Federal Judge Moves to End Twitter's Immunity in Censoring Content

NN ^ | 05-17-21 | Jay Greenberg

[lapsus calami]

 

 

Twitter and the other social media bigwigs are NGOs acting as agents on behalf of government players. One of the major things that needs to be addressed and hashed out if we are to slow down or ever stop the communistas.

 

 

[Alter Kaker]

Vomit up that idiotic belief in a few years when they start shutting your mobile phone for wrongspeak.

You seem unaware of how private enterprise works. For years the airwaves were controlled by a few companies and government imposed a "fairness doctrine" on them. It didn't work. But we beat them - not by regulating NBC into being conservative but by competing with them, providing the content that people actually wanted. If mobile phone companies start shutting off paid subscribers, somebody else will want that business.

[CA Conservative]

It's a private company. Any conservative who thinks it's a good idea to allow government to tell private companies what they can and can't do, say, print or think... isn't a conservative.

I would tend to agree, but in this case they receive a number of legal protections that they are abusing. If the legal protections are removed and they can be held accountable for their actions, then you have a valid point. There is also the anti-trust aspect to look at. Although I was initially opposed to the ATT breakup, it eventually did promote a lot more competition, diversity and development of new technologies in the telecom space. At some point, organizations like Facebook, Twitter and Amazon become so dominant that they stifle and freeze out any competition. (Look at what happened with Parler.)

[PGalt]

https://patriots.win/p/12igctoZ8K/federal-judge-moves-to-end-twitt/c/

Jagoff Dorsey

[NobleFree]

Here’s the story NN cribbed from: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/05/federal-judge-signals-may-end-twitters-immunity-speech-police-worried/

[flamberge]

Lots of people agree with you. They're just not conservatives.

And I am not a "conservative" as you might define such.

Just exactly what have "conservatives" actually conserved anyway? We have seen a one-way ratchet to the Left over the last 100 years or so. The end-game is in sight, followed by overturning the tables and knocking out the lights, as most of the players discover they have been had.

We have Fascists (Corporate executives) and Communists (the Deep State bureaucracy) in a temporary alliance, each believing they will end up in perpetual control of hundreds of millions of people. And they will discard their former allies when the reach that goal. All the players understand this.

Plans often don't work out as expected.

I do not know what comes afterwards. I do expect the transition to be very unpleasant and the aftermath won't look much like a "Conservative" political system.

[NobleFree]

Twitter was colluding with government; read the original unpimped story at https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3959993/posts

[Mr. Jeeves]

I always thought one of the better ways to combat this censorship is for a group of conservatives to form a fake Communist Facebook group called The True Proletariat or something and start viciously attacking top Democrats from the Left. The BLM/Antifa kids would listen and some would defect to the Green Party, Facebook would not censor any attacks structured in modern Woke English, and the Left could not copy the tactic from the other direction without getting banned. :)

[BDParrish]

Definition of “conservative”?
You are using the “etymological fallacy.”
Here is the wikipedia entry on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy

That said, we certainly have no wish to perpetuate the leftist monstrosity that our country has become.

[wildcard_redneck]

"You seem unaware of how private enterprise works. For years the airwaves were controlled by a few companies and government imposed a "fairness doctrine" on them. It didn't work. But we beat them - not by regulating NBC into being conservative but by competing with them, providing the content that people actually wanted. If mobile phone companies start shutting off paid subscribers, somebody else will want that business."

Stop being a naive loon. Twitter is already regulated and the problem is is that the law permits Twitter to censor without penalty which is wrong.

[wildcard_redneck]

"Agreed 100%. But what do we do when all those different entities are also left-wing propaganda machines (as they almost certainly will be)?"

When a monopoly is broken up it is no longer a monopoly and has to compete for customers and that tends to put the brakes on overt politics that alienate customers. Who know, one of the new entities might go conservative to diff dentists from the competition .

[flamberge]

You are using the “etymological fallacy.”

I am all too aware that the intended meaning of words changes over time, and even changes in different contexts. Yes it gets very confusing very quickly.

I am equally aware that I would fail a "purity test" for certain meanings of the word "Conservative". So be it. Nobody is perfect. Nobody should expect perfection from anybody else.

The Leftist monstrosity routinely changes the meaning of words to suit their own objectives, and then presses their arguments using the newly loaded terms. It is pointless to accept criticism of any kind from Leftists.

My purity-test fail is that I believe large corporations should be significantly restrained in what they are allowed to do, and those restraints should be explicitly defined under a Rule-Of-Law. Smaller corporations and organizations should get a slightly relaxed set of restraints.

Yes - I would exempt FR from sanctions that I would recommend for Twitter. No, I am not "better than that".

Large corporations tend strongly towards fascism. Large Government departments tend strongly towards communism or socialism. Neither group can be trusted in the long run.

Twitter is large enough and influential enough that they should be held fully responsible for the content they publish. They have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that they are a propaganda arm of the "Deep State".

They want to censor dissidents ("right-wing extremists")? Fine. They want to tolerate Left-wing posters who openly promote slander, assaults, and murder of "right-wing extremists"? Destroy that company with legal sanctions.

Yes, I will need to hold my own postings here at FR to a clean standard, avoiding promotion of slander, assaults, or murder of opponents. Seems like a Fair Deal to me. And I believe that it is already the policy of the management in this forum.

[BDParrish]

Good ideas and thank you. I am sure Rush Limbaugh would have agreed with you and that qualifies you as a conservative under current understanding. There is copious precedent for breaking trusts and monopolies. The absolute antithesis of conservative ideal is MONOPOLY regardless of how it is labelled or the mechanism of protection used.

Our friends are also making an error of language in their use of “private company” as if those words signified what I understand as an imaginary ideal. The fact is Twitter can censor like a private company and they are immune from lawsuits over content. There is nothing “conservative” about letting them have it both ways. This situation is closer to Italian style fascism, what Hilary C. used to euphemistically call “Public-Private Partnerships.”

Kind regards FReeper!