Skip to comments.
Justice to convene meeting on whether social media companies are stifling free speech
Hill ^
| 9-5-2018
| Morgan Chalfant and Harper Neidig
Posted on 09/05/2018 11:31:40 AM PDT by tcrlaf
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
To: afsnco
Its more than just the social media. Its the MSM too. Theyre 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. Theyre also no longer even pretending to be unbiased. No more federal grant money or tuition money. Theres 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.
21
posted on
09/05/2018 12:46:14 PM PDT
by
DiogenesLamp
("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
To: DannyTN
Whats 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.
22
posted on
09/05/2018 12:47:27 PM PDT
by
itsahoot
(Welcome to the New USA where Islam is a religion of peace and Christianity is a mental disorder.)
To: Whenifhow; null and void; aragorn; EnigmaticAnomaly; kalee; Kale; 2ndDivisionVet; azishot; ...
23
posted on
09/05/2018 12:58:19 PM PDT
by
bitt
(We know not what course others may take, but as for me, Give me Liberty, or Give me Death!)
To: itsahoot; BBQToadRibs
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.
24
posted on
09/05/2018 1:06:35 PM PDT
by
Liz
( Our side has 8 trillion bullets; the other side doesn't know which bathroom to use.)
To: BBQToadRibs
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.
25
posted on
09/05/2018 1:15:18 PM PDT
by
Persevero
(Democrats haven't been this nutty since we freed their slaves.)
To: tcrlaf
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.
26
posted on
09/05/2018 1:17:55 PM PDT
by
Ciexyz
(I have one issue and it's my economic well-being.)
To: Persevero
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.
To: Leep
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.
28
posted on
09/05/2018 1:23:04 PM PDT
by
sarge83
To: Zathras
Sessions himself is very familiar with intentionally stifling things. We have “growing concerns” about him.
To: tcrlaf
If Sessions is the stick, it needs to be a lot smaller. I really mean a lot smaller.
30
posted on
09/05/2018 1:52:40 PM PDT
by
alternatives?
(Why have an army if there are no borders?)
To: BBQToadRibs
No flaming from moi.
Governments censor.
Private companies do not.
31
posted on
09/05/2018 1:54:15 PM PDT
by
mewzilla
(Has the FBI been spying on members of Congress?)
To: BBQToadRibs
“Not fellow citizens inhibiting fellow citizens speech. “
... on a FREE web service.
To: tcrlaf
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.
33
posted on
09/05/2018 2:24:16 PM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Democratic socialism is when the majority of people vote to steal your property.)
To: BBQToadRibs
“...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?
34
posted on
09/05/2018 3:16:12 PM PDT
by
sergeantdave
(Teach a man to fish and he'll steal your gear and sell it)
To: Ciexyz
I hope conservatives get together and start a new type of Twitter.gab.ai
35
posted on
09/05/2018 3:20:46 PM PDT
by
ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
(Mozart tells you what it's like to be human. Bach tells you what it's like to be the universe)
To: BBQToadRibs
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.
36
posted on
09/06/2018 6:44:45 AM PDT
by
wintertime
(Stop treating government teachers like they are reincarnated Mother Teresas!)
To: sarge83
Good point. The DOJ and FBI are filled from top to bottom with Marx-0-libs. They could slow walk this forever.
37
posted on
09/06/2018 6:48:42 AM PDT
by
wintertime
(Stop treating government teachers like they are reincarnated Mother Teresas!)
To: DiogenesLamp; itsahoot
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.
38
posted on
09/06/2018 8:39:23 AM PDT
by
DannyTN
(uit)
To: DiogenesLamp; itsahoot
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.
39
posted on
09/06/2018 8:39:23 AM PDT
by
DannyTN
(uit)
To: DiogenesLamp
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.
40
posted on
09/06/2018 11:43:10 AM PDT
by
BroJoeK
((a little historical perspective...))
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson