[walford]

"So far, big tech has rejected the label in order to retain their immunity from liability. Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act states that tech firms have legal immunity for the majority of the content posted on their platforms."

---

Some of you will remember the days a dozen or more years ago when there were attempts to hold the hosts of message boards liable for content being posted by members. So if an anonymous user committed "internet suicide" by posting graphic/illegal content, the host would be held responsible. This was rightly rejected, because it would entail Admins, Moderators and even Server hosters to start policing content beyond threats to self/others, racial epithets, etc.

But the author rightly argues that when the hosts of Social Media volunteer to police content based upon politics, social perspectives, etc., they are taking responsibility to not only be liable for harmful language, but are obligated to provide free-speech access to anyone, regardless of ideology, religion or Party affiliation.

Hence, "hate speech" is defined by an increasing number of elitist Social Media hosts as anything that does not emulate Leftist dogma and/or exposes the hypocrisy of Democrat politicians.

They are fully aware that platforms originally intended to evaluate each others' faces or post pics of one's breakfast are being used for far more. Now users are able to bypass the Establishment Media, exchanging/vetting information directly.

This has meant, for example, that the general population is able to get information and PoV other than what Mad-Cow et al think we should know. Social Media are hosted -- according to Mark Zuckerberg in recent Congressional testimony -- in places that are overwhelmingly Leftist. They are outraged at our ability to use their platforms to inform each other rather than unquestioningly swallow whole what HuffPo, CNN, CBS, MSNBC, NY Times tell us.

So they are using various means, such as Shadow-Banning, de-monetizing, restricting access, and even kicking people off for publishing views that do not comport with the Democrat/Leftist narrative.

---

"The American tradition prioritizes free speech for democracy, not civility. It creates space to debate all values. Even civility norms can be debated. The European tradition favors dignity over liberty. It values civility over freedom. It censors racial and religious hatred — even where there is no threat of violence."

---

Certainly the Left on the East coast favors the European tradition and are wistful of the days when people trusted the aristocracy to absolve them of the responsibility of thinking for themselves.

But for Leftists on the East coast, it seems that they are attracted to the Chinese, North Korean and Latin American traditions in which the government has full freedom to do whatever, while the general population only does and says what is explicitly permitted. They would love to see a reverse Constitution that spells out how goverrnment is to be protected from the people.

Social Media has joined Academia, the entertainment industry, the press as being advocates for the elites at the expense of a feared, despised general population. This should be understood for what it is when regarding their actions.

[Boogieman]

“But the author rightly argues that when the hosts of Social Media volunteer to police content based upon politics, social perspectives, etc., they are taking responsibility to not only be liable for harmful language, but are obligated to provide free-speech access to anyone, regardless of ideology, religion or Party affiliation.”

No, they are not obligated to provide access to everyone, they simply become legally liable for speech on their platform once they assume a certain level of editorial control.

Even if, for the sake of argument, they were to be regulated like a utility, as television networks are, they wouldn’t be obligated to provide access. The “Fairness Doctrine” is no longer in effect.

[marktwain]

Well said.

Positively Orwellian, with algorithms.

[Iron Munro]

Mind Control To Major Tom.....
Mind Control To Major Tom.....

[the_Watchman]

In the old Soviet Union, a pundit stipulated that they could engage in "free speech" any time they wanted. The issue was "freedom after the speech"!

[rktman]

WUT???? Google’s been taken over by the Trump troops? /S

[cpdiii]

George Orwell “1984”

Down the memory hole

[EarlyBird]

Interesting, all these “leaked Google documents” lately. Are these Google employees that are leaking them? I don’t know, but for some reason I find that hard to believe. Google is a tight liberal bastion.

What if someone else somehow has access to these documents, and is dripping them out slowly?

Say someone who has already expressed their dissatisfaction with the way Google provides search results. Maybe someone with access to everything?

Probably wishful thinking...

[Basket_of_Deplorables]

We need a “Right to be Forgotten” law here, similar to what the EU just implemented. Some in congress, addicted to big tech’s $, are quietly trying to submit a very wattered down version, to head a good bill off at the pass.

Under the radar.

Going on right now.

[walford]

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/10/16/facebook-deletes-disabled-veterans-page-without-warning-after-taking-300000-for-ads/

“October 11th Facebook shut down thousands of Facebook accounts for their political opinions stating that they don’t have a ‘legitimate political argument.
...Facebook took down our Facebook page, cutting off all contact we had with the millions of people who signed up to follow us, the millions of people who liked what we were sharing online. We had a coveted, verified blue check mark, 3.5 Million fans, and I invested over $300,000 in ads at Facebook’s own request, nearly begging us to spend spend spend just to reach our fans… whom they kept making more difficult to reach with every passing year.
...“Facebook also deleted my other business page. I own a coffee company called Military Grade Coffee Company [which donates 10% of all profits back to veteran organizations]. We don’t post politics, we sell coffee and support veteran charities. Facebook is maliciously attacking my way of life because of my beliefs, and they don’t care. The New York Times even stated that Facebook made this calculated move to silence thousands of voices (and millions of forwarded messages) because of the upcoming midterm elections.”

[trebb]

The social media folks used the drug dealer ploy in order to get into position to control “groupthink”...they insinuated themselves into folks lives like giving away free samples until so many are hooked that they will likely never stop using them and will ignore the deterioration of their free-thinking abilities....doing what the commies said they would do... assimilate us....without firing a shot....via propaganda

[Drew68]

bfl