Posted on 04/26/2018 4:54:27 PM PDT by yesthatjallen
A House Judiciary committee hearing on whether social media platforms discriminate against conservatives may have backfired on its GOP organizers.
The hearing was meant to explore the “filtering practices of social media platforms,” but turned combative as Democratic lawmakers clashed with pro-Trump video personalities "Diamond and Silk" over whether their claims of censorship by Facebook are accurate.
Etc...
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
I only saw excerpts from the testimony but Democrats went on the attack stressing this was about the rights of a private business to run their business as they see fit and the government should stay out of determining what a private business could censor.
I thought Republicans missed opportunities to at least stress unbiased and fairness guidelines.
Unfortunately, this was a setback in my opinion.
The USSR never disappeared it’s now called Facebook
I guess D & S shouldn't have fought back then.
Watch that excerpting. I’d want to see all in context.
The libbies brought us anti monopoly principles and they should be pressed on why they now don’t want it to apply to dominant media.
Welcome to Free Republic!
Which Congressional Republican do you shill for?
D&S were attacked by the Dems and they fought back; did you want them to just take it like good little black women?
Just curious as to who chose the excerpts?
Like with a cake baker?
Funny the Dems put on just the pieces of a conservative mask that they want.
The Hill doesn’t have to be excerpted, post the entire piece.
Nonsense.
The Democrats did quite the opposite.They proved they are willing to berate and bully a couple of normal women for daring to want to make money on Facebook.
They almost withdrew criticism of Facebook when Democrats went on the offensive and said, 'FB is a private business. They can do what they want'.
As I said, they could have at least appealed to FB to be more fair and open about their censorship policies.
If we don't want to regulate them a verbal commitment to be fair would have been a good start.
‘Just curious as to who chose the excerpts?’
CNN. What’s your point?
[Jk. I have no idea about the actual excerpts but couldn’t resist.]
You mean like Christian bakers allowed to not make wedding cakes for gay couples?
This is wishful thinking by the fake media. The hysteric hypocrisy of the Democrat position here is obvious to everyone except fake Conservative "talk radio" hosts like Eric "The Buffon" Erickson
I for one do NOT believe Facebook or Google are private companies. Zuckerberg is nothing more than a fake store front for a CIA/Deep State profile-building and SURVEILLANCE operation on the world's citizens. YouTube/Google, Twitter, Facebook is about as private as AT&T is private. They all offer services which just about everyone uses more as a CARRIER or UTILITY than anything else. They should be deemed 'CARRIERS/UTILITIES' and be regulated as such.
Zuckerberg and the Google hacks hiding behind being private companies so they can discriminate against anyone they so choose is the biggest FRAUD since the beginning of time. They are probably shadowy CIA operations masquerading as private companies started by some smart kid... BS!
....so I have to bake cakes for gay people, but social media sites can blank my posts?
Well, THAT'S a relief! I worried that it might have been done by an unreliable, biased news source. Heh heh!
They become “capitalists” all of a sudden. LOL!
Bottom line is Facebook owns or seeks to own people.
If tomorrow FR made a mirror social media site of FB ,keeping all the posts FB deletes, FB would go on the attack and seek to copyright. As a result FB is not a private web site in the sense that it has contractual obligations forbidding it from exploiting people or discriminating or seeking ownership of people’s posts, at its own privileged disposal.
The same can be said of a coffee shop not being allowed to prevent people from connecting because of their views.
Moreover FB might however by its slant remove any sort of pretense that it is not aupporting this or that leftist terror organization. If it slyly let “wveryone” talk, then it would have plausible deniability, but now it can be sued for damages because it has shown to decide support or non support of
various activities
Bol!
+1
Wrong. Fighting back is the right thing to do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.