Big tech is stepping on the 1st amendment

[johneb]

How Facebook staffer could 'reduce circulation' of Hunter Biden exposé
Tucker: Emails show Hunter Biden sold access to his father's office

 

[mourningdove~]

Tucker's show was very good tonite ... very informative ...

 

[Arcangl86]

How is big tech stepping on the first amendment? The first amendment specially applies to the government, not private entities.

 

[WonbyOneanddone]

How is big tech stepping on the first amendment? The first amendment specially applies to the government, not private entities.

Does anyone find it strange that a baker must be forced by the state to bake a gay cake for a wedding but the same private industry can't be told by the state they can't discriminate against conservatives?

Left wing hypocrisy anyone?

 

[Fantine]

Er...do you mean that they are protecting themselves from libel and slander lawsuits?

The Russian disinformation that was planted on Twitter and Facebook had millions of views in just a few hours. Imagine the damage these blatant falsehoods could cause when viewed by mindless, undiscerning readers.

Foreign entities interfering in our elections have no first amendment rights, even when working with dishonest accomplices in the U.S.

I appreciate Facebook and Twittersecuring the integrity of their platforms.

 

[Arcangl86]

Does anyone find it strange that a baker must be forced by the state to bake a gay cake for a wedding but the same private industry can't be told by the state they can't discriminate against conservatives?

Left wing hypocrisy anyone?

1) Federal anti-discrimination laws don't say anything about refusing service to a customer due to sexuality so that's an apples to oranges comparison. 2) The only jurisdiction I'm aware of that protects against discrimination based on political beliefs is DC, though I'm sure some cities also do. But not the federal government, which is the primary regulator of internet activity. 3) They aren't discriminating against conservatives. They are however restricting posts that violate their ToS. Not the same thing, and the ToS in question are pretty fair. To use your wedding cake example, a baker wouldn't be able to refuse to make a certain product for a costumer because they fall under a protected class. But if this is something that they wouldn't do or make for everybody, then they aren't guilty of discrimination. If you can show cases where Twitter or FaceBook were inconsistent with applying the TOS, you might have a point.

 

[Yarddog]

Does anyone find it strange that a baker must be forced by the state to bake a gay cake for a wedding

Didn't the courts rule in favor of the baker?

but the same private industry can't be told by the state they can't discriminate against conservatives?

So now you think that it's okay to discriminate against a social media domain that its users know that it has rules on what can be posted?

Conservatives think that its okay to discriminate as long as they agree with the discrimination.

Right wing hypocrisy.

 

[jgarden]

Big tech is stepping on the 1st amendment

Clinton Watts, a disinformation expert and research fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, said in an interview with The Hill last week that there is a “high” likelihood that the information is part of a disinformation operation."

Thomas Rid, an information security expert and professor at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, also told The Hill that there is a “significant likelihood” — more than 50 percent — that the laptop is part of an information operation from Russia or another foreign nation.

Ratcliffe, Schiff battle over Biden emails, politicized intelligence
*********************************************************************************
How convenient that after the DOJ investigation failed to produce the desired results, Hunter Biden's laptop suddenly appears after remaining unclaimed for 6 months a local repair shop

Instead of returning the laptop to its rightful owner, the repair shop proprietor takes it upon itself to intrude into Biden's private affairs - we are expected to believe that once again lightning strikes in favor of the Trump Campaign by providing a treasure trove of self-incriminating emails!

Given that anything too good to be true usually is, this marks the 2nd consecutive Trump Campaign where potentially damaging emails suddenly become public just weeks before the Election!

Having been used as the unwitting tools of Russian hackers and WikiLeaks in 2016, its understandable that America's social media giants would be dubious about this revelation and reticent about being victimized a 2nd time!

 

[WonbyOneanddone]

Er...do you mean that they are protecting themselves from libel and slander lawsuits?

The Russian disinformation that was planted on Twitter and Facebook had millions of views in just a few hours. Imagine the damage these blatant falsehoods could cause when viewed by mindless, undiscerning readers.

Foreign entities interfering in our elections have no first amendment rights, even when working with dishonest accomplices in the U.S.

I appreciate Facebook and Twittersecuring the integrity of their platforms.

You can post, and people have posted, endless conspiracy theories about the President of the United States without any of it proven, while any talk of the Hunter Biden scandal is readily censored.

Try again.

 

[WonbyOneanddone]

1) Federal anti-discrimination laws don't say anything about refusing service to a customer due to sexuality so that's an apples to oranges comparison. 2) The only jurisdiction I'm aware of that protects against discrimination based on political beliefs is DC, though I'm sure some cities also do. But not the federal government, which is the primary regulator of internet activity. 3) They aren't discriminating against conservatives. They are however restricting posts that violate their ToS. Not the same thing, and the ToS in question are pretty fair. To use your wedding cake example, a baker wouldn't be able to refuse to make a certain product for a costumer because they fall under a protected class. But if this is something that they wouldn't do or make for everybody, then they aren't guilty of discrimination. If you can show cases where Twitter or FaceBook were inconsistent with applying the TOS, you might have a point.

Facebook and Twitter let Leftists like Louis Farrakhan spouting hate speech all day but then censor conservatives on the same premise. And to add salt to injury, a lot of the time there is no real hate speech included when conservatives are censored.

Case in point is Dennis Prager who had some videos on abortion censored due to "obscenity's" Problem is, there was to obscene language used, there was no obscene pictures. No, they just thought having a bad view of abortion was fueled by hate.

Conservatives are the new negro.