Twitter bans Trump permanently.

[Al Doggity]

Tell that to Parler.

They already know.

[LurkerNoMore]

They already know.

They fucked around.  They found out.

[Grape Ape]

That is not at all what that regulation is about because it provides protection to traditional media organizations, too. Not only that, but the law specifically states that interactive services SHOULD make good faith efforts to monitor inappropriate speech. 

The text of section 230:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

Yes....but titus' point was the can moderate anything as they choose because it's a private platform.

That is different from a good faith effort.

The platform's behaviors indicated bias.

[Megalodon]

Facebook Messenger is the biggest trafficker of underage porn on the internet so it's certain that they will deplatform themselves. 

Corporate news reports this 24/7 so everyone probably knows already.   

https://www.syracuse.com/crime/2021/01/syracuse-sex-offender-pleads-guilty-to-uploading-child-porn-to-facebook.html

https://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/local/oconto-county/2020/12/29/oconto-county-court-man-charged-possession-child-porn/4030659001/

https://www.eveningsun.com/story/guy-adams-county-police-say/3258275001/

https://www.winknews.com/2020/10/29/immokalee-man-arrested-after-facebook-reports-child-porn-sent-through-messenger/
https://www.guy-headed-to-prison.html
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/delhi-police-bust-online-sextortion-racket-arrest-six-from-rajasthan/articleshow/80137564.cms
https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/8/28/21405646/man-accused-of-sending-porn-to-girls-softball-team-facebook-page

https://www.citizensvoice.com/news/crime-emergencies/pittston-man-charged-with-sharing-child-porn-on-facebook/article_06620b16-d2a0-5f0f-a69f-c7017161595b.html

and on and on...................... ... Just google news search "facebook messenger porn"(not regular search)

[Al Doggity]

Yes....but titus' point was the can moderate anything as they choose because it's a private platform.

That is different from a good faith effort.

The platform's behaviors indicated bias.

But you are the one who invoked section 230 and said twitter didn't deserve protections. Nothing in there says anything about political biases, perceived or otherwise, playing a role in whether or not a site is protected.

These platforms all have uneven monitoring. So many people use them to promote their small businesses and there's always been a huge issue with black and minority creators getting shadowbanned, having comments removed, locked out of account. Here's an article where facebook's own internal audit showed they were 50% more likely to ban black users:

https://www.businessinsider.com/black-instagram-users-faced-disproportionate-bans-report-2020-7

 Based on things you've posted in the past, I would guess you would argue that that's not proof of racial bias, you'd need more evidence, etc, but here you're claiming you see clearcut political bias when there's almost always a long trail of tos violations.

[Grape Ape]

But you are the one who invoked section 230 and said twitter didn't deserve protections. Nothing in there says anything about political biases, perceived or otherwise, playing a role in whether or not a site is protected.

These platforms all have uneven monitoring. So many people use them to promote their small businesses and there's always been a huge issue with black and minority creators getting shadowbanned, having comments removed, locked out of account. Here's an article where facebook's own internal audit showed they were 50% more likely to ban black users:

https://www.businessinsider.com/black-instagram-users-faced-disproportionate-bans-report-2020-7

 Based on things you've posted in the past, I would guess you would argue that that's not proof of racial bias, you'd need more evidence, etc, but here you're claiming you see clearcut political bias when there's almost always a long trail of tos violations.

I never said Twitter didn't deserve protections.

What I said was a response to Titus' post that Twitter can moderate anything it wants because it's a private platform.  I was saying they can, but then they would lose 230 protection.  Can't have it both ways.

I had never heard of black business bias on FB/Twitter, but I would have no reason to not believe what you posted and require more evidence.  I am super wary of big tech, have said it for years, and feel they've all reached a point where dollars are not the primary driver, but power and influence are.  Everyone should be worried.

It's not just me claiming bias.  It's our congress, people seeing real examples, and even Zuckerberg himself saying their algorithms needed tweaking to not overly bias against conservatives.

[Al Doggity]

I never said Twitter didn't deserve protections.

What I said was a response to Titus' post that Twitter can moderate anything it wants because it's a private platform.  I was saying they can, but then they would lose 230 protection.  Can't have it both ways.

You keep repeating this, but where are you getting this from or what are you basing this on?  I feel like I'm missing what you're trying to say. Moderating whatever they want and even leaning in a political direction doesn't exclude them from 230 protections.


[/quote]
It's not just me claiming bias.  It's our congress, people seeing real examples, and even Zuckerberg himself saying their algorithms needed tweaking to not overly bias against conservatives.
[/quote]

My point was that it's still a personal evaluation. Just because they are congress people doesn't make it more valid or real. There are plenty of examples of bias towards other groups. There are plenty of examples of congress people overexaggerating to make a point. I looked up the Zuckerberg quote because it didn't sound quite right to me, it appears to be from a Washington post article about algorithm changes in 2017. The change was meant to prioritize family and personal news and shift focus from spammy headlines. However, because there were a lot of right wing sites that fell in that category, the engineers OVERCOMPENSATED by punishing sites perceived as left of center as not to APPEAR biased.

[mac33]

Why would you monitor and censor peoples thoughts written on social media? You need to have an agenda to be able to distinguish "right" from "wrong" to do that which is exactly what Twitter, Facebook etc. are doing.

They invented and implemented "hate speech" and political correctness policies, going by the same modus operandi as political dictatorship (especially communist) regimes from the past and present.

And they are using all their financial resources to shutdown not their economic competition but those which do not abide by their own guidelines of thought, writing directives.

[Griffith]

This will simply result in new social media platforms being created which have freedom of speech.

[Tapeworm]

One would hope. Or it'll bring about one honeypot after another where posters openly declare their dissidence. Ok at the moment, I guess, but not such a great idea under an iron handed government.

[LurkerNoMore]

This will simply result in new social media platforms being created which have freedom of speech.

That was exactly what they tried to do.  And failed.

Perhaps if they actually combine creating a new platform AND not polluting the damn thing with endless CTs, threats and their usual delusional bullshit,.. it would continue to exist.

[Palumboism]

Great post. What people don’t understand when they go on and on about monopolies is that monopolies rarely last very long unless there’s heavy government involvement. Especially in the technology age. It’s not like Facebook was a monopoly forever. It wasn’t too long ago when my space was the biggest social networking site  and Blackberry was the dominant phone. In 10 years it could be something else.

Yes, Big tech is skating on some very thin ice right now.  Basically, they're helping their competitors.  The barrier to entry for competition is not as big as these tech companies want people to believe.  It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out. 

[titusisback]

You can create a new social media platform app, but they need to run on either iOS or Android, which are controlled by Apple and Google. That's the biggest problem, they can be shut down easily.

Can't just snap your fingers and create TrumpOS and TrumpPhone and run apps on that platform. Huawei has OS called HarmonyOS, maybe they'll let trump his own proprietary app just to fuck with USA. Oh wait, USA banned them LOOOOOOL

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

The silliness of the corporate media:





Everyone remembers this, right? The corporate media was all over it 24/7. That's why you never heard about it:

Susan Rosenburg was convicted of possessing explosives....not blowing up a building...she was pardoned because she was given 60 years when the max was 5 years for political reasons

[SOMEPARTS]

This will simply result in new social media platforms being created which have freedom of speech.

Some of you folks think:

... the internet is a level playing field.
... that big tech doesn't have political power.
... that the Bezos, Zuckerbergs and Dorseys etc of the world adhere to capitalist norms.

Totally naive view, this is NOT 2005. The days of a free internet are over.


They will smear, dox, silence, tax and license smaller competition out the same way the oil and paper industries lobbied for the banning of hemp. As then, the benefactors of all that will become the people that shape the country for 50 years. It's already more than half done and people just noticed.

[Grape Ape]

You keep repeating this, but where are you getting this from or what are you basing this on?  I feel like I'm missing what you're trying to say. Moderating whatever they want and even leaning in a political direction doesn't exclude them from 230 protections.

I'm not sure how else to say it.  Basically 230 prevents platforms from being sued for content they host because they did not generate it - they are just a platform.  The argument is, if they moderate any thing they want, they basically are NOT a platform anymore, and become a publisher, and therefore should be liable to litigation.

My point was that it's still a personal evaluation. Just because they are congress people doesn't make it more valid or real. There are plenty of examples of bias towards other groups. There are plenty of examples of congress people overexaggerating to make a point. I looked up the Zuckerberg quote because it didn't sound quite right to me, it appears to be from a Washington post article about algorithm changes in 2017. The change was meant to prioritize family and personal news and shift focus from spammy headlines. However, because there were a lot of right wing sites that fell in that category, the engineers OVERCOMPENSATED by punishing sites perceived as left of center as not to APPEAR biased.

I'm the last person to believe something just because Congress says it.  But, this why Congress has explicitly asked Dorsey and Zuckerberg for lists of their bans/deleted/fact checked contact so they can prove the bias.   The quote I referenced from Zuckerberg was after the recent hearings, not 2017.  I will see if I can find it.

[Thin Lizzy]

Some of you folks think:

... the internet is a level playing field.
... that big tech doesn't have political power.
... that the Bezos, Zuckerbergs and Dorseys etc of the world adhere to capitalist norms.

Totally naive view, this is NOT 2005. The days of a free internet are over.


They will smear, dox, silence, tax and license smaller competition out the same way the oil and paper industries lobbied for the banning of hemp. As then, the benefactors of all that will become the people that shape the country for 50 years. It's already more than half done and people just noticed.

Unfortunately regulation does the same thing. The bigger guys will always have an edge as they can afford to pay for the costs of compliance.

[Al Doggity]

I'm not sure how else to say it.  Basically 230 prevents platforms from being sued for content they host because they did not generate it - they are just a platform.  The argument is, if they moderate any thing they want, they basically are NOT a platform anymore, and become a publisher, and therefore should be liable to litigation.



I'm the last person to believe something just because Congress says it.  But, this why Congress has explicitly asked Dorsey and Zuckerberg for lists of their bans/deleted/fact checked contact so they can prove the bias.   The quote I referenced from Zuckerberg was after the recent hearings, not 2017.  I will see if I can find it.

I'll refrain from commenting on the second part until you post more, but as for the first part, no, that's not what 230 is for. I even posted the entire text of it upthread. It does not differentiate between platform or publisher. It protects politically leaning sites like Daily Caller and Mother Jones. It applies to all American sites, even this one. It's blanket coverage, you don't have to qualify for it.  It has nothing to do with not having political leanings.

This is (R) Roger Wicker's statement on the 230 hearings.

https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2020/10/does-section-230-s-sweeping-immunity-enable-big-tech-bad-behavior#

 As you can see, his intention was to introduce legislation that he felt would make big tech platforms less biased in HIS OPINION. It wasn't because these companies were violating the law as it's written.