Should the US Get Rid of Facebook and other Social Media Outlets?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

NBC reported that Google confirmed it financially blacklisted two sites known for criticism of the left: conservative commentary site the Federalist and alternative news site ZeroHedge. Following its publication, NBC amended its article to state that the Federalist has been “warned” by Google of imminent blacklisting from its Google Ads service due to “policy violations” in its comments section. ZeroHedge is also working with Google to resolve its blacklisting, which is also based on its comments section.

If the Federalist fails to remedy what Google considers to be violations in its comments section, both websites will now be unable to generate advertising revenue using Google Ads, by far the most important service for any website trying to generate digital advertising revenue. In a comment to Breitbart News, the Federalist confirmed it has not been blacklisted and is working with Google to resolve any issues. In a seperate comment, ZeroHedge also stated it is working with the tech giant.

Google took action after it was contacted by agenda-driven journalists at NBC, who presented the company with research from a leftist nonprofit, the Center for Countering Digital Hate, that smears a number of conservative websites including Breitbart News, and calls on digital advertisers to financially blacklist them.

The nonprofit falsely claims that Breitbart News promoted the Obama “birther” theory, citing as “evidence” a Breitbart story that explicitly rejects the theory. As purported evidence of Breitbart’s “hate,” the nonprofit also links to a recent piece recommending Americans buy guns and ammunition to protect themselves amid violent riots.

NBC claimed the tech giant said it had demonetized The Federalist and ZeroHedge because of “hatred.” According to a Google spokesperson, “To be clear, The Federalist is not currently demonetized. We do have strict publisher policies that govern the content ads can run on, which includes comments on the site. This is a longstanding policy.” “When a page or site violates our policies, we take action. In this case, we’ve removed both sites’ ability to monetize with Google.”

From Breitbart Instagram account.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

With just 132 days until the Election, far-Left Twitter has censored President Donald Trump again, hiding a tweet warning that lawless protesters will be "met with serious force." President Trump’s full tweet says: “There will never be an “Autonomous Zone” in Washington, D.C., as long as I’m your President. If they try they will be met with serious force!” Anyone who attempts to view the tweet through Twitter will see it hidden behind a notice from the far-left Silicon Valley company, informing them that the tweet has somehow violated the platform’s rules.

The notice says: “This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about abusive behavior. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain accessible.” This is the second time in the space of a month that Twitter has censored the President over tweets related to the violence and lawlessness sweeping America’s cities. Just over three weeks ago, the platform hid a tweet from the President warning rioters that “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Twitter said the post “glorified violence.” This time, Twitter says the President violated the platform’s rules on “abusive behavior.” “We’ve placed a public interest notice on this Tweet for violating our policy against abusive behavior, specifically, the presence of a threat of harm against an identifiable group,” said an official Twitter account.

As Breitbart News has previously reported, Twitter allowed looters to coordinate criminal behavior during the riots, leaving up tweets from accounts that were identifying shopping districts for looting, even after the tweets were brought to the platform’s attention.

From Breitbart Instagram account.

[Robert Roaldi]

From Breitbart Instagram account.

If true as stated those would seem to be outrageous behaviours in a public news source. But if they are simply utilities, e.g., data carriers, then not so much.

And their actions were exposed, so people are free to make their own judgements.

So, do we need new regulation in this novel domain or not? That's what the thread is about.

[faberryman]

Was fraud involved?  That depends on who you ask.

No, it depends on what actually happened.

[Craig Lamson]

No, it depends on what actually happened.

And we can know that how?  This is the problem.  I'm convinced neither side really wants to look into the problem, because they both have a vested interest in seeing it cotinue. Of course thats just my opinion.

[faberryman]

And we can know that how?  This is the problem.  I'm convinced neither side really wants to look into the problem, because they both have a vested interest in seeing it cotinue. Of course thats just my opinion.

Then we say we don't know if there is fraud or not. My own sense is that there probably is some minor fraud around the edges, particularly in small town municipal elections, but none of the massive fraud alleged by Trump and the Republicans in national elections, like busloads of voters crossing over from Massachusetts to New Hampshire to vote for Hillary a second time.

[Craig Lamson]

Then we say we don't know if there is fraud or not.

Again, it depends on who you ask.  I'm confident that there are set of folks convinced they know what fraud, if any happened and they thinnk they can prove it.  The election in question Bush V Gore in 2000 created a lot of claims and supposed proof of fraud.  It just depends on who you ask.  History and this question are not cut and dried.

In an interesting side note, it took 5 weeks to sort out the Florida mess.  Given the push for mail in voting in November, one has to wonder what election "night" will look like.   I think we are headed for days even weeks of waithtime to see who actually wins. It should be very interesting.

[Alan Klein]

If true as stated those would seem to be outrageous behaviours in a public news source. But if they are simply utilities, e.g., data carriers, then not so much.

And their actions were exposed, so people are free to make their own judgements.

So, do we need new regulation in this novel domain or not? That's what the thread is about.

They have to be very careful.  If they continue to take sides politically, they could be declared a monopoly and be broken up like AT&T was in the phone business.  Remember, Democrat Hillary Clinton complained about things like this as well.  If they piss off the wrong group at the wrong time, both Democrats and Republicans may join together and decide they have had enough.   

Even if Congress doesn't go that far, they could regulate them under their constitutional duty of regulating interstate commerce.  Free speech goes both ways.  While private ownership of Google gives them the right of free speech just as the owner of this site can moderate us, Google being such a pervasive company could be declared violating the free speech of advertisers by blocking them.

There's no way to determine how the Supreme Court would rule on something like this.  However,  I think they would rule in allowing the advertisers and users of Google, Twitter, and other carriers the right to say what they want politically.  Who wants to live in a country where Google or Twitter can suppress political thought they disagree with? 

[faberryman]

It seems to me that there is enough crazy right wing stuff and crazy left wing stuff on Twitter and Facebook that everybody should be happy.

[Alan Klein]

It seems to me that there is enough crazy right wing stuff and crazy left wing stuff on Twitter and Facebook that everybody should be happy.

Twitter shouldn't be blocking tweets of the President of the US. 

[James Clark]

Twitter shouldn't be blocking tweets of the President of the US.

Why not? 

[Alan Klein]

Why not? 

See my reply #87.

[faberryman]

Twitter shouldn't be blocking tweets of the President of the US.

It seems to me that if Trump wants to use Twitter he should follow the same rules as everyone else. I also think if he wants to go to New Jersey to play golf, he should follow the same quarantine rules as everyone else.

[Alan Klein]

It seems to me that if Trump wants to use Twitter he should follow the same rules as everyone else. I also think if he wants to go to New Jersey to play golf, he should follow the same quarantine rules as everyone else.

Twitter shouldn't be censoring speech of anyone including the President anymore than my ISP Comcast should be censoring my emails or my cellular company Verizon should censor my messages.  It's none of their business.  They're interfering with freedom of speech. 

[faberryman]

Twitter shouldn't be censoring speech of anyone including the President anymore than my ISP Comcast should be censoring my emails or my cellular company Verizon should censor my messages.  It's none of their business.  They're interfering with freedom of speech.

It seems to me it is their business. If you don't like it use another service.

[TechTalk]

And we can know that how?  This is the problem.  I'm convinced neither side really wants to look into the problem, because they both have a vested interest in seeing it cotinue. Of course thats just my opinion.

Then we say we don't know if there is fraud or not. My own sense is that there probably is some minor fraud around the edges, particularly in small town municipal elections, but none of the massive fraud alleged by Trump and the Republicans in national elections, like busloads of voters crossing over from Massachusetts to New Hampshire to vote for Hillary a second time.

Just thought that I would let you know that using an adjective like "massive" in conjunction with the noun "fraud" will confuse the person to whom your replying. He's rendered himself immune to understanding that using an adjective to modify a noun gives it a specific meaning. When you write "none of the massive fraud alleged", he is likely to ignore your use of massive in the sentence and assert that you mean "none of the massive fraud alleged".

When another poster in this thread stated that "rampant" voter fraud had never been proven, he spun himself in circles insisting that the poster meant that no voter fraud had ever been proven. After first trying to ignore the word, then diminish its meaning, he finally ended by redefining rampant to mean an "undetermined quantity". He went so far as to reword the posters claim with his own newly invented definition and then declared self validation of his nonsensical claim of what the poster meant!

Oh yea, I got “it”.  It is voter fraud. Wanna try again.

I’m well aware of the definition of Rampant, and exactly why it’s useless in the discussion of voter fraud simply because it’s diffuse and ill  defined... A meaningless descriptor in this instance.  The Op claimed a “undetermined” quantity of voter fraud had NEVER been proven or demonstrated.  We now know that is false.

I tried to help him understand how an adjective gave a specific meaning thus creating a modified noun. I'll try one last time and even provide a couple of hints to get him started (the "hard toy" is the xylophone and the "soft toy" is the stuffed animal).  https://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Product/Modified-Nouns-Expressive-and-Receptive-Language-4935756

* One note: President Trump has referred to voter fraud as being massive, rampant, and widespread; all words that indicate a large scale (without reference to a specific size or ratio). This was another concept he was unable to grasp; using the lack of specifics as justification for his weird definition of rampant as "undetermined quantity" and declaring such a term meaningless.

[Alan Klein]

It seems to me it is their business. If you don't like it use another service.

In general, I agree with you.  Of course there really isn't another similar service.  Also, Congress has given them protection from lawsuits with the intent that they keep the service open unimpeded.  If they are going to censor tweets, then Congress should take away their protection.  Additionally, they may be violating monopoly laws.  Twitter isn't LuLa.   

[TechTalk]

Congress has given them protection from lawsuits

You should let the Federal Courts know that as they are apparently unaware. The courts granted standing in 2018 to Laura Loomer and Freedom Watch to proceed with a lawsuit against Twitter, Google, and Facebook for censorship. They just didn't win their suit in court.

They appealed to a Federal District Appeals Court and lost the appeal last month. You can sue, it doesn't mean that you will win.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/conservative-activists-lose-lawsuit-that-accused-twitter-google-and-facebook-of-censorship/

[TechTalk]

The attempt to try and ascertain the extent of voter fraud by Kobach was derailed by many States  refusing to provide information.  It was a wasted effort.

States provided information to Kobach. It was specific types of requested information they withheld. Kobach himself pushed back on news reports of states withholding information from his commision.

USA Today: "Kris Kobach took umbrage with news accounts of states rejecting the request."

“While there are news reports that 44 states have 'refused' to provide voter information to the Commission, these reports are patently false, more 'fake news,'" said Kobach, Kansas' secretary of state, in a statement. "At present, only 14 states and the District of Columbia have refused the Commission's request for publicly available voter information."  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/07/05/kris-kobach-said-states-abiding-voter-fraud-request-where-states-stand/451763001/

You have to give the guy credit for his decade of determination though. He built his 2010 campaign for Kansas Secretary of State around the charge that voter fraud was happening at an alarming rate all over Kansas. He even held an embarrassing news conference where he named an example of dead people voting.

From The Wichita Eagle October 29, 2010: He gave an example of one person — Alfred K. Brewer, a Republican, registered in Sedgwick County with a birth date listed of Jan. 1, 1900. Brewer, according to the comparison of Social Security records and Kansas voter rolls, had died in 1996 yet had voted in the August primary, Kobach said.

Reached Thursday at his home where he was raking leaves, Brewer, 78, was surprised some people thought he was dead. "I don't think this is heaven, not when I'm raking leaves," he said.

Brewer, who lives in Wichita, said he has been an active voter since he could vote. He first registered to vote in Kansas in 1964. He said he plans to cast a ballot Tuesday.

Brewer said his father, who had the same name and, according to Social Security records, was born in 1904, died in 1996.

"I'm just as surprised as you are," he said of the mix-up.  https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/election/article1046914.html

Undeterred by his failures, he kept pushing on in Federal Court from 2016 to 2018. It did not go well for him. https://www.propublica.org/article/kris-kobach-voter-fraud-kansas-trial

During the course of the federal injunction, trial, and appeal he didn't impress the judges. In June 2017, a federal magistrate judge, James O'Hara, found that Kobach had made "patently misleading representations" and was fined for "deceptive conduct and lack of candor". On April 18, 2018, Federal Chief District Judge Julie Robinson ruled Kobach in contempt for failure to comply with court orders.
 
Then in 2018 he lost the Kansas governor election. Now he's running in the 2020 Kansas Republican primary for US Senate. The National Republican Senatorial Committee has opposed his candidacy from the outset.

The poor guy hasn't been able to catch a break the last few years!

[faberryman]

More proof that Trump surrounds himself with only the best people.