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

[Laconia79]

If you made a list of all the stuff Trump got hit on various social media it is quite extensive. Twitter banning him but being OK with the Taliban, states that sponsor terrorism like Iran, Antifa....

Facebook doing bans and censoring him compared to other heinous stuff that they treated with kid gloves. A few years back, a young adult black man and woman openly tortured a severely mentally disabled Caucasian man because of his race on Facebook (he had the mind of a grade school kid) and lived streamed it but the fallout from that was less than some of the stuff Trump has been hit with by him simply being his bombastic, but nonviolent self.

It' is also interesting that what Trump is getting hit for really is what the internet was built and based on as far as a being a free range, open source place, with nobody acting as a censor unless obvious laws are broken.

It also is interesting when you consider apps like Tik Tok and their relationship to the Chinese Communist party them using apps for data collection and spying, and just how people are not that bothered with how they can censor our speech in various subtle ways using their financial/business connections and deals to pull the strings and levels of business people, politicians and celebrities.

The picture below is my opinion of trump
View attachment 320607

 

[Thomas White]

Actually Congress can repeal the protection that platforms have that is designed to protect freedom of speech. If free speech isn't being allowed then only approved speech is allowed and no protection should be given to such platforms. I am all for the platforms doing what they want but they should be liable for the actions that they "approve" of if they do it under the guise of freedom of speech.

So a private company should be made to host your comments on their privately maintained servers?

 

[The Barbarian]

So a private company should be made to host your comments on their privately maintained servers?

That's the far-right version of the First Amendment.

 

[Sophrosyne]

So a private company should be made to host your comments on their privately maintained servers?

They aren't doing private business though, they are a public square for information essentially they are acting as broadcast media which sorts out and constantly publishes things that agree with their point of view. If you are censoring and banning people based upon your point of view then you are acting in similar fashion. I am seeing now on the news 2 states have a lawsuit against social media platforms for colluding with the Biden administration to sensor dissenting points of view on their platforms. If this is found to be true then they are acting as a government agent and as such are applicable to government laws regarding free speech. We shall see after this goes to the Supreme court if Biden and company along with the social media platforms have any emails left to turn over if they lose this suit.

 

[The Barbarian]

They aren't doing private business though

Yep. It's a private business. If it's public that would be like a library or a city website. Private media are well, private.

they are acting as broadcast media which sorts out and constantly publishes things that agree with their point of view

Kind of like Fox News? They're private, too, even if they are "broadcast media."

If you are censoring and banning people based upon your point of view then you are acting in similar fashion.

Fox is entitled to choose what they will broadcast or not broadcast. That's not censorship; it's freedom of the press. And you want to end it.

I am seeing now on the news 2 states have a lawsuit against social media platforms for colluding with the Biden administration to sensor dissenting points of view on their platforms.

Some states are run by republicans, who as you demonstrate, don't like the First Amendment very much. Too bad for them. It won't change things. BTW, we have texts of Trump colluding with Fox News people, so you probably wouldn't like it if you got your wish.

Text messages reveal the influence of Fox News hosts on Trump’s White House
The texts, released by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection, show how tightly Fox News and the White House were entwined during the Trump years.
Text messages reveal the influence of Fox News hosts on Trump’s White House

 

[Thomas White]

They aren't doing private business though, they are a public square for information essentially they are acting as broadcast media which sorts out and constantly publishes things that agree with their point of view. If you are censoring and banning people based upon your point of view then you are acting in similar fashion. I am seeing now on the news 2 states have a lawsuit against social media platforms for colluding with the Biden administration to sensor dissenting points of view on their platforms. If this is found to be true then they are acting as a government agent and as such are applicable to government laws regarding free speech. We shall see after this goes to the Supreme court if Biden and company along with the social media platforms have any emails left to turn over if they lose this suit.

By that logic, no business is doing private business. They are not government agents, and no court in the US will say that they are.

 

[stone]

If you made a list of all the stuff Trump got hit on various social media it is quite extensive. Twitter banning him but being OK with the Taliban, states that sponsor terrorism like Iran, Antifa....

Facebook doing bans and censoring him compared to other heinous stuff that they treated with kid gloves. A few years back, a young adult black man and woman openly tortured a severely mentally disabled Caucasian man because of his race on Facebook (he had the mind of a grade school kid) and lived streamed it but the fallout from that was less than some of the stuff Trump has been hit with by him simply being his bombastic, but nonviolent self.

It' is also interesting that what Trump is getting hit for really is what the internet was built and based on as far as a being a free range, open source place, with nobody acting as a censor unless obvious laws are broken.

It also is interesting when you consider apps like Tik Tok and their relationship to the Chinese Communist party them using apps for data collection and spying, and just how people are not that bothered with how they can censor our speech in various subtle ways using their financial/business connections and deals to pull the strings and levels of business people, politicians and celebrities.


Anyway just started to look at Tim Pool covering this.

It's really about banning everything republican that creates any threat to Democrat power. If Trump was to go on vacation, whatever, whoever steps up would be the next target.

 

[JacksBratt]

You can be absolutely certain that what you have to say is truth.... when the "left controlled" social police block you every time that they can.

Social media should be a place where anyone can say what they want.. let them face the other posters who can prove them to be wrong... or not...

When terrorist regimes still have social media sites... nobody else should be denied one.

They let people chatter on about anything.. but... when someone who has a lot of followers... gets over the target.. and is about to derail an agenda or expose a hypocrisy... "shut em down"...

 

[The Barbarian]

Social media should be a place where anyone can say what they want..

There's that pesky First Amendment thing. The person who owns the site, gets to decide what will and will not be on it. You can start your own, if you think there are enough people like you to make it economically feasible. Or you could see if the government would put up a site that would be free for all expressions, no matter how evil or disgusting.

But the Constitution forbids government to tell the press what to print and not print. (and yes, that covers all media).

 

[pgp_protector]

Social media should be a place where anyone can say what they want.. let them face the other posters who can prove them to be wrong... or not...

So given this is a Social media site (or are you going to all of a suddenly classify one forum different from another? )
We should be able to post whatever anyone want on this site, gore, blasphemy , inappropriate content , or whatever?
Or do you want rules & restrictions to be enforceable by whomever OWNS the site?

 

[Ceallaigh]

And yet Google still hosts unmoderated Usenet.

 

[JacksBratt]

You can start your own, if you think there are enough people like you to make it economically feasible.

Well, apparently.... you can't. Trump started his own and, if what you say is true, he should get to say what can and cannot be said on it.. but.. someone is not likeing what he is allowing....

 

[JacksBratt]

So given this is a Social media site (or are you going to all of a suddenly classify one forum different from another? )
We should be able to post whatever anyone want on this site, gore, blasphemy , inappropriate content , or whatever?
Or do you want rules & restrictions to be enforceable by whomever OWNS the site?

Each different forum on this site has it's own rules. Some don't even let you post if you are not a Christian. Try that on Twitter... This is a different type of site by design.

Are you saying that there is no gore, blasphemy, inappropriate content or whatever... on Facebook, messenger, twitter and others? I mean really.. the only thing that doesn't seem to be allowed there is truth contradicting the left.
Even the terrorist organizations have sites that are not blocked or censored.

It is my opinion that everyone should be allowed to stater their opinion.... left.... right... wrong.... whatever....

People always have to take it to the extreme and state the obvious criminal aspects that would be obvious to anyone else.

However, if you want to state your opinion... just like any town square.... so be it.... You state your mind and reap the support or flack from the viewers...

This whole deal is about the left muzzling the people who are speaking for the "right"... It's not about gore and inappropriate content.

 

[The Barbarian]

You can start your own, if you think there are enough people like you to make it economically feasible.

Well, apparently.... you can't.

If there are enough people like you to make it economically feasible.

Trump started his own

Not doing so well. As I said, there must be enough people to make it eonomically feasible. Do you think we should draft people and make them log into it?

and, if what you say is true, he should get to say what can and cannot be said on it.. but.. someone is not liking what he is allowing....

Yeah... the marketplace of ideas can be kinda cruel, can't it? But the alternative is even worse.

Sorry about that.

 

[Fantine]

We've always been at the mercy at some media company for information be it newspaper and radios and then TV and now internet based streaming today. What is interesting is even though the big companies are trying to strangle opinions that they don't approve of compared to the days where there wasn't internet if it were not for talk radio prior to internet streaming you at best got filtered truth but too often diluted opinions is the best "facts" you have. Things could change this fall some and even more in 2024 and after that we could see the laws changed so that these big tech companies could find themselves in court over censoring and banning political adversaries.

Did it ever occur to you that they might fear lawsuits for libel or slander, or criminal charges for promoting domestic terrorism?

 

[JacksBratt]

Did it ever occur to you that they might fear lawsuits for libel or slander, or criminal charges for promoting domestic terrorism?

Seriously... who would be the ones to take any media to court about such things? Have there ever been such lawsuits?

They have no problem allowing al qaeda from posting.. and there have been no lawsuits.

However, it is fantastic to see that Chris Cuomo, Brian Stelter, Don Lemon, Rachel Maddow and Jim Acosta being fired. They were never telling the truth.. and, now reap their rewards as their ratings fell right off.

Did Zuckerburg ever get charged with burying the "Hunter Laptop" story for the FBI... Nope.

There would be no lawsuits for slander... BUT there may be some coming for defamation of character.

 

[iarwain]

I couldn't care less about Trump's "Truth Social", but I didn't think it was the function of a search engine to be concerned about a platform's moderation. Google searches turn up all kinds of content.

From what I hear, "Truth Social" does have moderation, it just censors leftist thought instead of right. In other words, a sort of anti-Twitter (pre-Musk anyway).

 

[hislegacy]

Hey look! I went to Google and put in Truth Social

Viola - there it is.

Who would have thought to to that - makes the whole argument pretty much ......

 

[The Barbarian]

It's not censorship if people don't want to look at extremist drivel, and refuse to support it.