Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[JoeKitchen]

Maybe now demcorats will join republicans in stopping these monopolies from exercising censorship over free speech.  Of course, Newsom is a Democrat so this one works for them.  But what goes around comes around.

I read an article about a month ago that said the two biggest type of fools in the US right now are those on the right who think since the social media companies are private corporation it is perfectly fine for them to take away our first amendment rights and those on the left who are fine with this same thing because it is happening to people on the right without realizing it will eventually come for them. 

As Maximilien Robespierre learned the hard way, you can never be radical enough to save your head. 

[Robert Roaldi]

Maybe now demcorats will join republicans in stopping these monopolies from exercising censorship over free speech.  Of course, Newsom is a Democrat so this one works for them.  But what goes around comes around.

Is anyone actually censoring free speech? Or is this just your spin?

Are the platforms simply denying access to some people who repeat demonstrable lies? Because banning lies is not the same thing as denying free speech.

I don't think it was ever the case that traditional news media had to obligation to publish lies, or at least that's my understanding.

People seem to be making some assumptions. One of them is that you have the right to join any social media and say whatever you want. I don't believe this is actually the case. I don't think that it's the case that, for example, the New York Times (or whomever) are obligated to print anything written by the Grand Dragon of the KKK. Is that a denial of free speech?

[Robert Roaldi]

Maybe now demcorats will join republicans in stopping these monopolies from exercising censorship over free speech.  Of course, Newsom is a Democrat so this one works for them.  But what goes around comes around.

Is 4chan a monopoly? Parler? Can't anyone start a social media platform? What monopoly?

[Alan Klein]

Is anyone actually censoring free speech? Or is this just your spin?

Are the platforms simply denying access to some people who repeat demonstrable lies? Because banning lies is not the same thing as denying free speech.

I don't think it was ever the case that traditional news media had to obligation to publish lies, or at least that's my understanding.

People seem to be making some assumptions. One of them is that you have the right to join any social media and say whatever you want. I don't believe this is actually the case. I don't think that it's the case that, for example, the New York Times (or whomever) are obligated to print anything written by the Grand Dragon of the KKK. Is that a denial of free speech?

All politicians lie.  Sperate from that are people who give their opinions based on their interpretation of what the facts mean. 

Regarding FB  vs. the NY Times, the Times is not a monopoly.  Fb and others have reached a level where people cannot communicate with others if the company decides they want to censor you. The president of the US had his service to 85 million people denied by Twitter.  They silenced political speech.  It would be like the phone company denying him telephone service because it doesn't like his politics.  Congress granted these forms and not the Times protection against lawsuits to encourage that their services allow the maximum in free communications.  These companies are not fulfilling the intent of that law.

[Alan Klein]

Is 4chan a monopoly? Parler? Can't anyone start a social media platform? What monopoly?

You may be right.  The question is does the size of some of these media platforms so ingrain and over-compassing in the public that there really is no other effective outlet?  At a minimum, Congress should remove protection under 220 which prevents people from suing these platforms.  If they are going to take political decisions, they should have no protection as does the NY Times or other media.  Or they could be broken up as AT&T was decades ago for just that reason.  So for example, Google would have to spin off YouTube which it currently owns just like AT&T had to spin off the "baby" bells like NY Telephone. That would encourage competition.

[Robert Roaldi]

Speaking of "censorship", here's an interesting case, https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/legislature/article_81fef420-b78e-11eb-a979-5b56340d37bc.html.

The part of the story where the guy was thrown under the bus for his unfortunate phrasing, "good, bad and ugly" wrt slavery, was mildly interesting but in the end not worth getting into a twist about. It was a dumb turn of phrase, but it reflects the pretty low quality of public discussion where imprecise language and clichés are the norm. The guy was probably thinking along the lines of teaching history "warts and all" or something but chose the wrong way to say it. That's conjecture on my part, nothing more. The fact that he doesn't speak very well in public makes him normal, I'd say, in this day and age. Roast him over it, sure, make fun of him in the press, sure why not, but this is all secondary to the real issue. The Louisiana legislature is trying to censure how college professors teach a course and are doing so in a very partisan way. People complain about "wokeness", often with very good reason, but what would you call this sophomoric crap.

[Alan Klein]

Speaking of "censorship", here's an interesting case, https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/legislature/article_81fef420-b78e-11eb-a979-5b56340d37bc.html.

The part of the story where the guy was thrown under the bus for his unfortunate phrasing, "good, bad and ugly" wrt slavery, was mildly interesting but in the end not worth getting into a twist about. It was a dumb turn of phrase, but it reflects the pretty low quality of public discussion where imprecise language and clichés are the norm. The guy was probably thinking along the lines of teaching history "warts and all" or something but chose the wrong way to say it. That's conjecture on my part, nothing more. The fact that he doesn't speak very well in public makes him normal, I'd say, in this day and age. Roast him over it, sure, make fun of him in the press, sure why not, but this is all secondary to the real issue. The Louisiana legislature is trying to censure how college professors teach a course and are doing so in a very partisan way. People complain about "wokeness", often with very good reason, but what would you call this sophomoric crap.

Sounds like what goes on around here.    That cliche reminds me of when Trump said there were good and bad people at the protest.  I once got someone in trouble by telling someone else that he "shook me down" when I meant to say he "frisked me".  Never mind what I've told my wife inadvertently.

[PeterAit]

I read an article about a month ago that said the two biggest type of fools in the US right now are those on the right who think since the social media companies are private corporation it is perfectly fine for them to take away our first amendment rights and those on the left who are fine with this same thing because it is happening to people on the right without realizing it will eventually come for them. 

As Maximilien Robespierre learned the hard way, you can never be radical enough to save your head.

The biggest fools are those that think the first amendment applies to private entities.

[digitaldog]

The biggest fools are those that think the first amendment applies to private entities.

Indeed; massive fool alarm necessary.
As Linda Holmes of NPR wrote in 2010 "The First Amendment doesnt guarantee that speaking your mind will have no economic consequences. Because the free in that concept means free from government interference,not free from consequences."
And the fool will continue to post foolish nonsense.

[digitaldog]

"Many people are shocked to learn that the First Amendment free speech guarantee, along with all constitutional rights, only protects us against the government. So, if the government interferes with your freedom of speech, you can bring a First Amendment lawsuit to challenge that. And that's true whether we're talking about a federal government official or a state or local government official. But guess what? Facebook, Twitter, the other social media platforms are not the government. They are private sector entities, and therefore, they have no First Amendment obligation to protect your freedom of speech."

— Nadine Strossen, professor at New York Law School

[Robert Roaldi]

Freedom of speech seems to be a funny thing. I don't remember it very well, but wasn't the citizens united ruling based on a corporation's right to free speech? Have I got that wrong? I noticed that Scott Adams, a Trump supporter, is having some fun with corporate political stances in this week's cartoons.

Milton Friedman is famous for being against corporations having political positions, but I guess he was an academic theorist. Didn't Mitch McConnell recently criticize some corporations for taking stands he was not in favour of, that they should stay out of politics. Now that was a howler. Not sure what he expected. For more than a century now, American Supreme Courts have been granting increasing rights of "citizenship" to corporations. I guess a lot of people were OK with the trend when it meant that the Koch brothers could donate cash to "right-wing" causes. Trouble is that freedom means precisely that, freedom. So if corporations now voice political opinions now that some politicians don't like, well, tough shit really. The US made its bed, now it gets to lie in it.

[Alan Klein]

If FB and Twitter want to censure speech, then their protection under 230 against lawsuits should be removed. They should be treated   like any other news paper or business.

[Alan Klein]

An explanation of Section 230 protection of internet companies. It's intent is to encourage open and free speech. 
https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2018/03/21/591622450/section-230-a-key-legal-shield-for-facebook-google-is-about-to-change

[Alan Klein]

Biden's weakness and fecklessness will set America up for a lot of problems going forward. His weakness in the face of these kinds of threats will make our adversaries and friends more antagonistic, not less.  He's showing himself as a weak president similar to President Carter's "get-along" temperament.


Here's the NY Times setting up the political cover why Biden will not doing anything to stop North Korea's nuclear weapons program.

Biden Is Facing an Uneasy Truth: North Korea Isn’t Giving Up Its Nuclear Arsenal
As President Biden prepares to meet South Korea’s president, he must grapple with the fact that the North’s stockpile of nuclear weapons and fuel has roughly doubled in the past four years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/20/us/politics/biden-north-korea-nuclear-weapons.html

Here's Biden looking the other way accepting the Russian-German pipeline while shutting down America's and Canada's at the same time Russian hackers shut down our American Colonial pipeline.  Why do we need NATO?
Biden under fire from Congress for waiving sanctions on Russian gas pipeline company
Republicans accused Biden of placating German Chancellor Angela Merkel and handing Russian President Vladimir Putin a geopolitical win.


When Biden agrees to implement the Iran agreement again, Iran will expand their efforts to control the Middle East even harder.  Nuclear development will continue regardless. 
US and Iran aim for final round of talks on reviving nuclear deal
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/19/us-and-iran-to-hold-talks-on-reviving-nuclear-arms-control-deal

Biden's rejection of Trump's go-it-alone tariffs on China is rejected by Europe as was anticipated by anyone with two brain cells.  Germany and Europe have their own fish to fry in selling to China and won't join America as Biden had insisted we should operate rejecting Trump's go-it-alone policy.  So now what is Biden going to do?  China has already figured out his weakness and fecklessness.  They're probably warming up their planes and ships for an attack on Taiwan right now. 
Germany Says 'No' to EU Solar Tariffs Against China
https://www.industryweek.com/the-economy/public-policy/article/21960347/germany-says-no-to-eu-solar-tariffs-against-china

[Robert Roaldi]

If FB and Twitter want to censure speech, then their protection under 230 against lawsuits should be removed. They should be treated   like any other news paper or business.

But, are they censuring or are they getting rid of nutcase nuisances? Who decides?

You seem to hanging your hat on that section 230. Is it what you claim it to be? Have there been court challenges? Given the wide range of outlandish crap that has appeared on various social media, it might be difficult to claim that they have censured anyone.

[Robert Roaldi]

An explanation of Section 230 protection of internet companies. It's intent is to encourage open and free speech. 
https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2018/03/21/591622450/section-230-a-key-legal-shield-for-facebook-google-is-about-to-change

I read that article a bit more carefully and at one point it states that the authorities want social media companies to be MORE vigilant about what appears on their sites. Doesn't that work against what you're advocating?

[Alan Klein]

But, are they censuring or are they getting rid of nutcase nuisances? Who decides?

You seem to hanging your hat on that section 230. Is it what you claim it to be? Have there been court challenges? Given the wide range of outlandish crap that has appeared on various social media, it might be difficult to claim that they have censured anyone.

Twitter shutdown the president of the US account serving tens of millions of users who wanted to hear what he has to say.  Asking the question as you do, "who decides" is an important one.  Just who decides?  It seems Twitter only censures Republicans and conservatives.  That's OK for the NY Times but not a public utility like Twitter or certainly not a site that should have Congressional 230 protection over other outlets.  Take away their 230 protection at a minimum. 

[Robert Roaldi]

Twitter shutdown the president of the US account serving tens of millions of users who wanted to hear what he has to say.  Asking the question as you do, "who decides" is an important one.  Just who decides?  It seems Twitter only censures Republicans and conservatives.  That's OK for the NY Times but not a public utility like Twitter or certainly not a site that should have Congressional 230 protection over other outlets.  Take away their 230 protection at a minimum.

Since when is Twitter a public utility? I didn't follow the details but they seemed to have specific reasons for banning him to do with violations of their terms of service. Could be that banning him is exactly the kind of thing that the authorities might want social media to do. I may be wrong but I don't believe that section 230 gives people carte blanche.

And if I remember a couple of interviews with the Twitter guy (can't remember his name), he stated that they gave Trump lots of leeway precisely because he was the Prez and it was only after lots of deliberation that they banned him.

The fact that lots of people wanted to hear what Trump has to say is irrelevant. Lots of people want to hear what the KKK has to say too, so what, that's not a measure of anything. The President is just a guy like any other, no better and no worse. And you can't possibly be arguing that the President of the US is hampered in his ability to get his word out, I mean be serious. He can give press conferences on all the world's media at the drop of a hat and they'll come running.

[Alan Klein]

I read that article a bit more carefully and at one point it states that the authorities want social media companies to be MORE vigilant about what appears on their sites. Doesn't that work against what you're advocating?

The original purpose of 230 was to reduce pornography not political commentary. The other [problem is that there are so few outlets.  It's similar to how AT&T ruled the telephone age before it was broken up.  Maybe the violation is in the Anti-monopoly Sherman Act.  Google should have to spin-off Youtube. 

At the end of the day, when one or two outlets control political and other speech so widely, there's a problem. 

[Robert Roaldi]

At the end of the day, when one or two outlets control political and other speech so widely, there's a problem.

That's an exaggeration. One or two companies may be dominant in social media, but that hardly makes them dominant in the political domain.