Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[TechTalk]

Why should Twitter or Facebook interfere with my political positions or positions on anything.

They don't.

So now you're agreeing that owners of these services should be allowed to make political decisions as to what people can say?

They don't do that either. They only enforce standards for what they deem as acceptable to be distributed on their platform—as is their right. They don't make decisions as to what people can say anywhere else or thru any other means.

I'm not talking about using vile language or suggesting we overthrow the government.

Would you allow that social media companies have a right to prohibit that, and if so, what else should they have the freedom to choose not to disseminate thru their platform?

[PeterAit]

A video (not great production value imo) about how news photographers were attacked during what happened at the Capitol, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TVo8N6m8zQ.

And I hate to harp on this trivial fact, but whenever these crowds gather they always bring confederate flags. Give me a break.

Maybe not so trivial. The flag of treason 160 years ago, the flag of treason today. Not to mention the racial thing.

[TechTalk]

I'm also concerned with free speech being stopped.

Your concern, over the freedom of companies and individuals regarding what messages and information they freely choose to—or choose not to—distribute, is inconsistent with guaranteed rights under the Constitution. They have the same rights under the First Amendment that you enjoy.

The First Amendment protects your right to say what you choose; read what you choose; listen to what you choose; and believe what you choose—free from government interference, with limited exceptions including protection of the public from "clear and present danger" and malicious libel and defamation. The press and other forms of media enjoy the same protection.

The First Amendment also protects your freedom to choose what you do NOT wish to say from interference by the government—again with limited exceptions that include government required oaths of office, service, or testimony; mandates on some product labels; and others narrowly defined. The government, with some narrow and limited exceptions as noted, cannot force or pressure you to say, write, promote, or distribute anything against your will—nor can any individual or organization. The press and other forms of media enjoy the same protections that you do.

[Peter McLennan]

Let's say the phone company decided to shut down your phone service because they didn;t like your politics that you were transmitting.

FFS, Alan.  When has that ever happened?  How could it possibly happen?  Do you really think that the telcos are listening in to your calls, vetting your conversations?

"Let's say" arguments of this kind are just stoopid.

QUIT DEFLECTING.  It weakens your position.

[D Fuller]

There is a complicated thing going on here -- the social media companies argue on one hand that they're not responsible for what their users say, that they're just a means of transmission, but on the other hand, they do take *some* responsibility -- they ban Trump. They have taken a step that, say, Verizon has never taken. If you want to conspire to something illegal on Verizon, they won't stop you or even try to stop you; if the FBI finds out about it, they may get a warrant to listen in on your calls, but Verizon doesn't do anything but comply with the terms of the warrant. Facebook and Twitter have now taken a step beyond that, and on their own responsibility, have begun limiting what Trump can say, banning his use of their means of transmission. By doing that, it seems to be they have asserted not only a responsibility but a right. And if they have the right to do that, it seems to me that they have now abandoned the pretense (which is all it was) of being purely a means of transmission, and are now more the equivalent of a newspaper...and so could be sued for things like libelous statements carried on their electronic pages.

John, I think it’s both more complicated and simpler than you suggest here. Social media companies have argued that they are not responsible for the content people post—but at the same time they run algorithms that absolutely do determine what a user sees of that content. What’s more, those algorithms seek to maximize engagement, which is done best by amplifying things you already believe in a way that gets you emotionally involved. So they are very much in control of the stream of content that each viewer sees.

As a result, they are certainly culpable if they distribute comments that incite violence. They are choosing which posts you see, so it is clear that they can choose not to show those messages to you as well. Therein lies clear responsibility.

[TechTalk]

Fine.  I can defend that private enterprise point as well. I agree with much of it but I'm also concerned with free speech being stopped.   So let's just take away their protection from lawsuits if they want to play politics.  Let them play in the marketplace like everyone else and be exposed to lawsuits just like everyone else.

You're badly confused and ill-informed in proposing something that would DECREASE free speech not increase it. It isn't just social media companies that are largely (but not completely) defended (not protected) from liability for user postings and messages. Section 230 is a law that dates back to 1996—long before Facebook, Twitter, and other social media companies existed. It offers strong defense to lawsuits for every online news site, website, message board, forum, etc.—including this one—from lawsuits over user generated and other third-party content that is posted or linked to their site. Please note that the law does not protect a service or website from being sued or prohibit anyone from filing a lawsuit—but the law does provide a strong defense to such lawsuits.

Because Section 230 exists, online service and content providers can feel relatively safe in allowing user commentary on their content; forums like this can exist; and social media platforms can provide users with the ability to publicly express themselves; with some confidence that if they are sued for that user generated content, they will have a strong defense.

Without that defense, online sites and services would likely eliminate user comments completely or moderate them much more heavily in order to limit exposure to liability and a vastly greater number of potential lawsuits. The result would likely be much more limited opportunities for public expression online.

[TechTalk]

Biden decided to release all vaccines being reserved for second doses to be used as the first dose hoping that production would make up the difference.
Effectively he's overruling Fauci who was opposed to this procedure.  But now that Fauci was asked to stay on, I suppose he'll change his mind.  So with all the complaints of Trump not following his expert's advice, Biden, who hasn't even become president yet, is the one not listening.  Of course, the biased press will protect Biden and downplay the whole thing.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/02/dr-anthony-fauci-says-us-will-not-delay-second-doses-of-covid-vaccine
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/01/08/955034989/bidens-plan-to-release-more-vaccine-is-a-gamble-is-it-worth-the-risk

Did you even bother to read the two articles that you linked or were you unable to comprehend what you read? They don't remotely resemble your characterization!

From the NPR article that you linked...

Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health — who advises both the Trump administration and the incoming Biden administration on the federal COVID-19 response — tells NPR there's no plan to abandon the two-shot regimen.

The Biden team is "not talking about withholding and not giving the second dose," he says. "They are completely committed to giving the second dose on time. They feel that the importance of getting as many people as possible is worth the risk."

From the Guardian article that you linked...

On Friday, Dr Fauci told CNN that the United States would not be following in the UK’s footsteps and would follow Pfizer and BioNTech’s guidance to administer the second dose of its vaccine three weeks after the first.

MY point is that he went against Fauci's advice who's the chief guy at the CDC regarding viruses.  If Trump had done it, he would have been castigated by the press.  But the press says nothing with Biden.  This double standard and "fake news" is why 47% of Americans voted for Trump. Why so many Americans are tired of the BS press and phony political bureaucracy.  So now we're back to same-o same-o.  We're being lied to and BS'd.  Even if you don't get Trump, do you get my point?

Yeah, I get it... "We're being lied to and BS'd" alright—but it isn't by the press!

[TechTalk]

The media is dishonest and report unfairly to fit their political beliefs.

Maybe that problem actually lies with you.

[texshooter]

To publically dispute the accuracy of an election is to "incite violence."   I can see where this is headed.

[TechTalk]

To publically dispute the accuracy of an election is to "incite violence."   I can see where this is headed.

Given the size of those blinders you have... I tend to doubt it.

[LesPalenik]

Twitter shut down republicans beside Trump, not Democrats.  Right now they're on the Democrat side.

And now Twitter shares fell 7%. Apparently, Trump was “the most popular character” on the platform, so their traffic must be going down. Maybe Giuliani can pick up the slack.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/twitter-shares-fall-7-following-102420956.html

[D Fuller]

To publically dispute the accuracy of an election is to "incite violence."   I can see where this is headed.

To publicly dispute an election without evidence in the way Trump, Cruz, Hawley et al have done is to incite violence.

If you tell people for three months that an election was stolen, and they come to believe it, then they think they are justified in “stealing it back” through violence, if necessary. When you stand in front of 10,000 of those people and tell them to March on Congress, you are inciting violence. When the crowd goes marching equipped with bear spray and zip-tie restraints, it is not a spontaneous event, or a demonstration that “got a little out of hand.” It is an insurrection.

I am a very strong defender of freedom of speech, but I am not a defender of the freedom of public officials to lie. When those lies result in insurrection, those leaders must be held accountable.

[Alan Klein]

Are you really trying to compare what Biden is trying to do ( and most of the rest of the western world ) to deliver the first dose ( 80% effective ) to as many people as possible and as quickly as possible rather than sitting 3 weeks on viles of vaccine awaiting people's 2nd dose while not getting more people with their first dose...to Trump going against industry experts ( and most of the rest of the western world ) and not advocating social distancing, wearing masks and opening up shops during outbreaks?

You're creating a strawman comparing things I never mentioned.  My post was about Fauci.  If Trump didn't listen to him, he was castigated.  When Biden doesn't, the press protects him and ignores the issue.  There's a double standard.

[Robert Roaldi]

You're creating a strawman comparing things I never mentioned.  My post was about Fauci.  If Trump didn't listen to him, he was castigated.  When Biden doesn't, the press protects him and ignores the issue.  There's a double standard.

You manage to miss the point of everything that's ever said to you. It cannot but be deliberate.

[Alan Klein]

They don't.

They don't do that either. They only enforce standards for what they deem as acceptable to be distributed on their platform—as is their right. They don't make decisions as to what people can say anywhere else or thru any other means.

Would you allow that social media companies have a right to prohibit that, and if so, what else should they have the freedom to choose not to disseminate thru their platform?

They're shutting down political speech by presidents and congressmen.  Not only regarding one message or two.  But shutting down their entire accounts.  We should hear what these people have to say.  We shouldn't be doing this in America. WE have a strong tradition of free and open debate.  It should remain so.

 Even the liberal ACLU is opposed.  They actually are more concerned with people of less stature.  They have no place other to go to make their voices heard.  Presidents have other outlets.  But not the average guy who may have an unpopular viewpoint.  If a small business makes an unpopular point, and Facebook takes his account away from him. he can lose his business.  So he keeps quiet.  Facebook can actually control political thought in the country.  A lot of people want to do that.  They're the book burners.

[Alan Klein]

Maybe not so trivial. The flag of treason 160 years ago, the flag of treason today. Not to mention the racial thing.

The Confederate flag has another connotation.  Rebelliousness.  We've taken it and won't take it anymore kind of thinking.  It doesn't mean treason or they want to start another country.

[Alan Klein]

Your concern, over the freedom of companies and individuals regarding what messages and information they freely choose to—or choose not to—distribute, is inconsistent with guaranteed rights under the Constitution. They have the same rights under the First Amendment that you enjoy.

The First Amendment protects your right to say what you choose; read what you choose; listen to what you choose; and believe what you choose—free from government interference, with limited exceptions including protection of the public from "clear and present danger" and malicious libel and defamation. The press and other forms of media enjoy the same protection.

The First Amendment also protects your freedom to choose what you do NOT wish to say from interference by the government—again with limited exceptions that include government required oaths of office, service, or testimony; mandates on some product labels; and others narrowly defined. The government, with some narrow and limited exceptions as noted, cannot force or pressure you to say, write, promote, or distribute anything against your will—nor can any individual or organization. The press and other forms of media enjoy the same protections that you do.

Generally I agree with you.  But you really don't have all the rights you claim.  A business owner may not refuse service to people they don't want to serve.  That right has been taken away from them.  So you see, it's not across the board. 

The Supreme Court could rule that the internet is so pervasive as part of the public square, that there can be some rules that apply to stop them from controlling what their users have to say.  It would be similar to preventing business owners from denying services to certain people. 

[Alan Klein]

FFS, Alan.  When has that ever happened?  How could it possibly happen?  Do you really think that the telcos are listening in to your calls, vetting your conversations?

"Let's say" arguments of this kind are just stoopid.

QUIT DEFLECTING.  It weakens your position.

Why is Twitter listening to my calls?  The administrator here has taken a hands-off approach to this thread.  We pretty much say what we want politically as long as we don't curse and overly attack one another.  But politically, I'm comfortable saying what I want and I'm sure so are you.  Do we want the administrator to start censoring certain concepts over others?  Well, that's what Twitter is doing.  If Lula does that, there are a million other places we can go to.  But if you need Twitter commercially or politically, you're hesitant to piss Twitter off.  By the way, the same thing is happening on YouTube.  YouTubers are not allowed to use certain words and concepts. 

I'm surprised you're for this.  As a creative cinematographer, I would think you'd want open and free debate.  Look what Hollywood went through during the McCarthy era. People being banned from the movie industry for their beliefs and supposed beliefs.  Do we need people today fearing for their livelihood by censorship for what they have to say?  DO we want some moron at Twitter making those decisions? Regardless of what rights Twitter has, I would think we all would like to have open debate with no threat of censorship.

[Alan Klein]

John, I think it’s both more complicated and simpler than you suggest here. Social media companies have argued that they are not responsible for the content people post—but at the same time they run algorithms that absolutely do determine what a user sees of that content. What’s more, those algorithms seek to maximize engagement, which is done best by amplifying things you already believe in a way that gets you emotionally involved. So they are very much in control of the stream of content that each viewer sees.

As a result, they are certainly culpable if they distribute comments that incite violence. They are choosing which posts you see, so it is clear that they can choose not to show those messages to you as well. Therein lies clear responsibility.

You're just making excuses. Twitter shut down Trump because they don't like him and his policies.  It was a political decision.

[Alan Klein]

You're badly confused and ill-informed in proposing something that would DECREASE free speech not increase it. It isn't just social media companies that are largely (but not completely) defended (not protected) from liability for user postings and messages. Section 230 is a law that dates back to 1996—long before Facebook, Twitter, and other social media companies existed. It offers strong defense to lawsuits for every online news site, website, message board, forum, etc.—including this one—from lawsuits over user generated and other third-party content that is posted or linked to their site. Please note that the law does not protect a service or website from being sued or prohibit anyone from filing a lawsuit—but the law does provide a strong defense to such lawsuits.

Because Section 230 exists, online service and content providers can feel relatively safe in allowing user commentary on their content; forums like this can exist; and social media platforms can provide users with the ability to publicly express themselves; with some confidence that if they are sued for that user generated content, they will have a strong defense.

Without that defense, online sites and services would likely eliminate user comments completely or moderate them much more heavily in order to limit exposure to liability and a vastly greater number of potential lawsuits. The result would likely be much more limited opportunities for public expression online.

But Twitter and Facebook may be considered a monopoly and so large, that without having the ability to use their systems, your voice is effectively shut down.  That's what happens to AT&T of course for different reasons as a monopoly. 

But the concept is similar.  Congress could write a law that in effect says that large companies with over 5 million subscribers don't have the protection while small companies like LuLa do.  The Supreme Court could go along with something like that if the government and they consider these large companies are effectively monopolies controlling the public square.

Frankly, I think the Facebooks of the world are pissed at Twitter for opening up this issue  They frankly wanted to keep it under the radar.  By attacking politicians who wrote the rules, Twitter opened up the whole industry to legislation, something most of them wanted to avoid.