, pro-deregulation, pro-free trade, and anti-Social Security, then so be it. For the record, I'm also pro-legalization of marijuana and sex work, pro-immigration, pro-free choice in your personal relationships and I deviate personally from the Libertarian party and libertarian ideals on education, healthcare, federal land, and welfare). So feel free to call me what you want. As a *mostly* libertarian, we're all about *mostly* personal choice - so have at it ;-)
Is being "mostly libertarian" like being mostly pregnant?
That said, it sure does seem like being a "little liberal" is like being a "little pregnant" around here!
You spoke very well for yourself in your first post when you were clearly attempting gig others with whom you disagree. What is "funny and ironic" is that it backfired due to your intellectual dishonesty. You weren't quite as eloquent in your other posts where you clumsily try to explain how you can be pro-certain things, until the reality of that stance becomes a hardship for you.
"Sometimes I favor solutions that aren't free market - but I understand what I'm sacrificing when I do and I have my rationale for doing it."
You see, right there is a perfect example of intellectual dishonesty. You describe yourself as mostly libertarian, yet want Big Brother to do things for you when your own personal desires (hunting, going to the doctor, killing babies, college expenses, etc) are too difficult for you to handle on your own. And if you are completely altruistic in your views on this and want this help only for others who you believe *need* it, then you are an elitist who would rob the 'lesser-thans' of the experience and dignity associated with making it on their own.
You may not be a lib on some of the platform issues, but you certainly are when the chips are down and looking for a way out. Your answer for the really tough issues is for government to step in, pay the bill and take control.
We often disagree on a whole host of things but we do agree on the “situational” tendencies of some when it comes to free speech, the rights of private businesses, etc. It seems that some only like those things when it benefits their side.
Interesting to say the least.
So, again, no I don't want Big Brother to give me what I need when I deem it too difficult to attain on my own. I'll use hunting as an example since this is a hunting website. I am fortunate enough to go on any just about any hunt I want pretty much whenever I want. I don't have to hunt a foot of public ground ever if I don't want to and could still chase animals every year. That said, I'm not ignorant to the benefits public land provides me, and the rest of the people in this country. I believe it is one of the crown jewels of America and the words of TR resonate with me when he said "It is entirely in our power as a nation to preserve large tracts of wilderness, which are valueless for agricultural purposes and unfit for settlement, as playgrounds for rich and poor alike, and to preserve the game so that it shall continue to exist for the benefit of all lovers of nature, and to give reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the skill of the hunter, whether he is or is not a man of means." If I had to hunt private land every year, I could. But if that's the model we went to I think our hunting heritage would go down the crapper in this country. That is something that is important for me to preserve. It has absolutely zero to do with me needing government help to go hunting. Based on your comments, I'm guessing you've never stepped foot on federal land to hunt or fish or camp then, Hackbow?
My personal chips have never been down. But I know in many ways I'm lucky and I know other people get put into situations where they aren't as fortunate. All my personal charitable dollars goes to causes I'm passionate about - RMEF, WSF, BHA - so I don't really have an issue with the government using 5 cents of every dollar I pay in taxes to help someone less fortunate. Doesn't mean I don't have a problem with welfare abusers or people who operate under the mindset of milking the government. As far as robbing individuals of the dignity and experience of making it on their own - well, if you think that's what motivates people who feel like they are out of options, you must live in a different world than me.
For corporations, in all but the most extreme cases, I'm very anti-government bailouts.
Racist Sarah Jeong, who's words were the origin of the Owens tweet....... nothing......
The hypocrisy of the left is so thick it's stifling......
That said, on its own, this proves nothing about what's being claimed regarding Twitter targeting "conservative" voices. Did anyone ever report Sarah Jeong's Tweets? Were those reports ignored? Was she ever banned for 12 hours and then reinstated like Candace Owens was?
He can't be too ignorant, though. He learned the lesson of gaming the system from his parents very well.
1) that’s clearly not what the free market is. I’ve quite clearly stated that I’m fine with foregoing the free market in certain situations. That’s quite different than what you just said, which is that I’ve claimed things to be free market solutions when they aren’t. Verdict: Fake news. 2) You’ve pointed out my problem with relying on the free market for charitable giving: of course people will give to causes they are passionate about. And my definition of a charity is in-line with most I’d venture to say: A charitable organization is a non-profit organization (NPO) whose primary objectives are philanthropy and social well-being (e.g. charitable, educational, religious, or other activities serving the public interest or common good). So yeah, I would love to hear how WSF, RMEF, and BHA aren’t charitable organizations. Verdict: Fake news. 3) I’ve never been forced to handover my money to the government at the point of a gun. Regardless, I don’t demand that people do it. I understand people’s issues with welfare - I just don’t care all that much about handing over some of my income. Verdict: Fake news 4) and yeah, I guess I feel the need to make it clear that I’m well paid by one of the largest private companies in the world due to the fact that you continually try to paint me as some freeloading mooched looking for my next handout from Mother Government. Verdict: Fake news.
You feel the need to continue the false attacks and blatant mischaracterizations, carry on, FNHB. But I’ve wasted enough of my day responding to you.
Back to the original thread, anyone able to answer the questions in my previous post? Slade and FNHB clearly couldn’t.
There is no mention anywhere I've searched that anything has been done to Jeong by twitter and her tweets still are listed. You can try to prove a false negative if you like. But it's a silly request. Better that you go find some proof she was...... maybe even just reprimanded or warned..... but I doubt you will find it. What she says and does has the leftist stamp of approval.
Like the NYT who supports her and her views...... these social media leftists live in a vacuum. They don't understand things or can't see things like their hyper hypocrisy because they refuse to see them or understand them. Once again the same standards they would apply to others don't apply to them...... So blind they don't know how Trump was elected, he couldn't have honestly been...... because as history repeats itself, "nobody I know voted for him"...... to them that's meaningful and thoughtful rationality too....
By “her” I’m assuming you’re talking about Sarah Jeong? Not sure how saying “The tweets of Sarah Jeong are disgusting, whether they're satire or not“ is hurling myself at her defense. They’re vile tweets, I don’t care what her purpose was. Not sure how I can be any clearer than that.
What I asked for was any context to how bans work and how this speech gets picked up on. I’m sure it’s a combination of algorithms, human review, and machine learning but it would be great to have more technical details, particularly if one wants to jump to the conclusion that there is bias built into the system. Candace Owens was flagged and then unflagged by the system. You can still read the “racist” tweet that apparently got Candace flagged, just like you can Sarah Jeong’s. The algorithms could have changed in the four years since Sarah Jeong wrote the original tweet. So all we know is that you can still read both tweets and we have no idea whether SJ was blocked four years ago for 12 hours when she wrote the original tweet. Sorry, but I don’t see a drastic difference in how these individuals were treated.
I believe the almighty dollar is a much bigger driver for these companies than any political motivations. If these accusations were proven true it would mean billions of dollars of the top and bottom lines of these companies. I doubt that’s a risk they’re willing to take.
WRT bias I don't see how it could be argued they aren't. THAT would would be ignoring the facts of recent events. That would be ignoring the double standard applied to say, Jones and Farrakhan.
If you don't think there is an organized attempt by leftists to silence conservative ideas and speech you just refuse to see it. These are the same people trying to legislate the Fairness Doctrine and other legislation to remove right talk radio. Clamoring for government control of the internet. It's not like they are trying to hide their bias. They are emboldened because they see those views as "mainstream" due to the cliques they associate in. It's "everyone we know"....
Even if this is being done “off the books” so to speak, it still carries tremendous risk. Enron, Worldcom, Bernie Madoff, etc - History is full of businesses that tried to hide shady practices and it ended up dooming them. These gigantic tech companies are well aware of that. They know that an advertising dollar from a conservative company is worth just as much as an advertising dollar from a liberal company.
Would you honestly try to argue there is no bias in not only what they report and HOW they report it.....but sometimes that they report the facts and reality at all? You really want to support the idea that Obama and Trump and Clinton are held to the same standards and equally treated? Or any of dozens of similar examples?
Only the blind would say it was an impartial MSM. Yet somehow you think social media.... is held (or hold themselves) to some higher standard? They are immune to the pressures of the leftists in their companies who are overwhelmingly leftist? That because they don't come out and write it up in their mission statement they do not have nor practice a cultural/societal bias?
Some are grasping at straws trying to find some way, some how, that the greater mass media, news and social, are NOT applying their personal bias, if not an open vendetta. Eyes wide shut..... or are OK with the direction of the bias.....
What some seem to be missing is that social media platforms as well as MSM outlets are private enterprises and while you or I might not agree with their bias, they have the right to be biased.
Ultimately, the consumer (that's us) will determine what platforms survive and thrive. Fox news, conservative talk radio, Breitbart, even Bowsite are all examples of platforms that cater to a certain political world view and they are very successful. There is nothing stopping someone from starting a conservative version of FB, twitter, etc. If there is a market for it, it will thrive.
I don't need the government to step in make things fair for me. I can consume the products I want (and make no mistake. "news" is a product) and disregard the products I don't.
Conservatives (or anyone for that matter) don't do themselves any favors by constantly whining about how things are unfair. Life is unfair. Everybody has an agenda and it's up to us to determine the validity of what we consume. Nobody is forcing anyone to use FB, Twitter, MSNBC or Breitbart.
Let's not become the conservative version of liberal snowflakes, demanding conservative safe spaces.
It is also not illegal to point that out...... loudly and at every opportunity. Shine a bright light on it rather than ignore it. As well as point out it has gone far beyond "oops, we didn't realize we were doing that.....we'll fix it...." which when confronted they play that like some Get Out of Jail Card, over and over. Some are actually emboldened to the point where they unabashedly embrace discriminatory censorship, for your own good of course. While IMO that is contemptible...... at least it's not a bald face lie......
Like I said to someone else the other day, some people have the unique ability to prove a point...by missing it.
We seem to have a number of those here.
All sources have their bias and it shows in the product they sell. I'm just surprised that it surprises anyone.
Fortunately for me, my biases are the absolute truth;)
Seriously though, it's really valuable to explore things which challenge your beliefs. Point blank, most decisions are not logically made - they are emotionally made. Even highly "logical" folks ultimately make decisions emotionally. Thats part of why we tend to disagree when presented with info counter to our bias/beliefs. It's why flat earthers tend to believe MORE the earth is flat when presented with the reality, and reams of data to the contrary. In many cases, the more data is presented, the LESS people will be swayed... EVEN IF THEY ARE WRONG AND THE DATA IS CORRECT!
Thinking of that stuff makes me try to seek different ideas to challenge my opinions. Heck, it's one thing I like about coming on here. Even if I tried, I'd not find some of the articles or ideas that some folks way right of me lay down here - and that's awesome!
It does get me though... How often, we are prone to hear an idea that our bias suggests is wrong and simply disagree for that reason. For example, is something really left or right leaning, or are WE left of right leaning...? Both, most likely.
Which is why acknowledging we have bias, and seeking answers, including challenging our beliefs is really helpful.
There are a great many on social media, MSM, academia, and even government who do. The last two actually have some legal interests......
Feel the same way....8^p
There are a great many on social media, MSM, academia, and even government who do."
I couldn't agree more. That has been my point all along. Ironically, oftentimes those who complain about it the most are often the ones doing it themselves. They truly are what they claim to despise. Almost without fail, those who seek to squelch opposing opinion, can't logically or intellectually support their own.
The pejorative terms they use may be different, but the intent is the same. They are of the same ilk.
That is the point you have been making. Good point, and many received it for sure!
Good post TD. THANKS.
There, finished it for you.
Slade, when you respond, please honor me by using more negative descriptors than you did with Kevin. I need to pay my rent. ;)
Bless your little heart....
" ...so they result to name calling in a futile attempt to be relevant."
There, finished it for you."
I thought that went without saying but you are probably right to spell it out for some.
Little do the name callers know, I actually take their insults as a compliment.
Margaret Thatcher once said:
"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."