a lot of Republicans are complaining that they're being subjected to mass censorship in the wake of the storming of the Capital building because the social media sites of Trump and other prominent politicians are being removed. But a federal authority isn't coming in and stopping them from spreading their message; social media sites are denying them a platform. They then respond with one of two accusations: first is that the social media sites effectively control the digital airwaves so it is effectively censorship or they claim that the internet is a public space invoking supreme court cases that upheld the riot to protest on quasi public spaces. Well the first claim is blatantly false, no social media site has even >50% of the total social media accounts and and for the rulings protecting the freedom of speech in quasi public spaces, that's why we have net neutrality but that wouldn't apply to social media websites.
They then try to claim that there's a double standard because the social media sites haven't shut down leftist politicians after all of the BLM and Antifa riots but this ignores one key difference: what happened in DC wasn't a riot, it was an attempted coup. I mean asking why social media sites are taking it more seriously than the riots is like asking why someone who committed attempted murder gets a greater sentence than someone who committed aggravated assault even if the severity of the injuries inflicted on their victims was the same. Also, Republicans will claim that there is collusion and site the fact that all these social media sites shut down Trump at the same time. But there are other explanations for that like convergence. As a tid bit, the fact that they're arguing collusion is occurring but are using it as an excuse for coerced speech as opposed to arguing for trust busting is really telling about how much they truly value "freedom of speech".
Updates
+1 y
Having section 230 protection doesn't mean that you forfeit the right to deny someone a platform for any reason other than their protected status (which does NOT include political views).
Do Republicans not understand that coerced speech (forced platforming) is just as much a violation of the 1st amendment as censorship?
I like how the left uses the most bias sources they can in order to push their agenda but then ignore all other evidence. No one is saying that these companies can be publishers, what they are arguing is that they are claiming to be platforms to gain the benefits of being a platform i. e. not getting sued for the content on their site, but they are acting like publishers and gaining the benefits of that as well (censoring people from their site).
This creates a very twisted system where the company is allowed to violate their terms of service without consequence since as platforms you cannot sue them, they can argue that the reason why say twitter has allowed violent language used by the left (calling for killing of the president, his family, of pence, calling to overthrow the government and killing of conservatives etc.), of allowing the posting of negative press for the right even if its proven to be a complete lie is because they are a platform and cannot censor people.
The problem is they then turn around and censor conservatives who have not even called for violence, they censore any negative press coverage of the left even if its proven to be true (like twitter did with the Hunter Biden laptop investigation, where they banned the New York Post because they posted a link to their article about it and it made joe biden look bad (this dropped in October but was only talked about after biden "won" the election).
Its the inconsistency of their policies, inconsistent application of the rules and of the law that is making conservatives angry. Your aware of this of course as I do believe you and the left in general have all called for the removal of Parlor and gab because it hosts conservatives. Your not arguing that its compelled speech, your arguing that the right shouldn't be allowed to speak at all (because you fear what they have to say as all liars and manipulators do.).
And predictably you're just saying that because a source is biased, it's wrong by default (which is a complete cop out). You're just chocking everything up to partisan bias when there are plenty of other explanations because you just see everything through the lens of the "selectively outraged left" fallacious narrative. Protection from being held liable for misinformation spread on their doesn't legally mean that social media sites are obliged to be impartial to political messages on their platform.
No, but its funny that your making that claim when you say that to me. I pointed out that your sources are on the far left but if I was to give you a source that simply disagrees with you you would scream that its bias and it doesn't count. Also your sources are opinions not facts so they are irrelevant, their bias doesn't really matter if they were speaking the truth but they are more then likely not.
Leftist always blame others for what they themselves do, that was the point I was making and you in your typical fashion couldn't grasp what was being said so you immediatley try to shift blame to me so you can continue to believe you are prestine and objective when every one and their mother knows your not.
As for your last statement, that is incorrect. Either they are a publisher or they are not. Also claming it was misinformation that they are being sued for is absolutely false, they are protected from essentialy all scrutiny. That is why again, they have different rules for people depending on whether or not they are conservative or not. You try to muddy the waters with making false claims and strawman arguements but their really is not waters to muddy here, either they are a platform as they say or they are a publisher, but they cannot be both.
" I pointed out that your sources are on the far left but if I was to give you a source that simply disagrees with you you would scream that its bias and it doesn't count." That's baseless conjecture and there were facts pointed out in those videos as well.
Nope, you just use false equivalences to make your case.
There are different rules but that doesn't make every rule different by default and one rule that is the same for publishers and platforms is that they can refuse to publish/platform viewpoints.
Baseless? Are you fucking kidding me? We have done this song and dance more times then I can count, I have literally given you sources and you flipped out and refused to accept it. remember, the last one was information given by a black conservatives that you called a house n-----? Ring any bells their princess?
As for the "information", no, it doesn't have any of that just bias and hate (but then what else do leftist provide the world other then bigotry, bias, and hate? Rhetorical question, its nothing, you provide nothing (well also oppression I suppose and racism. But definitley nothing of value).
Yeah, we've done this dance and when you cited sources I told you why their argument was fallacious, I didn't say "they have a right wing bias, so they don't count" and I didn't say hat someone was a house n@#$%& because they were a black conservative, I said they were because they parroted the manipulation of statistics by white supremacists dumbass. And the video by Legal Eagle accurately describes what the FACTS on section 230 are.
Holy hell, you actually got him caught up in the validity of his sources by calling them biased. Good job, that might work on some regular lib, but I'm a real, scary socialist. Can you actually refute the points made by the asker or those by the sources? Bias doesn't invalidate a truth.
@masonova1 Yeah, done it many many times. Thats why I haven't done it this time because linking him videos, articles, published scientific papers hasn't swayed him so why the fuck would it sway him now. Your more then likely going to be the same and quite frankly I've grown tired of spending hours combing through papers in order to find one that he/leftist won't claim is biased and therefore doesn't count only to post ten or more links (minimum) to sources none of which are on the right, only to have them blow it off and claim it doesn't count. Last time I posted sources for this guy, because it was a black conservative presenting them (Larry Elder and Thomas Sowell) he said those don't count because they are "house N-----". Hence me not presenting evidence because it will fall on deaf ears and I don't feel like wasting that much time on it.
@hellionthesagereborn "I have evidence dude trust me I wrote a whole paragraph about all this evidence I have trust me" dude that's so sick can I see it
No, I literally presented the actual data they stated and you decided I misrepresented it because it didn't say what you wanted it to say. Thats all, your part of a cult and you cannot question the ideology of your cult. Its that simple.
Hanging your hat on the false claim of a coup for the de-platforming is pretzel logic. Just like it is to say that the de-platforming is OK because of some alleged coup, yet speech is still protected. Then there’s the Democratic Party‘s connection to so-called Big Tech and the fact a coordinated de-platforming is an antitrust violation. Democratic involvement brings in First Amendment violations. Fact is, the de-platforming is merely the political and economic elite, which is joined at the hip and has gamed the political system, attempting to keep anyone from organizing against them politically. Note that a group of former Democrats encouraging Democrats to leave the party was also de-platfirmed, so it’s clear that this is about
Companies doing the de-platforming have received special government protection via Section 230, and as a result cannot be permitted to discriminate on the basis of political views, especially where leftists and Islamists are allowed to maintain their presence on these platforms with no censorship. Telling someone they can‘t express their political views or they will face being de-platformed from digital infrastructure, platforms, and online payment systems is taking away the right to free speech and freedom of Religion at the behest of the Democratic Party. To claim that discrimination on the basis of political views is OK is a violation of basic rights, especially if impedes people from earning a living (restraint of trade). it’s interesting, though, that CCP-style censorship and „social credit“ has been implemented by the Democrats. And all this because our elite wants to continue to run the country into the ground. People currently supporting the de-platforming should not forget it can be done to them as well should the displease or not longer be needed as useful idiots for the corrupt elite.
@Avicenna Dude he asked you if the Republican "connection" (your terminology, by the way) to Fox News, Parler, The Daily Wire, Breitbart, etc... as platforms constitutes the same "connection" Democratic parties have to whatever massive blanket term you use to make Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, and Google seem way more ominous and 1984-ey than they actually are. It was pretty unambiguous.
@masonova1: He needed to be clear on what he’s saying, which he wasn’t, and still hasn’t been.
None of those organizations considers themselves a platform and none of them censors (they are publishers). Nor did any of them try to get a competitor taken out via de-platforning, which IS an antitrust matter. Plus the real fault line in US politics is between The establishment and the people, which relatively concentrated media ownership amplifies.
Kinda if would be one thing if they didn’t shut down the one website that conservatives could go to. “Build your own social media they said”. So we did what do we need to come up with our own servers now as well? How about our own credit card companies? Or how about this our own government in our own country?
there’s issue right now is they won’t even allow us to have a voice so right now Coerced free speech is the only way we’re going to have a voice in this country unless we want to form our own and will except your Jesus land proposal even though I don’t believe in Jesus
“no social media site has even >50% of the total social media accounts”
Okay. Now talk about a relevant topic of like traffic.
“rulings protecting the freedom of speech in quasi public spaces, that's why we have net neutrality but that wouldn't apply to social media websites.”
That didn’t address the argument.
If something like Twitter is where society is hosting its grand conversation, then it’s effectively the commons. When you get shut out of it, you lose access to the commons – a public space. That’s their point.
Even if we don’t accept that it’s a public space. The obvious alternative to create a new space where more people are permitted. The problem is that ideologues and companies like Twitter go after those new spaces and try to stomp them out. Big tech are not subtle about their intent to silence.
Under section 230 platforms are allowed to moderate their content even though they are protected from liable for material spread on it be they bookstores or websites so the analogy fits perfectly for the sake of this discussion.
No it's not, again section 230 doesn't prohibit a platform from refusing to host content for any reason or no reason (barring the protected status of the author which doesn't include political views).
That's literally the opposite of what the protections are.
And even if it wasn't, the law would not an argument for it being acceptable. The argument would just be change the law because it sucks, and that's the important part.
The protections aren't what you arbitrarily want them to be; they don't require platforms give equal representation to all views. And it's wrong to give a platform to a political entity (MAGA) that attempted to undo the democratic processes.
"they don't require platforms give equal representation to all views." Not *equal* representation, they're required to give representation regardless of the ratio to others.
"And it's wrong to give a platform to a political entity (MAGA) that attempted to undo the democratic processes." 1. No, it's not. 2. Your sense of what of is right and wrong is *necessarily and intentionally* disregarded by platforms. 3. "Political entities" as you frame it are not a thing for a platform. That's *you* imposing your moral assessment on others as dictum, deciding it should be a thing and that all the people you don't like should go.
-They can refuse to platform something for any reason or no reason barring the protected status of the author without forfeiting their protection from liable.
-OK maybe you don't see attempts to overthrow democratic processes as a bad thing. I had a suspicion that you are an authoritarian. But good thing so many think it's wrong to platform ideologies that you back.
“They can refuse to platform something for any reason or no reason barring the protected status of the author without forfeiting their protection from liable.” Again, either you’re wrong or the law is wrong. It doesn’t matter which. It’s meant to protect them from libel by preventing attribution of communications to the platform. (Also, interestingly a bookstore still wouldn’t be a platform, even by your own stipulations)
“maybe you don't see attempts to overthrow democratic processes as a bad thing.” I see them as bad. But that’s to my point, I don’t think that’s adequate reason to take them down. And that you would is reflecting exactly the problems at hand. The platform is obliged to disregard your moral arbitration, and that of everyone else.
“I had a suspicion that you are an authoritarian. But good thing so many think it's wrong to platform ideologies that you back.” Wow. Just fucking wow. The irony. Disparaging others as authoritarians while you’re the one who wants to censor people, in back-to-back sentences no less. Amazing. Round of applause for an exquisite failure of self-awareness right there.
See, it’s shit like that which makes me believe you’re genuine cancer. Truly toxic, even dangerous. And yet I still insist platforms host you. Which really makes everything we needed to know clear about this discussion. Now go entertain someone else with your mental gymnastics.
If private companies want to be publishers, instead of platforms, then that’s their right to do so. BUT there is no reason why the American people should be providing publishers with section 230 protection. Either we need to remove that protection so that they are held accountable for what’s on the websites... OR they can become true platforms and stop censoring people.
I know... it says that they are not responsible for the content of their websites. It says that they can not be held criminally or civilly responsible for what is said on their website! Because they are a platform and they don’t “say” anything. Other people use their websites and “say” things. But with that protection comes with the obvious conclusion that they will not censor anyone. Once they start censoring people, they become a publisher. Because they are now controlling what is and is not said on their platform.
“I’m not blaming but tech here. The American people gave them a free check and so they have been writing it how they please. I’m saying that America needs to change how they regulate big tech”.
It is not a question of forced platforming. Section 230 is a privilege that gives your company an immunity if you are impartial as if you are a public square. No city can tell a group that they can not protest in a public square based on their message. When a platform company does this they are in effect saying that all speech on the platform is controlled by the platform company which renders the 230 immunity null and void.
Section 230 doesn't mandate that you act impartially if you want to act as a platform and the equivalent of the public square would be the internet hence we have net neutrality.
It is only because of the money. Trump isn't rich. He just lies as usual. Banks are no longer covering for him. They have ceased giving to the Republican party. Tech companies are withdrawing funding for anyone claiming the election was a fraud. The hashtag, "stopthesteal" is banned.
The insurrection made folks realize, things were sideways. Folks are waking up. We were going to lose a free society.
Really, It seems to me to be similar to forcing a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding reception. why doesn't a small baker who doesn't hold a monopoly have to provide services for something that they disagree with?
ethically there is no difference,. That fact that it is a law only speaks to coercive influences of activists. If enough activists coerced the government to pass similar laws it would be exactly the same.
Either they are responsible for the content or not, platform or publisher. It's not fair to reap the benefits of being a platform, then claim the privileges of a publisher when it's convenient.
forced platforming is how our cell phones and phones work. and they are doing just fine. its not forced speech because of the implicit knowledge that it isn't THEIR speech
Even if it's their speech they still don't have to provide a platform for it. Now I do agree that social media sites have too much power but the solution to this problem is to use anti trust laws to limit their hegemony (which the left has been pushing for and the right has been fighting against). That you think the solution to this problem is forced platforming (coerced speech) is the solution to this problem indicates one thing and one thing only: you don't care about freedom of information or corporate hegemony, you only want your ideas to get more screen time than they'd get in the free marketplace of ideas.
they must be forced to provide a platform or democracy will end in a short while. its not compulsive speech because nobody is claiming its their speech. its compulsive platforming which is just a sign of being a utility
That's only true because the media sites have too much power; break them up and it's not an issue and it not being their speech doesn't mean that it's not coerced speech. If a radio station was forced to broadcast a recording of Hitlers' speech, that's still coerced speech.
i agree with you about breaking them up. but that leads to an even bigger problem. we can't have 50 tiny sites each with their own facts. democracy can't survive that
we need 1 large publicly regulated platform with compulsive platforming
"we need 1 large publicly regulated platform with compulsive platforming"
Well if you want to make a government run social media site where people won't be de-platformed for engaging in legally protected speech I'd be all for it (although I suspect trolls would be a BIG problem on that site).
If that amount of repetition was just two buttons pushed twice, are you saying you just copy-pasted the same phrase and called that a reply?
And dude, you took 2 whole ass days to respond to my comment. Cool your jets - no need to be so needy. I get you want attention from women, but desperation is a bad colour on you.
All that said, seeing you back to your usual attention-seeking, defensive ways is reassuring. Glad to see you're feeling better. Keep drinking that water and sleeping enough, man. You've obviously got enough going on without also neglecting to care for your body.
They are completely clueless about this whenever it affects their side. But whenever it affects their political opponents, they suddenly understand it very well. Odd, isn't it?
It is if it’s coordinated with elected officials. Democrats are using ostenisibly privately companies to push heur. political agenda, so it’s a violation of constitutional rights. We saw this during the Obama Administration when contractors were used to abusively query the NSA database. John Kerry gave it away when he made a speech last year and said that companies could and should be used to do things government can’t do.
Well, everyone knows that Trump‘s opponents have been lying and been it to get him because he represented, however timid, a potential challenge to an ossified establishment.
To censor based on a difference of opinion, which is what this actually is (claiming it’s because of „lies“, something in politics that is usually a matter of opinion), is a violation of the First Amendment
Talk about grasping at straws. Trump didn’t tell anyone to go murder anyone else. And the policeman was a Trump supporter and no one believes Trump wants his supporters killed.
Just admit you were wrong and that the censorship is a bad idea. Otherwise any Democrat whose supporters have committed murder are about be censored and they will be subject to impeachment and removal from Congress.
Interestingly, Trump was still speaking when the Capitol was breached and he made it clear he wanted a peaceful march. Furthermore, since Jan. 6th, reports have come out saying at least some of the rioters were planning stuff in advance, which, if true, totally extinguishes the leftist fantasy.
@Avicenna You claim trouble has no liability because he didn’t say kill. I have know liability in the theater if I don’t say trample? That’s the how it’s the same biatch. (Mic drop).
Home > Society & Politics > Questions > Do Republicans not understand that coerced speech (forced platforming) is just as much a violation of the 1st amendment as censorship?
