by minimus 67 Replies latest jw friends
I have a very good friend who has been banned from Facebook simply because he makes remarks positive about President Trump and negative toward the Democratic Party. He has tried to get back on Facebook and it appears there is no way for him to return.
People are being removed from social media platforms simply because they have a different political view. I think this is terrible!
I guess it depends on how "positive" and "negative" the comments were, to determine how "terrible" it is.
If he were removed for saying "I think the Democratic platform regarding expanding access to Medicaid is ill-considered for the following reasons...." then yes, that's terrible.
If he were removed for saying "Every person who votes Democrat is a scum-sucking evil pig who wants to abort babies to sacrifice to Satan", well, I can kinda see why he'd be banned.
Can you give a quote or two of his "positive" and "negative" comments?
Imagine if your phone service was cut-off because you said something critical of the CEOs favourite candidate?
This is political interference and tech companies should be regulated. It amounts to massive campaign contributions.
tech companies should be regulated.
That's a surprising reaction. Isn't the conservative position that there is already too much government oversight of private enterprise? That the market will reward or punish the behavior of private corporations and government should just leave them be, and stick to national defense and maintaining civil order?
Maybe I misunderstand, I slept through a lot of classes.
I hear ya, Min.
I've not been banned from FB outright, but I've had jokes and memes removed. They were harmless jokes laughing at trans and other issues.
One meme featured a photo of a trans-woman (the one who who went nuts in an American store and shouted 'IT IS MA'AM!!!'), captioned with the words 'Gilette - the best a ma'am can get'.
Another meme had the words 'always check your mirrors' and had a cartoon of a woman about to go down on a man in his car, with the man looking at his wing mirror and seeing that the 'woman' actually had male genitalia.
Both were removed because somebody (anonymously) complained. Ridiculous ...
I believe you minimus.
I am super freaked out about the story that big tech is censoring laptopgate. Many have been warning about this (I must admit I thought some of this was alarmist), but now it truly seems that massive liberal censorship and oppression of free speech is here, all under the guise of some lame excuse Facebook is like Zuckerbergs personal website, which does not hold up when you think about it for 10 seconds.
When a website censors and ban users based on their political views this has to be called under it's real name: oppression of free speech, just as severe as when the marxists banned newspapers.
Obviously big tech knows Trump will put an end to this, so now they are playing all cards available to stop his election.
Funky:
That's a surprising reaction. Isn't the conservative position that there is already too much government oversight of private enterprise? That the market will reward or punish the behavior of private corporations and government should just leave them be, and stick to national defense and maintaining civil order?
Maybe I misunderstand, I slept through a lot of classes.
It is not really a call for more regulation. It is a call to remove the immunity that was granted to them by a special government program (CDA). They were given broad immunity from content liability, with the hope that the internet would grow and become a free speech area, not a political tool. They are turning against the principles that spawned their special protection.
CDA 230 could be amended to say something like : "This section applies only if the platform conforms to first amendment principles, and all established first amendment law." I'm not a lawyer - probably a better way of putting it legally.
If you want to be a platform, great - be a platform. If you want to be a publisher, great - be a publisher. But you can't be both. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I'm new to this forum as a contributor but been a long time watcher. The word is that if you're saying negative things about Trump on this exjw forum, your kicked off/deleted. True?
whiskey time!
I am new, but this is absolutely not true in my experience whiskeyman.
You can find the posting guidelines by following the link at the bottom of the page.
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
As I understand it, CDA 230 is there to protect companies from liability for their decisions to leave up or take down content posted on their sites. I.e., as a private company they have the right to allow or disallow what other people post there, and no one has can sue them for either leaving up, or taking down, content. Obviously, there are exceptions such as child porn, sex trafficking, etc.
I also understand there are differing opinions about the meaning and extent of CDA 230.
I agree, the wording from 1996 is probably trying to do too much lifting in 2020. It would be good for congress, if/when it gets past its hyper-partisan divide, to consider amending it.
