• Welcome to SVTPerformance!

Donald Trump Signs Exec Order to Curb Big Tech’s ‘Unchecked Power’

Discussion in 'Politics Forum' started by quad, May 28, 2020.

  1. Klaus

    Klaus Premium Member Premium Member Established Member

    Messages:
    3,020
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2018
    Location:
    minnesota
    Censorship be a bitch. Sometimes it works for your team, sometimes it doesn't. Your antennae should go straight up when you hear politicians and special interest groups talk about putting rules in place to ensure that only the "truth" get out. And putting a little "fact check" label next to DJT is not muzzling him BTW. He has 80M followers and he has not been banned and a single message of his has not been pulled so drumpf's tantrum is a joke.

    This is who you are in bed with on this issue BTW
    Zuckerberg Leaves Racial Justice Leader Frustrated After Call
     
  2. Makobra

    Makobra Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    771
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2018
    Location:
    Texas
    you don't need to muzzle someone if you can make enough people believe they're nuts. project veritas is a great example. they do what the corporate media WON'T and the response? hundreds of acts of defamation and slander (all lawsuits won and retractions printed). oh and that's illegal BTW which is why the lawsuits have won.

    and GUESS who doesn't have to contend with lawsuits like that? DING DING DING MOTHER TRUCKER twitter, facebook, and all the other social media platforms because they hide behind protections established for ISP's and website hosting providers.
     
  3. Klaus

    Klaus Premium Member Premium Member Established Member

    Messages:
    3,020
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2018
    Location:
    minnesota
    I think the flaws in each other's thinking are obvious, but only to us. Let's agree to disagree.
     
  4. svtfocus2cobra

    svtfocus2cobra Opprimere, Velocitas, Violentia Operandi Established Member

    Messages:
    20,899
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2004
    Location:
    Washington
    No, sorry what they did was inappropriate. If they had fact checked Obama or did what they did to him every Liberal would be up in arms and I would still see it as wrong even if it were him. You don't do that to the President of the United States. Especially when the information you undermine his message with is not even true.
     
  5. gimmie11s

    gimmie11s Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    11,423
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Location:
    so cal
    I’ve called for 0 censoring on the platforms whatsoever other than direct threats of violence.

    Nice try tho!!


    Sent from my iPhone using the svtperformance.com mobile app
     
    Makobra likes this.
  6. Makobra

    Makobra Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    771
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2018
    Location:
    Texas
    Which is why any censorship is a problem which is why the only real solution is no censorship because then the opposing opinions fact check everyone while your big brother model requires someone to decide and since we have established humans suck at being unbiased it's pretty clear how well that's gonna work.

    Tldr: it won't work. It's like thermonuclear war. The only way to win the censorship game is to not play at all.

    Thanks for proving the point btw
     
  7. Klaus

    Klaus Premium Member Premium Member Established Member

    Messages:
    3,020
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2018
    Location:
    minnesota
    So youse twos support section 230 protections and reject baby huey's "order?" I am confused.
     
  8. gimmie11s

    gimmie11s Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    11,423
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Location:
    so cal
    You should know I don’t show blind allegiance to Trump.

    I support the majority of what he’s done, but no single person on this planet has all the right answers IMO.


    Sent from my iPhone using the svtperformance.com mobile app
     
    Klaus likes this.
  9. Makobra

    Makobra Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    771
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2018
    Location:
    Texas
    If something doesn't make sense it's because one of your assumptions are wrong.

    Assumptions you seem to be making:
    1 you understand the congressional act
    2. Big tech is in compliance with this act
    3. DT is trying to nullify this act

    All of these assumptions, if they are being made, are false. I do not believe you understand what the act does because if you did that would pave the way for making sense of that which you claim is contradictory.

    At this point I'm wondering if you're trolling because this seems extremely obvious to anyone that understands these matters.

    Or maybe you just don't understand this stuff.

    Trying to be charitable here but you're making it tough...
     
  10. Klaus

    Klaus Premium Member Premium Member Established Member

    Messages:
    3,020
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2018
    Location:
    minnesota
    Sure thing, Matlock. This discussion bores me. Klaus out.
     
    1996slowbra likes this.
  11. Makobra

    Makobra Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    771
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2018
    Location:
    Texas
    A fool seeks to air his opinion not understand.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2020
  12. Klaus

    Klaus Premium Member Premium Member Established Member

    Messages:
    3,020
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2018
    Location:
    minnesota
    You make points that are supportive of 230 one moment and that you then use in a way that you think is in opposition to 230 protections.

    The point of 230 protection is to limit the sorts of nuisance lawsuits that Project Veritas has encountered. Do you think Project Veritas is somehow better for having to defend itself against libel? And yet you are arguing for a world of more libel lawsuits not less.

    But it is a double edged sword. 230 crybabies think that it creates a world that restricts their access to information because (((bIaS!!!))). But it is exactly because the access to information is unfettered that you are able to defeat that bias.

    And to the point of bias, you have all sorts of court precedent ruling against platforms, right?
     
    1996slowbra likes this.
  13. Makobra

    Makobra Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    771
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2018
    Location:
    Texas
    You are confused because you don't understand my argument so I'll try and be very clear. Again.

    1. 230 is legitimate for platforms not for publishers.
    2. Twitter pretends to be a platform but is actually a publisher.

    Project veritas is a PUBLISHER and thusly not sheltered by 230 which means they are liable for their content and SHOULD be held liable.

    If you still don't get it now I can't help you.
     
  14. Klaus

    Klaus Premium Member Premium Member Established Member

    Messages:
    3,020
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2018
    Location:
    minnesota
    what makes you think that Twitter is a publisher? Is it the (((bIaS!!!)))?
     
    1996slowbra likes this.
  15. Makobra

    Makobra Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    771
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2018
    Location:
    Texas
    They editorialize crowdsourced content for profit and ideological reasons.
     
  16. Klaus

    Klaus Premium Member Premium Member Established Member

    Messages:
    3,020
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2018
    Location:
    minnesota
    Got it. So there is all sorts of court precedent ruling against them for bias, right? This would be an important step in establishing the nature of the platform.
     
    1996slowbra likes this.
  17. Makobra

    Makobra Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    771
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2018
    Location:
    Texas
    Uhm... that's stipulated in the congressional act which is exactly why what Twitter and other platforms are doing is obviously fraudulent.

    If you had read it, like I have, then you would know that too.
     
  18. quad

    quad Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    4,364
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Location:
    Detroit
    Joe Rogan rips social media censorship: ‘When you ban James Woods, you don’t just ban James Woods’

    Joe Rogan says tech giants need to realize that they’re “alienating a giant chunk of the population” when they ban popular users — particularly right-leaning celebrities — for expressing their opinions on social media.

    The podcasting icon recently sat down with pundit David Pakman for a wide-ranging interview when the subject turned to the heavy hand of censors on YouTube, Twitter, and other social media platforms.

    Mr. Rogan, who recently signed a $100 million deal to move his show to Spotify, said that Silicon Valley power players are faced with a “different world” than the days of short posts about going to the movies.

    “When you’re dealing with the ability to discuss things and you might say that your perspective is the one that you want to hear because you’re a left-wing person and these are you beliefs, but you’re isolating the whole other team from being a part of that conversation,” he said on May 22. “Maybe they have something you want to hear and maybe they don’t have anything you want to hear, but to not allow them to communicate you are alienating a giant chunk of the population.”

    The famous UFC commentator added that penalizing a site’s most popular figures can send a chilling message as it pertains to the idea of free speech.

    “If someone gets to a prominent level where they’re communicating a certain way, and you just decide that that certain way is unacceptable and you kick them off, you don’t just kick them off,” Mr. Rogan said. “You also silence all the other people that are along or aligned with them. Because they have similar ideas and they don’t want to speak out either. When you ban James Woods, you don’t just ban James Woods. You ban a lot of other people from saying something. They might be furious about the Russia investigation or whatever. They want to express themselves. And they panic. They get scared. They worry that they’re going get — that’s censorship. That’s a form of censorship.”

    Mr. Rogan said that despite his criticism, he’s not “at war” with YouTube and doesn’t envy the jobs required by high-level decision-makers.

    “I made this deal with Spotify because it’s a great company, and it’s a great deal, and I’m excited to be in a partnership with a company as opposed to like a company that I just put myself up on their platform whether it’s Apple or YouTube,” he said. “I don’t like that YouTube censors things. I don’t like that they do that like those [censoring] doctors in Bakersfield [talking about coronavirus] but I’m not at war with them. I’m not a war with anybody.”

     
  19. Klaus

    Klaus Premium Member Premium Member Established Member

    Messages:
    3,020
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2018
    Location:
    minnesota
    Yes I understand the order, genius. But if things are as dire as you think they are there must be oodles of rulings against social media companies, right? The interpretation of their platform status would at least be open for debate, wouldn't it?

    And yet it is not. Why is that? Is it possible that you do not really understand things as well as you think that you do?

    Here is the veritable shitload of rulings against those that have sued and lost on basis that 230 definition of platform does not apply:

    CHARLES C. JOHNSON V. TWITTER
    “It is well established that the constitutional right to free speech includes the right not to speak,” read its ruling. Twitter’s rules “clearly state that users may not post threatening tweets, and also that [Twitter] may unilaterally, for any reason, terminate a user’s account. The rules reflect [Twitter’s] exercise of free speech.”

    JARED TAYLOR V. TWITTER
    A California appeals court said the exact logic of Taylor’s suit didn’t matter. Twitter’s moderation choices were protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

    CRAIG BRITTAIN V. TWITTER

    FEDERAL AGENCY OF NEWS V. FACEBOOK

    PRAGER UNIVERSITY V. GOOGLE
    Google and YouTube were “private entities who created their own video-sharing social media website and make decisions about whether and how to regulate content that has been uploaded on that website,” not federal agencies or companies that functioned as an official arm of the government.

    An appeals court upheld the dismissal in February of this year.

    TULSI GABBARD V. GOOGLE
    California district Judge Stephen Wilson noted that “Google is not now, nor (to the Court’s knowledge) has it ever been, an arm of the United States government.” He cited the case against PragerU as legal precedent, concluding again that private web platforms aren’t held to the same standards as governments.

    ROBERT WILSON V. TWITTER
    “That private social media companies now host platforms which imitate the functions of public forums — in many respects more effectively than the traditional public forums of government-owned sidewalks, streets, and public parks — does not mean that the entities are state-actors,” read the ruling.

    LAURA LOOMER V. GOOGLE, FACEBOOK, TWITTER, AND APPLE
    “The Plaintiffs raise non-trivial concerns,” the court concluded. But they “failed to state viable legal claims” to support them — including evidence that a conspiracy existed or that private websites were public spaces that operated like a government.

    Surely there must be at least one ruling against social media platforms that interprets them as a publisher rather than a platform? Have at it Ajit.
     
  20. Klaus

    Klaus Premium Member Premium Member Established Member

    Messages:
    3,020
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2018
    Location:
    minnesota
    You seem to think this matters. NYT, CNN, MSNBC etc. etc. "editorialize content for profit and ideological reasons." Do you think they are a less biased source of information than Twitter and Facebook?
     

Share This Page