Google bans (Trump's) "True Social" because of the platforms lack of moderation

[Sophrosyne]

Reagan did that. He abolished the "Fairness Doctrine" that required media to give a voice to contrary opinions. Absent that, private media can do as they like.



There's that pesky First Amendment in your way. Sorry. Government has no right whatever to demand that media provide alternative views. Reagan was right about that.

When a platform acts as a publisher they aren't protected from being sued. When you limit what people post you are essentially publishing only what you want to, when you are accessible without paying to most anyone in the world then you are acting as a public platform. When you allow the government to say what you can and can't allow on your platform you are acting as a public media outlet.

 

[The Barbarian]

When a platform acts as a publisher they aren't protected from being sued. When you limit what people post you are essentially publishing only what you want to, when you are accessible without paying to most anyone in the world then you are acting as a public platform.

That's been tested in court. You're wrong. And yes, the First Amendment not only allows you to put up what you want, it also prevents anyone else from telling you what you have to put up.

That's how it works. Freedom of the press isn't negotiable or subject to government or society approval. Sorry for the inconvenience.

 

[The Barbarian]

When you allow the government to say what you can and can't allow on your platform you are acting as a public media outlet.

You were just all bent out of shape because the government can't set up rules for private platforms as to what they publish or refuse to publish.

Your argument was tested with the broadcast media, which use public airwaves. Your argument was the Fairness Doctrine. It's gone, and courts have supported Reagan's action in ending it. You might not like getting your wish granted. It would, for example, require Fox News to let someone use Fox air time to push ideas that you probably wouldn't like.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I notice that different outlets comment on stuff from other networks, and often criticize them. So there is that.

Not lately. They merely repeat the lie that was originally reported.

Remember when the Washington Post posted the story about
Nick Sandmann mocking the Native American, Veteran?

Turns out the story was false, yet every network and paper
ran with the story, citing the Washington Post Article.

 

[Sophrosyne]

That's been tested in court. You're wrong. And yes, the First Amendment not only allows you to put up what you want, it also prevents anyone else from telling you what you have to put up.

That's how it works. Freedom of the press isn't negotiable or subject to government or society approval. Sorry for the inconvenience.

The press can be liable for what they publish.

 

[Sophrosyne]

You were just all bent out of shape because the government can't set up rules for private platforms as to what they publish or refuse to publish.

Your argument was tested with the broadcast media, which use public airwaves. Your argument was the Fairness Doctrine. It's gone, and courts have supported Reagan's action in ending it. You might not like getting your wish granted. It would, for example, require Fox News to let someone use Fox air time to push ideas that you probably wouldn't like.

Fox news can be liable for what they publish, I've no problem with that as when they have stories by their people even if they are not paid that come out as defaming someone through lies they can be sued like CNN was. To allow defamation on a social platform to continue unabated and unchallenged and to ban people for the truth is essentially publicly calling them a liar which is defaming their character also. I think these social platforms that collude with defamers should be liable for it and sued into oblivion but they are more protected than CNN was. Maybe CNN needs to start a twitter clone and have their folks post stuff on it there and have it protected from lawsuits.

 

[The Barbarian]

Fox news can be liable for what they publish

Everyone is. But prior restraint is illegal. First Amendment means that you can't censor any media outlet, nor can you tell them what they much publish.

I've no problem with that as when they have stories by their people even if they are not paid that come out as defaming someone through lies they can be sued like CNN was.

Fox News had a clever and true defense for some of the libelous material they broadcast. They correctly argued that no reasonable person would take anything Tucker Carlson said as the truth.

The judge was forced to admit that is true.

To allow defamation on a social platform to continue unabated and unchallenged and to ban people for the truth is essentially publicly calling them a liar which is defaming their character also.

A public figure like Biden or Trump has fewer ways to stop it. Fox seems to have found the golden standard for their people at least. But the First Amendment allows any media entity to decide what they will and will not have on their site.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Everyone is. But prior restraint is illegal. First Amendment means that you can't censor any media outlet, nor can you tell them what they much publish.

So in other words when the government approached social media execs they shouldn't have done it in secret so we would know that these people were not being "told" what is published or not

Fox News had a clever and true defense for some of the libelous material they broadcast. They correctly argued that no reasonable person would take anything Tucker Carlson said as the truth.

The judge was forced to admit that is true.

That matters not, they were taken to court unlike the social media sites which are IMMUNE to having a judge hear the case at all.

A public figure like Biden or Trump has fewer ways to stop it. Fox seems to have found the golden standard for their people at least. But the First Amendment allows any media entity to decide what they will and will not have on their site.

The first amendment in media means nothing if what you want to say/publish gets you canceled. Media sites are having their internet providers pressured to cancel them, financial institutions cancel them, government officials like the FBI showing up and "convincing" them to cancel people that are "disinformation".
These places are at the mercy of others to speak and when they speak wrong they are silenced.

I heard today that a site that was getting a DDOS attack was a cloudflare client and cloudflare canceled their service now they are taken out by the DDOS. This site is a cloudflare client so it could be taken down by a DDOS if someone complains about it and convinces them we here are "evil" or whatever.

 

[pgp_protector]

The problem with Republicans and Democrats. Both take a story, twist and turn into something that fits their view of the world. Every story has three sides, Yours, Theirs, and the truth which normally resides in the middle. I hear conservatives complain, I hear Liberals complain, I hear both sides lie about each other. My two favorite Politician's are Obama and was McCain, both were different parties but they worked together to do the job. Today the only thing both sides do is screw each other over instead of doing their damn job. I am actually happy i will probably be dead in 20 years my health is not good. I am just so tired of its all

I've got 30 - 40 years left if I'm lucky (unlucky ??) Though My wife less, and she won't remember most of it anyways.

 

[The Barbarian]

So in other words when the government approached social media execs they shouldn't have done it in secret so we would know that these people were not being "told" what is published or not

Feel free to show us your evidence. What do you have?

That matters not, they were taken to court unlike the social media sites which are IMMUNE to having a judge hear the case at all.

If they libel people as Fox News did, then they can be sued just as Fox was.

The first amendment in media means nothing if what you want to say/publish gets you canceled.

You still don't get it. It's not "censorship" if some private outlet decides they don't want to give you a platform. They don't have to say what you want them to say, either. First Amendment. Just as you are free to go to a site that agrees with you, or even start your own.

I heard today that a site that was getting a DDOS attack was a cloudflare client and cloudflare canceled their service now they are taken out by the DDOS.

That's not censorship; that's just vandalism. And people doing that are criminals. But no one is required to help you express yourself.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Feel free to show us your evidence. What do you have?
Zuckerberg FBI Joe Rogan Hunter Biden Laptop.... go search for yourself.

The rest is not worth replying to. I'm no longer interested in discussing the cancel culture with people who support it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Feel free to show us your evidence. What do you have?

go search for yourself

No one else can find any, either. For reasons we all understand.

The rest is not worth replying to. I'm no longer interested in discussing the cancel culture with people who support it.

So you criticize DeSantis for his cancel culture attempts on Disney? You want to see Colin Kaepernick back in the NFL? We agree on that. I don't like it either.

 

[Laconia79]

I've got 30 - 40 years left if I'm lucky (unlucky ??) Though My wife less, and she won't remember most of it anyways.

I might have 30 though I doubt it and I do not care lol.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Feel free to show us your evidence. What do you have?



No one else can find any, either. For reasons we all understand.



So you criticize DeSantis for his cancel culture attempts on Disney? You want to see Colin Kaepernick back in the NFL? We agree on that. I don't like it either.

NFL? Who cares. I bet you can find the Disney+ app in the google store so comparing them being canceled to Trump is non sequitor. I bet Disney even has a Twitter account too.

 

[The Barbarian]

NFL? Who cares. I bet you can find the Disney+ app in the google store so comparing them being canceled to Trump is non sequitor.

The fact that republican cancel culture isn't very effective has more to do with the number of people who are inclined to listen to them, than with the people they are trying to cancel.

DeSantis actually gave Disney a huge bailout after he took responsibilty for things Disney had previously been paying for. Mickey outsmarted Goofy.

 

[Sophrosyne]

The fact that republican cancel culture isn't very effective has more to do with the number of people who are inclined to listen to them, than with the people they are trying to cancel.

DeSantis actually gave Disney a huge bailout after he took responsibilty for things Disney had previously been paying for. Mickey outsmarted Goofy.

You certainly aren't paying much attention to things, you've got this wrong twice.

 

[The Barbarian]

ou certainly aren't paying much attention to things, you've got this wrong twice.

Well, let's take a look...

Disney’s $578 Million Tax Break Left Untouched in DeSantis Feud

• State benefit defrays costs of relocating staffers to Florida
• Entertainment giant is moving 2,000 of its employees

Disney’s $578 Million Tax Break Left Untouched in DeSantis Feud

DeSantis Gifts Disney Huge Tax Break At Florida Taxpayers' Expense
Central Floridians will likely see their property tax bills increase by $500-$1000 as a result of this "punishment" for Disney's opposition to DeSantis' homophobic agenda.

Did you really not know this? Gov. Ron not only gave Disney a huge cut in taxes, he's handing out money for them to move employees.

When he's not being Mike Dukakis, that is...

Apparently, Gov. Ron has has a bad case of Twerp's Syndrome

 

[Sophrosyne]

Well, let's take a look...

Disney’s $578 Million Tax Break Left Untouched in DeSantis Feud

• State benefit defrays costs of relocating staffers to Florida
• Entertainment giant is moving 2,000 of its employees

Disney’s $578 Million Tax Break Left Untouched in DeSantis Feud

DeSantis Gifts Disney Huge Tax Break At Florida Taxpayers' Expense
Central Floridians will likely see their property tax bills increase by $500-$1000 as a result of this "punishment" for Disney's opposition to DeSantis' homophobic agenda.

Did you really not know this? Gov. Ron not only gave Disney a huge cut in taxes, he's handing out money for them to move employees.

When he's not being Mike Dukakis, that is...

Apparently, Gov. Ron has has a bad case of Twerp's Syndrome

This is proof that Desantis didn't cancel Disney, although I'm not really sure he could renig on this contract and dishonoring it would likely discourage other companies wanting to consider moving to Florida so likely he could actually lose more money by canceling it if not being sued in court for breaking it.
As for the Central Floridians paying their fair share of taxes..... boo hoo it is Disney's fault that Desantis could not trust them to not teach children sex lessons against the state law with their special governing status he was right to pull it from them to protect those kids.
Any way I'm a bit tired of running after wild geese on this Trump cannot post on Twitter or youtube while disney can post anywhere online. I would bet they could even go on Truth Social and post there.

 

[The Barbarian]

This is proof that Desantis didn't cancel Disney, although I'm not really sure he could renig on this contract and dishonoring it would likely discourage other companies wanting to consider moving to Florida so likely he could actually lose more money by canceling it if not being sued in court for breaking it.

He tried, but it ends up giving Disney a huge tax break and costing Florida taxpayers many millions of dollars. Looks like homeowners in that county are going to pay an additional $500 a year to finance his temper tantrum.

As for the Central Floridians paying their fair share of taxes..... boo hoo it is Disney's fault that Desantis could not trust them to not teach children sex lessons against the state law with their special governing status he was right to pull it from them to protect those kids.

That's the thing. Disney wasn't teaching any "sex lessons" at all. They just refused to go along with his attacks on LGBT people. So he threw a tantrum and cost FLorida taxpayers a huge penalty for his foolishness.

 

[The Barbarian]

Any way I'm a bit tired of running after wild geese on this Trump cannot post on Twitter or youtube while disney can post anywhere online.

Anywhere the guys owning the site will let them. Just like Trump. What seems to chap you is the First Amendment that keeps the government from telling people what they can or can't have on their websites.

Maybe we should have "affirmative action" for "logic-challenged" people like racists and neo-fascists. That might help your guys.