Democrats Join Trump in Seeking Balance by Policing Speech

Townhall.com ^ | August 14, 2019 | Jacob Sullum

[Kaslin]

Donald Trump wants to regulate social media, while Democrats want to regulate political spending. Both are prepared to sacrifice freedom of speech on the altar of fairness, balance and equality.

The president's plan for fighting anti-conservative bias on social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook is still in flux. But it reportedly includes siccing the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission on companies that are deemed to be removing content for political or ideological reasons.

According to a summary of a proposed executive order obtained by CNN, one possible approach involves reinterpreting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects "interactive computer service providers" from liability for state crimes and many kinds of torts based on content produced by others. Section 230, which has been crucial to the development of the internet as we know it, also shields websites from liability for "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable."

Those two provisions are supposed to protect online forums, including all manner of blogs, vendors, review sites and news outlets, as well as the major social media platforms, from potentially crippling lawsuits triggered either by their failure to remove all arguably illegal posts or by their decisions to remove content they view as problematic. The idea is to give websites the freedom to exercise some editorial discretion without requiring them to exert comprehensive control over user-produced content, which would be fatal to social media in their current form.

The proposed executive order, CNN reports, would ask the FCC to "find that social media sites do not qualify for the good-faith immunity if they remove or suppress content" and "the decision is proven to be evidence of anticompetitive, unfair or deceptive practices." The FTC, meanwhile, would "work with the FCC to develop a report investigating how tech companies curate their platforms and whether they do so in neutral ways."

Removing Section 230 protection from platforms that bureaucrats consider biased, a policy similar to one proposed by Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., would be counterproductive, as it would encourage them to suppress a lot more content, as well as shortsighted. As Wayne Crews, vice president for policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, observes, "Tomorrow's Speech Police are not going to think political neutrality or criteria for a certification of objectivity mean what Trump (or Hawley) thinks they mean."

While Trump is using the language of free speech to support a policy that would undermine it, Senate Democrats are taking a more direct approach, unanimously backing a constitutional amendment that would authorize "reasonable" limits on election-related spending. The Supreme Court has categorically rejected such limits, noting that they "place substantial and direct restrictions on the ability of candidates, citizens, and associations to engage in protected political expression, restrictions that the First Amendment cannot tolerate."

The answer, Democrats think, is to amend the First Amendment. "Every American deserves to have an equal voice at the ballot box, regardless of the size of their bank account," said Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del.

Democrats, in other words, want to mute some voices so that others may be heard, an idea that is plainly inconsistent with freedom of speech and freedom of the press. When the government dictates how much money you can spend to praise or criticize politicians, it is directly restricting your First Amendment rights.

While Trump's assault on the First Amendment is less blatant, it will lead either to a kind of compelled speech, forcing private companies to host content they would otherwise remove, or to a much less freewheeling internet where liability concerns stifle self-expression. And unlike the Democrats' speech-curtailing constitutional amendment, Trump's policy may actually come to pass, providing a real-life lesson in what happens when the government tries to act as a debate moderator.

[MV=PY]

"Both are prepared to sacrifice freedom of speech on the altar of fairness, balance and equality. "

Baloney.

A citizen's right to free speech is not a right to use a company's software or web site. Even if it's free.

Right now, Facebook et al are riding the fence between being a communications channel (e.g. land line) and being a content provider. They will ultimately come under scrutiny for that, and hopefully pay the price. They can't have it both ways, and we should fix that.

Regardless, freedom of speech does not guarantee a stage.

[Buckeye McFrog]

I humbly disagree.

Social media companies today provide the same service that the Post Office did at the time of our company’s founding. They provide a communications channel for the exchange of political ideas.

The Founding Fathers took steps to ensure that the post office would remain a neutral public institution. Had it fallen into private hands at any point it is probable that the ownership of that entity would have begun censoring or obstructing mail that it did not like.

Which is essentially the role Facebook and Twitter are playing today.

[qaz123]

Am I wrong or are most of the people that pass as journalist’s today, absolute morons?

The President doesn’t want to ‘regulate social media’, he doesn’t want Google, Facebook or Twitter to censor Conservatives and show an unbelievable gross bias, favoring ALL things liberal & Leftists. He wants it to be a fair playing field where everyone gets a chance to say what they want. He doesn’t want Dorsey, Pichai or Zuckerberg or any of their loyal, Leftist minions to be the arbiters of what is right and wrong.

That is not ‘regulating’ social medial. That’s demanding a fair playing field, just like his trade agreements. Amazing how the Left and the Globalists only want to play by the rules THEY set up. You’d think they know that couldn’t actually compete so they have to cheat.

[MV=PY]

"The Founding Fathers took steps to ensure that the post office would remain a neutral public institution. Had it fallen into private hands at any point it is probable that the ownership of that entity would have begun censoring or obstructing mail that it did not like."

Howdy Mr. McFrog! We seem to bump into each other here lately.

I agree with your assessment about the way things should be. These tech companies should be overseen like a utility, although the post office model isn't working too well of late. There are some successful models for regulating investor-owned power utilities, but that's typically done at the state level.

I was talking about the way our laws work now.

[exDemMom]

Section 230, which has been crucial to the development of the internet as we know it, also shields websites from liability for "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable."

It sounds to me like Section 230 is the problem. It basically gave websites the freedom to censor any speech for any reason. We can't complain that a site like Free Republic exercises this right, since it does not state that it is a platform for social interaction, but is a conservative website. Where the problem is, is the social media companies which promote themselves as platforms for free interactions but behave otherwise.

If Section 230 were revised to make it clear that there are different types of websites--those which are venues openly advocating a certain point of view, and those which are open forums for social interactions--then the companies like FaceBook, Twitter, etc., which openly practice censorship, could be held responsible for that censorship.

[Liz]

Google Will ‘Actively Interfere’ in 2020 Elections, Researcher Says
epoch times ^ | 8/7/2019 | BOWEN XIAO / FR Posted on 8/8/2019, 11:12:32 AM by bitt

A researcher who has spent more than half a decade monitoring Google’s influence said he believes the tech giant will “actively interfere” in the 2020 elections. On Aug. 6, President Donald Trump said his administration is watching Google “very closely.” Dr. Robert Epstein, senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, told The Epoch Times that Google has access to a number of powerful manipulation methods mostly through “ephemeral experiences” that can shift votes. Online ephemeral experiences are brief moments where information is generated instantaneously, such as search suggestions. They are not stored anywhere and can’t be tracked. Leaked internal emails from Google in 2018 found employees specifically discussing launching “ephemeral experiences” to counter Trump’s then-travel ban, The Wall Street Journal reported.

In his congressional testimony in July, Epstein noted that if all major technology companies came together to support the same candidate in 2020—which he said was likely—they could shift 15 million votes without leaving a paper trail. Epstein has discovered a dozen methods Google uses to manipulate public opinion or votes, including search engine manipulation effect and search suggestion effects. “Google will actively interfere in the 2020 elections,” Epstein said. “They’ll actively interfere in their lobbying efforts, they’ll actively interfere with their political donations, and they’ll actively interfere using the online methods of manipulation that I’ve studied and probably other methods that I haven’t yet discovered.”

Alphabet, the parent company of Google, donated $4.7 million to Democratic congressional candidates in 2018, according to FEC records. To Republican candidates, it donated $754,911. In 2016, Epstein conducted a secret monitoring project that showed Google hid negative auto-complete search results for Hillary Clinton months before the election. His peer-reviewed research found Google’s algorithms can easily shift 20 percent or more of votes among voters.. (Excerpt) Read more at m.theepochtimes.com …

[Liz]

Research Psychologist: "Google Manipulation shifted some 800,000 to 4.6 million votes in 2018"
GATEWAY PUNDIT ^ | 1/16/2019 | Jim Hoft / FR Posted by bitt

In a previous appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight, Dr Epstein revealed that Google can take a 50-50 split among undecided voters and change it into a 90-10 split with no one knowing they had been manipulated and without leaving a paper trail… It has to do with their search suggestions.

On his latest appearance Dr. Epstein revealed that just one Google shift in search results on Election Day 2018 shifted from 800,000 to 4.6 million votes to Democratic candidates. This follows the shocking Breitbart exposé by Allum Bokhari published Thursday that proves Google has been manipulating search results. Of course the Big Tech companies have been targeting only conservative websites and publications since the 2016 election. Via Tucker Carlson Tonight: (Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...

SO HOW'D THEY DO THAT? --- (hat tip Trump_the_Evil_Left)
<><> Google Manipulation shifted 800,000 to 4.6 million votes in 2018.....
<><> they manipulated users w/ ads and/or search results to promote liberal/Democrat candidates/issues.
<><> they set “algorithms” to the left's get-out-the-vote activities, etc,
<><> they colluded with the left to tip users exclusively toward lib/Democrat potential voters.

========================================

What we have here....just for starters:

A) a huge unreported “contribution in-kind” to the Democrat Party,

B) social media electronic fraud.

Call President Trump: Comments: 202-456-1111 Switchboard: 202-456-1414 email at http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact @POTUS or @realDonaldTrump on Twitter!

US CONGRESS SWITCHBOARD: (202) 224-3121

FBI tip line web site----https://www.fbi.gov/tips
FBI electronic fraud unit----www.fbi.gov/scams-and-safety/common-fraud-schemes/internet-fraud
FBI Major Case Contact Center: 1-800-CALL-FBI (225-5324)

[morphing libertarian]

they must be watching google take AI to the chines military One day maybe a president will do something more than watch the large traitorous and seditious monopolies.

[GOPJ]

Democrats want to regulate political spending.

Considering democrats control the New York Times, Washington Post, and every other newspaper in the country expect one, AND NPR, PBS, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, and 98% of Hollywood - OF COURSE THEY WANT TO TAKE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS - THEY GET FREE PRESS OUT THE WAZOO AND WE WOULDN'T EVEN BE ALLOW TO BUY AN AD.

JERKS.

[Liz]

SOURCE: https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/17/17344250/google-x-selfish-ledger-video-data-privacy

Concerns were raised that Google was secretly developing a Chinese search app for Android devices
designed to remove content that China’s authoritarian government does not like. Removing information about:
<><> political dissent,
<><> free speech,
<><> democracy,
<><> human rights,
<><> peaceful protest.

How convenient that Google had already designed that very same search app for Democrats.

Communist China can give thanks to Democrats and to Google.

[TBP]

Simple solution:

Change the status of the social media platforms from platform to publisher. Take way their immunity.

[OpusatFR]

This is simply electioneering propaganda. Don’t believe a word that leaves a democrat’s forked tongue.

[MortMan]

“Social” media vs political spending. Which one involves a powerful third party, again?