Justice to convene meeting on whether social media companies are stifling free speech

Hill ^ | 9-5-2018 | Morgan Chalfant and Harper Neidig

[tcrlaf]

Attorney General Jeff Sessions

has scheduled a meeting with state attorneys general in September to discuss a “growing concern” that tech companies may be “intentionally stifling” the free flow of ideas on their platforms.

In a statement issued right after executives from Facebook and Twitter finished testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Department of Justice also suggested that the platforms were running afoul of antitrust laws.

“The Attorney General has convened a meeting with a number of state attorneys general this month to discuss a growing concern that these companies may be hurting competition and intentionally stifling the free exchange of ideas on their platforms,” DOJ spokesman Devin O’Malley said in a statement issued near the end of a congressional hearing where top executives from Facebook and Twitter were testifying

[DiogenesLamp]

It’s more than just the social media. It’s the MSM too. They’re no longer even pretending to be unbiased. Their licenses should be revoked and they need to be removed from the air. If they want to continue with a YouTube channel, no problem. Same with the university charters for academia. They’re also no longer even pretending to be unbiased. No more federal grant money or tuition money. There’s more than one way to skin a cat.

Amen! You are the first person I have seen on this thread that accurately understands the nature and scope of the problem. What you have said is exactly the direction we should be going on this.

[itsahoot]

What’s the difference between facebook, twitter, and FreeRepublic?

Well for starters Freerepublic doesn't have 2,000,000,000 subscribers, after that pretty much the same. Oh and one is worth a couple hundred million the other....well less than that I would guess.

[bitt]

p

[Liz]

What you don't seem to realize is social media are a true fifth column........ and we are their enemy.
You should not be able to open a business with government protections, for the express purpose of destroying that government.

Well said.

These tech companies are publicly-held, as well, making money hand over fist from investors.

They made promises to investors they did not keep.

Always remember that the users of social media are THEIR PRODUCT-----sold as "eyes" for advertisers.

[Persevero]

I hear what you are saying. At issue here is whether Facebook et al are now the “public square.”

If they are they have to have reasonable accommodation.

[Ciexyz]

I found it offensive when the head of Twitter gave a veiled warning to President Trump that no one was immune from being thrown off the platform. I hope conservatives get together and start a new type of Twitter. President Trump can tweet there and then the media would still have to report what he said that day.

[BBQToadRibs]

And I agree. Technology has moved us into a new world. Someone started a new service in their dorm room and it became wildly successful. Where’s the line where it crossed over from “theirs” to “ours”. And that line is going to become more hotly argued as technology advances I’m betting.

[sarge83]

The DOJ couldn’t find its on butt if it was on fire. No confidence whatsoever in the DOJ or FBI to follow the law or do a proper investigation. I would wager my local sheriff with an associates degree or high school diploma would do a better and more professional job.

If you are a DOJ or FBI employee YOU earned this contempt and disdain because of your reckless, partisan and corrupt behavior. Twenty years ago I could never have imagined myself saying these words.

[Starboard]

Sessions himself is very familiar with “intentionally stifling” things. We have “growing concerns” about him.

[alternatives?]

If Sessions is the stick, it needs to be a lot smaller. I really mean a lot smaller.

[mewzilla]

No flaming from moi.

Governments censor.

Private companies do not.

[plain talk]

“Not fellow citizens inhibiting fellow citizens speech. “

... on a FREE web service.

[Blood of Tyrants]

It is one thing for a corporation to publicly announce they are ceasing to allow a point of view. It is bordering on anti-trust for several to get together and agree to censor a particular point of view.

[sergeantdave]

“...you either find a new game or make your own (private) platform.”

Is it okay for AT&T to cancel your phone service if you call a friend and praise Trump?

What’s your estimate, in dollars, to start a new phone service?

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

I hope conservatives get together and start a new type of Twitter.

gab.ai

[wintertime]

What about laws that regulate elections?

The Mormon church was slammed for providing “In Kind” services to prevent the passage of homosexual marriage laws in California.

These companies are providing “In Kind” services to promote the Democrat Party.

[wintertime]

Good point. The DOJ and FBI are filled from top to bottom with Marx-0-libs. They could slow walk this forever.

[DannyTN]

I agree, but we need to define the difference so that they don’t make FR let liberals post their crap here. Our forum is special purpose. Theirs are not.

[DannyTN]

I agree, but we need to define the difference so that they don’t make FR let liberals post their crap here. Our forum is special purpose. Theirs are not.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "They were doing that before Teddy Roosevelt.
Roosevelt was the first one to stop tolerating this behind the scenes "deep state" collusion between private corporations and Government. "

Again, I refer you to the 1860 Republican Party platform, item #6:

• "That the people justly view with alarm the reckless extravagance which pervades every department of the Federal Government;
• that a return to rigid economy and accountability is indispensable to arrest the systematic plunder of the public treasury by favored partisans;
• while the recent startling developments of frauds and corruptions at the Federal metropolis, show that an entire change of administration is imperatively demanded. "

By 1860 Democrats had been in charge of Washington, DC, almost continuously since the election of 1800.