Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Google Was "Working To Get Hillary Clinton Elected" With "Silent Donation" According To Leaked Internal Email
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-10/google-was-working-get-hilla
ry-clinton-elected-silent-donation-according-leaked

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Twitter Caught Censoring Conservative Journalists With Site-Wide Shadowbans

?Two days after Twitter told Congress that they aren't politically biased when censoring content, several prominent conservatives discovered that the social media giant automatically includes them in a site-wide "Quality Filter Discrimination" shadowban which prevents anyone not already following them from viewing their posts.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Alex Jones and Info Wars has essentially been banished from the internet. Twitter was one of the last holdouts and they finally caved to the media pressure, and shortly after iTunes removed the Info Wars app.

Large and extremely popular YouTube presence H3H3 Productions recently had problems on the platform for their opinions on the issue. Joe Rogan, who is an extremely unbiased youtuber that is fairly left leaning on social issues is a friend of Alex's, although he's the first to say how crazy he can be. He's recently had a podcast where he talked about how he can no longer have Alex on as a guest. There's about a 17 minute clip you can find on Youtube about this that he cut out of the podcast to be viewed separately.

While technically not an issue of censorship because these bans were not Government censorship, it does put into question who will be next. In the current political climate there is no doubt that it will be Conservative voices that are silenced, there is no saying that this will be the way it goes forever. As we've seen the pendulum tends to always fall the other way and it may be the other side that feels these bans in the future.

The demonetization was a lower level form of censorship that should not be ignored, but regardless of your opinion of him or whatever way you lean politically, the banning of Alex Jones from the entirety of the internet is a very scary precedent that was just made.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Alex Jones and Info Wars has essentially been banished from the internet.

. . . but regardless of your opinion of him or whatever way you lean politically, the banning of Alex Jones from the entirety of the internet is a very scary precedent that was just made.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

The Internet is still young and it's learning what does and doesn't work. Initially they threw their platforms wide open, and as is typical of anything that includes so much freedom and money and humans, it was abused. If Alex Jones was allowed to continue people would have every right to complain that Youtube was making money from someone who said Sandy Hook was faked. So what would you do if you were them?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

The Internet is still young and it's learning what does and doesn't work. Initially they threw their platforms wide open, and as is typical of anything that includes so much freedom and money and humans, it was abused. If Alex Jones was allowed to continue people would have every right to complain that Youtube was making money from someone who said Sandy Hook was faked. So what would you do if you were them?

---

LEAVE THEM UP.

Everyone has a right to express their opinion, even the flat-earthers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The rights of free speech have been tested over and over, and the limits have been defined. Alex Jones did NOT cross the boundary into restricted speech. (eg defamation, threats etc.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
1) The platforms freed themselves of a lot of liability by saying that they're not responsible for the content. Once they start controlling content, the liabilities re-appear.

2) Irrational opinion is best met with rational argument, not banishment.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I rarely listened to Alex Jones, I just couldn't stand all the shouting. But he did have some interesting guests on, and some of the other hosts were more reasonable.

---

Quote:

---

The Internet is still young and it's learning what does and doesn't work. Initially they threw their platforms wide open, and as is typical of anything that includes so much freedom and money and humans, it was abused. If Alex Jones was allowed to continue people would have every right to complain that Youtube was making money from someone who said Sandy Hook was faked. So what would you do if you were them?- CC

LEAVE THEM UP.
Everyone has a right to express their opinion, even the flat-earthers.- SIGNY

He has the rest of the Internet to express his opinion.- CC

---

Quote:

---

The rights of free speech have been tested over and over, and the limits have been defined. Alex Jones did NOT cross the boundary into restricted speech. (eg defamation, threats etc.) - SIGNY

I guess we'll see - he's being sued by parents of the dead children from Sandy Hook for defamation.- CC

---

Quote:

---

1) The platforms freed themselves of a lot of liability by saying that they're not responsible for the content. Once they start controlling content, the liabilities re-appear.
2) Irrational opinion is best met with rational argument, not banishment. - SIGNY

I believe you are correct for #1. It may go to the SC before we have some real LEGAL guidelines for responsibility from these web sites/apps/platform providers.

Disagree on #2. Rational arguments only apply with rational people or people who aren't following contrary agendas. Plus, as has been proven over and over, there are some things our society has deemed off limits for public expression, "fire" at a theater, on and on.- CC

---

Quote:

---

I rarely listened to Alex Jones, I just couldn't stand all the shouting. But he did have some interesting guests on, and some of the other hosts were more reasonable. - SIGNY
Do you have internet access? If you do you are free to visit his web site and hear what he is free to say.- CC

---

Quote:

---

"Panic And Dismay": Leaked Video Reveals Distraught Google Execs Grappling With Hillary Clinton's Loss

Days after Google was exposed trying to help Hillary Clinton win the 2016 election, a leaked "internal only" video published by Breitbart Senior Tech correspondent Allum Bokhari reveals a panel of Google executives who are absolutely beside themselves following Hillary Clinton's historic loss.

The video is a full recording of Google’s first all-hands meeting following the 2016 election (these weekly meetings are known inside the company as “TGIF” or “Thank God It’s Friday” meetings). Sent to Breitbart News by an anonymous source, it features co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, VPs Kent Walker and Eileen Naughton, CFO Ruth Porat, and CEO Sundar Pichai. -Breitbart

In the video, Brin can be heard comparing Trump supporters to fascists and extremists - arguing that like other extremists, Trump voters suffered from "boredom" which has, he claims, historically led to fascism and communism.

He then asks his company what they can do to ensure a "better quality of governance and decision-making."

And according to Kent Walker, VP for Global Affairs, those who support populist causes like the MAGA movement are motivated by "fear, xenophobia, hatred and a desire for answers that may or may not be there."

He later says that Google needs to fight to ensure that populist movements around the world are merely a "blip" and a "hiccup" in the arc of history that "bends towards progress."

The video can be seen below, however scroll down for a list of timestamped segments to note, courtesy of Breitbart.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Free speech zones is exactly what this is about.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
There is no point in arguing this right now. There will come a time that this happens to a voice they like, or are at least not hostile against... then another... and another... and another.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'll admit that it might not be too late at that point. For example, they did this to smokers over a decade ago by taxing the fuck out of them, then basically making it illegal to smoke anywhere in Illinois. I told them once that money train ran out they'd be losing something that they enjoyed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Fast forward to 2018 when Cook County, IL did that sugar tax. It backfired and people went to Will County or to Indiana to buy all of their stuff. Except for the casualties of restaurants in Cook County that couldn't weather the storm, the tax was rescinded and things are now back to the way they were.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Again, the problem is the "town square" effect. I might not have stumbled across Alex Jones in the first place if he hadn't been on YouTube. I found some of the most interesting people by accident. "Letting" them keep their own websites kind reminds me of the "free speech" zones that were set up ahead of political conventions ... behind barbed wire, three miles away from anywhere.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:
More like too many people were tired of that sh*t as well as the private company - they have better things to do than baby sit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Again, the problem is the "town square" effect. I might not have stumbled across Alex Jones in the first place if he hadn't been on YouTube. I found some of the most interesting people by accident. "Letting" them keep their own websites kind reminds me of the "free speech" zones that were set up ahead of political conventions ... behind barbed wire, three miles away from anywhere.

---

You don't think you will stumble acrossmaybe even more interesting people (!) now that you aren't wasting your time with Alex Jones? You may have to look a little harder or deeper in Youtube - o' dear, poor thing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

I just can't believe that somebody is as stupid as you appear to be.

---

Quote:

---

Google Vs. Trump: "The Good Censor" On Collision Course With The Patriot President

... 2. Target Section 230

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a sacred privilege for social media companies. This law protects Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms from liability over the material published on their websites. One of the reasons these services are granted this privilege is the Congressional finding, embodied in legislation, that they “offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” [47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material] In contrast, newspapers are subject to libel actions over Letters to the Editor, because they are assumed to have exercised editorial judgement in publishing them.

Since it is highly questionable these platforms provide politically diverse forums anymore, it is arguably time for Congress to revisit Section 230. Not only is Big Tech’s censorship violating its spirit, so is their shifting claims on not being publishers. Indeed, Facebook’s lawyers have already paradoxically claimed that in some circumstances the company is a publisher, undermining the mega-platform’s numerous public claims that it is not a publisher. [Is Facebook a publisher? In public it says no, but in court it says yes, by Sam Levin, Guardian, July 2, 2018]

Both Google and Twitter have also undermined their own claims not to be publishers in litigation, according to court documents provided to the Watcher. Google claimed in its legal defense against PragerU’s lawsuit over censorship that it can exercise “editorial control and judgment” as a publisher. Twitter argued in court that it was similar to the New York Times and must have “exercise of editorial control and judgment” over the content it publishes.

Congress has an obligation to investigate these companies over their apparent Section 230 violations, and Trump should encourage them to do so. Nothing will terrify Big Tech more than having the President cheer on stripping them of their Section 230 protection.

Legislation amending Section 230 to explicitly state these companies may not engage in political discrimination would protect free expression for years to come...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

I just can't believe that somebody is as stupid as you appear to be.

---

Do explain. You believe the bs "town square" effect? Lay it on me genius.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Social media is exempt from libel and hate speech laws because they disavow any responsibility for their content.

However, once social media starts "curating" what appears on their platforms, they start sliding over into the realm of "publisher", which has a whole boatload of responsibilities and liabilities attached.

This is in reference to "shadow-banning" or "demonetizing" content, or (in the case of Google/Youtube) skewing search results so thoroughly that it's impossible to find what you're looking for, even if you're very very specific with your search terms.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
did some crazy immigrant jihad vegan woman try to shoot up youtube HQ because she got her bizzare yoga political exercise video censored or they didnt pay her enough for adverts or some crazy ideas?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Do explain. You believe the bs "town square" effect? Lay it on me genius.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Do explain. You believe the bs "town square" effect? Lay it on me genius.

---

I'd tell you to read a book. But you don't like that simple answer.

---

Quote:

---

If they are violating the law or rights, then they can be sued or prosecuted. - SHINY

---

Quote:

---

Facebook has removed – in what some are calling the “Facebook purge”- more than 800 pages and accounts. Although the social media giant says those deleted were rule breakers engaged in “coordinated inauthentic behavior,” some of their defenders have claimed the sweeping action amounts to an attack on independent media, both representing left and right-wing political views.

---

Quote:

---

Facebook Purged Pages Based On 'PropOrNot' Blacklist Promoted By Washington Post

Media outlets removed by Facebook on Thursday, in a massive purge of 800 accounts and pages, had previously been targeted in a blacklist of oppositional sites promoted by the Washington Post in November 2016.

The organizations censored by Facebook include The Anti-Media, with 2.1 million followers, The Free Thought Project, with 3.1 million followers, and Counter Current News, with 500,000 followers. All three of these groups had been on the blacklist.

In November 2016, the Washington Post published a puff-piece on a shadowy and up to then largely unknown organization called PropOrNot, which had compiled a list of organizations it claimed were part of a “sophisticated Russian propaganda

---

Quote:

---

campaign.”

The Post said the report “identifies more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda

---

Quote:

---

during the election season, with combined audiences of at least 15 million Americans.”

The publication of the blacklist drew widespread media condemnation, including from journalists Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald, forcing the Post to publish a partial retraction. The newspaper declared that it “does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet.”

While the individuals behind PropOrNot have not identified themselves, the Washington Post said the group was a “collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds.”

PropOrNot, which remains active on Twitter, publicly gloated about Facebook’s removal of the pages on Thursday. “Russian propaganda is VERY VERY MAD about their various front outlets & fellow travellers getting suspended by @Facebook &/or @Twitter,” it wrote. The tweet tagged The Anti Media and The Free Thought Project, and included a Russian flag emoji next to an emoji depicting feces.

---

Quote:

---

PropOrNot did not attempt to reconcile its own narrative that the targeted organizations were front groups for the Kremlin with Facebook’s official claim that they operated independently of any government but sought to “stir up political debate” for financial motives. This is because both accusations are hollow pretexts for political censorship.

In a separate post, PropOrNot added: “Well, look at that... @Facebook removed some of the most important gray/black Russian propaganda outlets from their platform! Bravo @Facebook - better late than never, so a BIG thank you for this.”
It added, ominously: “All of these [organizations] are cross platform & have websites, but one thing at a time.”

These comments by PropOrNot make clear where the censorship measures supervised by the US government and implemented by the internet companies are going. While these organizations still “have websites,” the authorities are handling “one thing at a time.”

The clear implication is that censorship will not end with Google’s manipulation of its search platform or the removal of accounts by Facebook and Twitter. The ultimate aim is the total banning of oppositional news web sites.

The publication of the PropOrNot blacklist and its promotion by the Washington Post helped trigger a wave of censorship measures against oppositional news sites by the major technology companies, working at the instigation of the US intelligence agencies and leading politicians.

Last year, the World Socialist Web Site reported that it an other sites, including Global Research, Counterpunch, Consortium News, WikiLeaks and Truthout,saw their search traffic plunge after search giant Google implemented a change to its search ranking algorithm.

In the subsequent period, search traffic to these sites has fallen even further. Search traffic to Counterpunch has fallen by 39 percent, and Consortium Newshas fallen by 51 percent.

These developments confirm the analysis made by the World Socialist Web Site in its open letter to Google alleging that it was censoring left-wing, anti-war and socialist websites.

“Censorship on this scale is political blacklisting,” the letter declared.

“The obvious intent of Google’s censorship algorithm is to block news that your company does not want reported and to suppress opinions with which you do not agree. Political blacklisting is not a legitimate exercise of whatever may be Google’s prerogatives as a commercial enterprise. It is a gross abuse of monopolistic power. What you are doing is an attack on freedom of speech.”

On Tuesday, Google admitted in an internal document that it and other technology companies had “gradually shifted away from unmediated free speech and towards censorship and moderation.” The document stated that an aim of the censorship was to “increase revenues” under conditions of growing government and commercial pressure.

The document acknowledged that such actions constitute a break with the “American tradition that prioritizes free speech for democracy.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
This is very clearly a last-ditch effort by the uber-wealthy transnational Democratic Silicon Valley elite to swing the November election.

Quote:

---

Facebook Purged Pages Based On 'PropOrNot' Blacklist Promoted By Washington Post

Media outlets removed by Facebook on Thursday, in a massive purge of 800 accounts and pages, had previously been targeted in a blacklist of oppositional sites promoted by the Washington Post in November 2016.

The organizations censored by Facebook include The Anti-Media, with 2.1 million followers, The Free Thought Project, with 3.1 million followers, and Counter Current News, with 500,000 followers. All three of these groups had been on the blacklist.

In November 2016, the Washington Post published a puff-piece on a shadowy and up to then largely unknown organization called PropOrNot, which had compiled a list of organizations it claimed were part of a “sophisticated Russian propaganda

---

free speech

Quote:

---

campaign.”

The Post said the report “identifies more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda

---

free speech

Quote:

---

during the election season, with combined audiences of at least 15 million Americans.”

The publication of the blacklist drew widespread media condemnation, including from journalists Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald, forcing the Post to publish a partial retraction. The newspaper declared that it “does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet.”

While the individuals behind PropOrNot have not identified themselves, the Washington Post said the group was a “collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds.”

PropOrNot, which remains active on Twitter, publicly gloated about Facebook’s removal of the pages on Thursday. “Russian propaganda is VERY VERY MAD about their various front outlets & fellow travellers getting suspended by @Facebook &/or @Twitter,” it wrote. The tweet tagged The Anti Media and The Free Thought Project, and included a Russian flag emoji next to an emoji depicting feces.

---

huh?

Quote:

---

PropOrNot did not attempt to reconcile its own narrative that the targeted organizations were front groups for the Kremlin with Facebook’s official claim that they operated independently of any government but sought to “stir up political debate” for financial motives. This is because both accusations are hollow pretexts for political censorship.

In a separate post, PropOrNot added: “Well, look at that... @Facebook removed some of the most important gray/black Russian propaganda outlets from their platform! Bravo @Facebook - better late than never, so a BIG thank you for this.”
It added, ominously: “All of these [organizations] are cross platform & have websites, but one thing at a time.”

These comments by PropOrNot make clear where the censorship measures supervised by the US government and implemented by the internet companies are going. While these organizations still “have websites,” the authorities are handling “one thing at a time.”

The clear implication is that censorship will not end with Google’s manipulation of its search platform or the removal of accounts by Facebook and Twitter. The ultimate aim is the total banning of oppositional news web sites.

The publication of the PropOrNot blacklist and its promotion by the Washington Post helped trigger a wave of censorship measures against oppositional news sites by the major technology companies, working at the instigation of the US intelligence agencies and leading politicians.

Last year, the World Socialist Web Site reported that it an other sites, including Global Research, Counterpunch, Consortium News, WikiLeaks and Truthout,saw their search traffic plunge after search giant Google implemented a change to its search ranking algorithm.

In the subsequent period, search traffic to these sites has fallen even further. Search traffic to Counterpunch has fallen by 39 percent, and Consortium Newshas fallen by 51 percent.

These developments confirm the analysis made by the World Socialist Web Site in its open letter to Google alleging that it was censoring left-wing, anti-war and socialist websites.

“Censorship on this scale is political blacklisting,” the letter declared.

“The obvious intent of Google’s censorship algorithm is to block news that your company does not want reported and to suppress opinions with which you do not agree. Political blacklisting is not a legitimate exercise of whatever may be Google’s prerogatives as a commercial enterprise. It is a gross abuse of monopolistic power. What you are doing is an attack on freedom of speech.”

On Tuesday, Google admitted in an internal document that it and other technology companies had “gradually shifted away from unmediated free speech and towards censorship and moderation.” The document stated that an aim of the censorship was to “increase revenues” under conditions of growing government and commercial pressure.

The document acknowledged that such actions constitute a break with the “American tradition that prioritizes free speech for democracy.”

---

Must be the CIA behind this. Yanno, OBAMA allowed the USA government to sow actual propaganda into the media.


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

---

Quote:

---

HOWEVER, once they start meddling with posts/tweets ... curating content based on political leanings ... then they become PUBLISHERS.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Do explain. You believe the bs "town square" effect? Lay it on me genius.

---

I'd tell you to read a book. But you don't like that simple answer.

---

You're right - I don't like that answer because it sounds like a lot of your answers: a dodge. Surely if you understand the concept and believe in it AND if you have read a book about it, you can defend it or at least present a brief description of the parts that make sense to you. Or not.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
This is very clearly a last-ditch effort by the uber-wealthy transnational Democratic Silicon Valley elite to swing the November election.

---

Quote:

---

This is very clearly a last-ditch effort by the uber-wealthy transnational Democratic Silicon Valley elite to swing the November election. - SIGNY Clearly!

I love this touch: Russian Propaganda = Free Speech < that right there is brilliant! I tip my hat to the shear preposterousness. A true gem. Btw, fwiw, fyi: You have gone completely bat sh*t crazy. Or maybe since I've known you for so long, you are back to who I always thought you were, just more so. - GSTRING

---

Quote:

---

I have a question: Is that what has been determined by legal authorities, you know, the Rule of Law that supposedly controls this country? Or is this just an opinion, a theory.

Give me 4 Ws: Who, what, when and where (the 5th is why). Is that an illegal
action taken by the control freaks and dishonest authority?

---

Quote:

---

As Cruz properly understands, Section 230 encourages Internet platforms to moderate “offensive” speech, but the law was not intended to facilitate political censorship. Online platforms should receive immunity only if they maintain viewpoint neutrality, consistent with traditional legal norms for distributors of information. Before the Internet, common law held that newsstands, bookstores, and libraries had no duty to ensure that each book and newspaper they distributed was not defamatory. Courts initially extended this principle to online platforms. Then, in 1995, a federal judge found Prodigy, an early online service, liable for content on its message boards because the company had advertised that it removed obscene posts. The court reasoned that “utilizing technology and the manpower to delete” objectionable content made Prodigy more like a publisher than a library.

Congress responded by enacting Section 230, establishing that platforms could not be held liable as publishers of user-generated content and clarifying that they could not be held liable for removing any content that they believed in good faith to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” This provision does not allow platforms to remove whatever they wish, however. Courts have held that “otherwise objectionable” does not mean whatever a social media company objects to, but “must, at a minimum, involve or be similar” to obscenity, violence, or harassment. Political viewpoints, no matter how extreme or unpopular, do not fall under this category.

The Internet Association, which represents Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other major platforms, claims that Section 230 is necessary for these firms to “provide forums and tools for the public to engage in a wide variety of activities that the First Amendment protects.” But rather than facilitate free speech, Silicon Valley now uses Section 230 to justify censorship, leading to a legal and policy muddle. For instance, in response to a lawsuit challenging its speech policies, Google claimed that restricting its right to censor would “impose liability on YouTube as a publisher.” In the same motion, Google argues that its right to restrict political content also derives from its “First Amendment protection for a publisher’s editorial judgments,” which “encompasses the choice of how to present, or even whether to present, particular content.”

The dominant social media companies must choose: if they are neutral platforms, they should have immunity from litigation. If they are publishers making editorial choices, then they should relinquish this valuable exemption. They can’t claim that Section 230 immunity is necessary to protect free speech, while they shape, control, and censor the speech on their platforms. Either the courts or Congress should clarify the matter.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Do explain. You believe the bs "town square" effect? Lay it on me genius.

---

I'd tell you to read a book. But you don't like that simple answer.

---

You're right - I don't like that answer because it sounds like a lot of your answers: a dodge. Surely if you understand the concept and believe in it AND if you have read a book about it, you can defend it or at least present a brief description of the parts that make sense to you. Or not.

---

I've already explained myself about this issue.

I laugh about the idea of you reading a book because you can't even be bothered to read a paragraph or two in the RWED.

---

You said I should read a book so I'm just asking what book. You sure do spook easy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Do explain. You believe the bs "town square" effect? Lay it on me genius.

---

I'd tell you to read a book. But you don't like that simple answer.

---

You're right - I don't like that answer because it sounds like a lot of your answers: a dodge. Surely if you understand the concept and believe in it AND if you have read a book about it, you can defend it or at least present a brief description of the parts that make sense to you. Or not.

---

I've already explained myself about this issue.

I laugh about the idea of you reading a book because you can't even be bothered to read a paragraph or two in the RWED.

---

You said I should read a book so I'm just asking what book. You sure do spook easy.

---

I'd suggest Hop on Pop by Dr. Seuss for starters.

We can work our way up from there.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Son, you couldn't be more delusional if you said the earth was flat. ONLY YOU (and your idiot friends) would confuse free speech with Russian propaganda! But that's your problem: ANYONE who disagrees with you is automatically either a "Russian troll" or a "Nazi" in your fevered imagination and must automatically be silenced.

Clearly, you hate free speech, you're completely authoritarian/anti-American/anti-democracy, and you can't think your way out of a paper bag! Otherwise you wouldn't resort to personal attacks that are completely stupid.

I'll give you a thought, since you don't seem to have brought any with you today ...

If you really want to demonstrate that censorship by Google, FB, Twitter et al is really such a great thing, why don't you look at the list of censored sites, do some research, and demonstrate for us that they're all Russia based! That WILL tend to prove your point that they're "Russian propaganda".

---

Quote:

---

I'll give you a thought, since you don't seem to have brought any with you today ...

If you really want to demonstrate that censorship by Google, FB, Twitter et al is really such a great thing, why don't you look at the list of censored sites, do some research, and demonstrate for us that they're all Russia based! That WILL tend to prove your point that they're "Russian propaganda".- SIGNY

Wrong of course - when aren't you? It wasn't a pointless personal attack. The daily load of sh*t you dump on this forum - you deserve to be challenged pointedly and repeatedly.

---

Quote:

---

And saying I'm against Free Speech? Shouldn't you be trashing Kiki about that? Have I ever tried to get you banned? Or moved to Troll Country? Nope. But you good ole buddy Kiki has -= why aren't you in her face? Hy-o-crite maybe?

---

Quote:

---

BTW granny, I quoted you where you replaced Russian propaganda with free speech.
"The Post said the report “identifies more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda free speech..."

---

Quote:

---

And thanks for this: "Clearly, you hate free speech, you're completely authoritarian/anti-American/anti-democracy, and you can't think your way out of a paper bag!" You owe yourself a keyboard! The amount of spittle you must produce! You've become such a joke. I really do hope you're getting paid for this.- GSTRING

---

Quote:

---

Google Finally Acknowledges Censored Chinese Search Engine Project

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Do explain. You believe the bs "town square" effect? Lay it on me genius.

---

I'd tell you to read a book. But you don't like that simple answer.

---

You're right - I don't like that answer because it sounds like a lot of your answers: a dodge. Surely if you understand the concept and believe in it AND if you have read a book about it, you can defend it or at least present a brief description of the parts that make sense to you. Or not.

---

I've already explained myself about this issue.

I laugh about the idea of you reading a book because you can't even be bothered to read a paragraph or two in the RWED.

---

You said I should read a book so I'm just asking what book. You sure do spook easy.

---

I'd suggest Hop on Pop by Dr. Seuss for starters.

We can work our way up from there.

---

Let me know when you finish.

You just keep dodging.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

I have a question: Is that what has been determined by legal authorities, you know, the Rule of Law that supposedly controls this country? Or is this just an opinion, a theory.

Give me 4 Ws: Who, what, when and where (the 5th is why). Is that an illegal
action taken by the control freaks and dishonest authority?

---

The social media companies applied for an exemption from things like libel laws by claiming that they're not fully responsible for content, that they merely provide a space for other people to post, and that if there is any liability it attaches to the poster, not the platform. They were granted an exemption called Section 230, passed by Congress.

Here is a nice description and analysis of what that was all about:

Quote:

---

As Cruz properly understands, Section 230 encourages Internet platforms to moderate “offensive” speech, but the law was not intended to facilitate political censorship. Online platforms should receive immunity only if they maintain viewpoint neutrality, consistent with traditional legal norms for distributors of information. Before the Internet, common law held that newsstands, bookstores, and libraries had no duty to ensure that each book and newspaper they distributed was not defamatory. Courts initially extended this principle to online platforms. Then, in 1995, a federal judge found Prodigy, an early online service, liable for content on its message boards because the company had advertised that it removed obscene posts. The court reasoned that “utilizing technology and the manpower to delete” objectionable content made Prodigy more like a publisher than a library.

Congress responded by enacting Section 230, establishing that platforms could not be held liable as publishers of user-generated content and clarifying that they could not be held liable for removing any content that they believed in good faith to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” This provision does not allow platforms to remove whatever they wish, however. Courts have held that “otherwise objectionable” does not mean whatever a social media company objects to, but “must, at a minimum, involve or be similar” to obscenity, violence, or harassment. Political viewpoints, no matter how extreme or unpopular, do not fall under this category.

The Internet Association, which represents Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other major platforms, claims that Section 230 is necessary for these firms to “provide forums and tools for the public to engage in a wide variety of activities that the First Amendment protects.” But rather than facilitate free speech, Silicon Valley now uses Section 230 to justify censorship, leading to a legal and policy muddle. For instance, in response to a lawsuit challenging its speech policies, Google claimed that restricting its right to censor would “impose liability on YouTube as a publisher.” In the same motion, Google argues that its right to restrict political content also derives from its “First Amendment protection for a publisher’s editorial judgments,” which “encompasses the choice of how to present, or even whether to present, particular content.”

The dominant social media companies must choose: if they are neutral platforms, they should have immunity from litigation. If they are publishers making editorial choices, then they should relinquish this valuable exemption. They can’t claim that Section 230 immunity is necessary to protect free speech, while they shape, control, and censor the speech on their platforms. Either the courts or Congress should clarify the matter.

---

https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html



-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

I have a question: Is that what has been determined by legal authorities, you know, the Rule of Law that supposedly controls this country? Or is this just an opinion, a theory.

Give me 4 Ws: Who, what, when and where (the 5th is why). Is that an illegal
action taken by the control freaks and dishonest authority?

---

The social media companies applied for an exemption from things like libel laws by claiming that they're not fully responsible for content, that they merely provide a space for other people to post, and that if there is any liability it attaches to the poster, not the platform. They were granted an exemption called Section 230, passed by Congress.

Here is a nice description and analysis of what that was all about:

Quote:

---

As Cruz properly understands, Section 230 encourages Internet platforms to moderate “offensive” speech, but the law was not intended to facilitate political censorship. Online platforms should receive immunity only if they maintain viewpoint neutrality, consistent with traditional legal norms for distributors of information. Before the Internet, common law held that newsstands, bookstores, and libraries had no duty to ensure that each book and newspaper they distributed was not defamatory. Courts initially extended this principle to online platforms. Then, in 1995, a federal judge found Prodigy, an early online service, liable for content on its message boards because the company had advertised that it removed obscene posts. The court reasoned that “utilizing technology and the manpower to delete” objectionable content made Prodigy more like a publisher than a library.

Congress responded by enacting Section 230, establishing that platforms could not be held liable as publishers of user-generated content and clarifying that they could not be held liable for removing any content that they believed in good faith to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” This provision does not allow platforms to remove whatever they wish, however. Courts have held that “otherwise objectionable” does not mean whatever a social media company objects to, but “must, at a minimum, involve or be similar” to obscenity, violence, or harassment. Political viewpoints, no matter how extreme or unpopular, do not fall under this category.

The Internet Association, which represents Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other major platforms, claims that Section 230 is necessary for these firms to “provide forums and tools for the public to engage in a wide variety of activities that the First Amendment protects.” But rather than facilitate free speech, Silicon Valley now uses Section 230 to justify censorship, leading to a legal and policy muddle. For instance, in response to a lawsuit challenging its speech policies, Google claimed that restricting its right to censor would “impose liability on YouTube as a publisher.” In the same motion, Google argues that its right to restrict political content also derives from its “First Amendment protection for a publisher’s editorial judgments,” which “encompasses the choice of how to present, or even whether to present, particular content.”

The dominant social media companies must choose: if they are neutral platforms, they should have immunity from litigation. If they are publishers making editorial choices, then they should relinquish this valuable exemption. They can’t claim that Section 230 immunity is necessary to protect free speech, while they shape, control, and censor the speech on their platforms. Either the courts or Congress should clarify the matter.

---

https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html

---

Thanks for posting this, I will read and review, then give my take on the matter. My preliminary thought is that the social media platforms would do
everything in their power to insulate themselves from any wrongdoing and
civil lawsuits. Their argument held some sway and the government was convinced
to comply.

Although censor is a strong word, it's a fair question to ask, but I dare say
that the court/government gave it a fair amount of attention resulting in
Section 230.

SGG

---