Twitter and Facebook censorship

SpaceCritter

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
16,379
Likes
11,551
Location
In Orbit
They used to,it was called the Boston Phoenix, Boston After Dark, The Real Paper, and others.

It wasn't until 2018 when the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) was passed, which adds tougher penalties on newspapers and
web services that help facilitate prostitution or sex trafficking pretty much shut down websites (Craigslist, and others) that allowed adult services ads which were basically porn, and the kicker is most porn is a protected free speech
...which is why MOST of the CDA got kicked... EXCEPT the part that exempts providers from acting as "open forums" (i.e. not exercising editorial discretion) to be shielded under it. This is why a bona fide newspaper like, say, the New York Post, can be SUED if shit appears in their publication that's defamatory, yet not Facebook or Twitter. Even though Facebook, Twitter - as well as the NY Post - are exercising editorial authority. Only the Post can be sued.
 
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
4,708
Likes
2,139
if the blogger or news outlet wants user engagement that's fine. The difference between that site and twitter is the number of people using twitters "blogging" platform to communicate with each other.

If the phone company hung up every time someone said Trump, hunter biden, or guns people would be mighty pissed about it....that's what twitter and facebook are doing.

How much value is in this blog post?
 

xtry51

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
22,992
Likes
15,666
Location
NH (CT Escapee)
if the blogger or news outlet wants user engagement that's fine. The difference between that site and twitter is the number of people using twitters "blogging" platform to communicate with each other.

If the phone company hung up every time someone said Trump, hunter biden, or guns people would be mighty pissed about it....that's what twitter and facebook are doing.
This is an excellent analogy.
 

Racenet

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
3,642
Likes
2,552
Location
New Hampshire
Well, if the account still exists and you don't use it,
now's your chance to strike a blow for liberty:

Delete It.​

It will show up as Yet Another Person We Just Pissed Off
in their accounting stats.
It may go into the "(*) inactive" column,
but it still affects the grand totals.
I will check to see if it is still there. I have no idea at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AHM

Asaltweapon

NES Member
Rating - 100%
49   0   0
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
15,346
Likes
8,558
Location
Northern Mass
FB, Twitter or otherwise aside. The fact that they played the Orange Man Bad card over data on the Biden emails but completely looked the other way when the information on Trump is allowed to go unchecked to even the most liberal tool bag should have any normal thinking person alarmed.
This was blatant censorship and election bias on behalf the platforms.
 
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
699
Likes
418
i"ve used facebook for about 10 years. mostly to keep in touch with old friends, and sometimes to provoke critical thinking in them and current friends, who both think like me and don't, it was fun. I have made 156 posts total in that time. I deleted my account today. i wonder how many others have done the same in the past few days.
 

AHM

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
7,541
Likes
4,920
... this ... requires new laws ... social media shall not censor any lawful content put on not their platforms.
FTFY.

Maybe the government could conduct a buy-back of the servers,
and then give everybody free accounts.
 
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
4,708
Likes
2,139
be snarky all you want....whats your solution?

Google, Facebook, and twitter the 3 companies responsible for news discovery are censoring their political enemies and they are amplifying negative news about their political enemies. No one is calling them on it and there are no competitors large enough to make a difference.

FTFY.

Maybe the government could conduct a buy-back of the servers,
and then give everybody free accounts.
 

AHM

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
7,541
Likes
4,920
be snarky all you want....whats your solution?

Google, Facebook, and twitter the 3 companies responsible for news discovery are censoring their political enemies and they are amplifying negative news about their political enemies. No one is calling them on it and there are no competitors large enough to make a difference.
A Constitutional Convention to invalidate NY Times v. Sullivan.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
8,350
Likes
3,658
Location
A Fair Haven in an unfair state.
Private companies. They can do what they want, even if I don't agree with it.

Not a fan of getting the government involved in telling companies how to run their business. Find an alternative if social media is that important to you.
They're private companies that enjoy legal protection complements of the government. We're not advocating that there should be control exercised over their platforms, we ARE advocating that those cushy legal protections they enjoy be removed.

You can't claim to be a "platform" of free speech while censoring what people say. At that point, you're not a platform, you're a publisher. Publishers are liable for what they publish... Facebook and Twitter should be as well. But they get away with it because right now - we're letting them... That section 230 protection should have been rescinded years ago... What - did the Rs think it was going to get better? Seriously....

The liberal media in this country is the modern day version of this... The only difference is the information they destroy today is electronic and not on paper. But they're doing the exact same damn thing...

mc-xpm-2013-05-10-mc-burning-books-in-nazi-germany-wuerth-0510-20130509.jpg
 

AHM

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
7,541
Likes
4,920
The liberal media in this country is the modern day version of this... The only difference is the information they destroy today is electronic and not on paper. But they're doing the exact same damn thing...
Yahbut seems like it was only a few days ago
that I was thinking that it was time
to stage a book burning
of Merriam-Webster dictionaries.

Oh wait, it was only a few days ago I was thinking that.

ETA:
Hold it on the Town Common.
When questioned,
state that they're being burned because
they're old editions, with the wrong definition
of "((sexual)) preference".

Watch heads explode, totally.

ETA:
Put an ad in the classifieds,
soliciting old editions for the burning.
Say that they can be dropped off at the public library.
Post it in the name of the town Democrat Committee.
 
Last edited:

Laura

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
2,603
Likes
4,244
Location
Peabody, MA
I was prevented from posting on Twitter this week, suspended at Facebook, also this week for some made up offense. Now I'm suspended again tonight for posting something with nudity or that threatens harm....this:

 

Climbnsink

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
5,165
Likes
3,496
They're private companies that enjoy legal protection complements of the government. We're not advocating that there should be control exercised over their platforms, we ARE advocating that those cushy legal protections they enjoy be removed.

You can't claim to be a "platform" of free speech while censoring what people say. At that point, you're not a platform, you're a publisher. Publishers are liable for what they publish... Facebook and Twitter should be as well. But they get away with it because right now - we're letting them... That section 230 protection should have been rescinded years ago... What - did the Rs think it was going to get better? Seriously....

The liberal media in this country is the modern day version of this... The only difference is the information they destroy today is electronic and not on paper. But they're doing the exact same damn thing...

View attachment 400687
FYI they were burning porn.
 

Tinkermatic

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 9, 2018
Messages
1,747
Likes
2,659
Location
MA
On the other hand...

Suffice it to say, if you’re relying on a social media platform for news, you’ve only got yourself to blame. They shoot their dick off at every possible chance. Facebook and Twitter aren’t news outlets, thank Ajit Pai and section 230 for the most recent BS. Even leftist outlets
Like the aforelinked Gizmodo (and also linked here) Hellfeed: Twitter Screws the Pooch, QAnon Bans, and FCC Takes the Bait
acknowledge that Twitter and FB overstepped their roles. I find it oddly convenient that Pai wants to only now reassess section 230. He’s a steaming pile of excrement.
 

hminsky

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
63   0   0
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
7,706
Likes
3,389
Companies that run bulletin board discussion groups should be liable for legal responsibility for things like libel and slander. Newspapers
are liable for their content. Twitter and Facebook ought to be also have similar liability. They should also have full freedom to refuse to publish any
ignorant worthless crap that they don't like. End of story.

The people who should not be liable are the Internet providers. They just forward packets around, and should be immune from being sued for the content. They are the
real common carriers, and I really like the idea of common carriers.

The only practical issue if you allow Twitter and Facebook to be sued for their content is that there will be tons of frivolous lawsuits by people trying
to squash free speech by claiming libel. The answer to that is to make stiff punishment for people who initiate a frivolous lawsuit. Like chopping off
their ear or something. People should have real 'skin in the game' if they are trying to silence someone else's speech. It is much better to err on the side
of bogus information being published than people having the unilateral right to squash free speech.
 

FormerlyIndifferent

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Messages
3,009
Likes
1,590
Location
Anywhere in 1985 or so, would be fine
If the phone company hung up every time someone said Trump, hunter biden, or guns people would be mighty pissed about it....that's what twitter and facebook are doing.
I was thinking this same thing yesterday.

Mike Huckabee, on the Jeanine Pirro show last night, said the same thing. This is like the phone company allowing you to make certain phone calls, and forbidding other phone calls, based on the phone company's opinions/political leanings/whims. Or cutting your service/disabling it, if you support the "wrong" candidate or otherwise try to share wrongthink via a telephone conversation. Not cool.
 

center442

NES Member
Rating - 100%
40   0   0
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
8,790
Likes
1,483
Location
Southcoast of PRM
I didn't know it, but the Biden campaign has some strong ties to former employees of both Twitter and Facebook:

"The move prompted fresh criticism on social media over the Biden transition team’s hiring of top Facebook executive Jessica Hertz, which reportedly came days after the 2020 Democrat’s campaign penned a letter to the social media giant urging them to censor President Trump’s posts."

And:

"Twitter’s suppression of the Hunter Biden revelations also came days after the company’s director of public policy, Carlos Monje, reportedly left his post to work for the Biden transition team."

I'm not too concerned though. My understanding is that both platforms have hired experienced and impartial individuals to vet the NY Post's article. Here they are:

BAGHDADBOB1.jpg

nothing+to+see+here.png

;)
 

Climbnsink

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
5,165
Likes
3,496
Justifying Nazi behavior... LOLz...
What if the Nazis did one thing right? Should we not defend the one right thing? Burning porn is pro civilization. Are you saying the Nazis were 100% wrong in everything they did? How is that even possible?
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
8,350
Likes
3,658
Location
A Fair Haven in an unfair state.
What if the Nazis did one thing right? Should we not defend the one right thing? Burning porn is pro civilization. Are you saying the Nazis were 100% wrong in everything they did? How is that even possible?
They weren't burning porn, and you need to educate yourself. The more you try to defend them the more ignorant you make yourself look. Do yourself a favor - stop.
 

Climbnsink

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
5,165
Likes
3,496
They weren't burning porn, and you need to educate yourself. The more you try to defend them the more ignorant you make yourself look. Do yourself a favor - stop.
Of course they were burning porn, you need to educate yourself on who has always been in the porn production business. Is the burning of porn a good thing for your society or bad?
 

center442

NES Member
Rating - 100%
40   0   0
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
8,790
Likes
1,483
Location
Southcoast of PRM
One thing I know about burning books: “Where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people also”

That's a translated quote from a play by Heinrich Heine dating back to 1821. Heine was a German Jew, whose books were banned by German authorities a few years later. He was a little early with his prediction about burning people, but he was ultimately correct.

I love reading. I always have. I've read many things that I vehemently disagree with, things that I found offensive. I don't want them banned. In a free society those things are precisely what need to be protected. Those are the things that make people think, to reason, to question and disagree. I believe that children need to have their media input censored because they are not adult enough to reason, to question, to judge. Adult men and women are just that, adults. They should be free to read whatever they want, to listen to whatever they want.

I cringe when I read about people saying colleges and universities should ban "hate speech." Those students are theoretically adults. Let them hear and judge for themselves.

Sorry for the thread drift. That's a burr that really gets under my saddle.
 
Top Bottom