Trump Launches Website to Report Social Media Censorship

[Foxi4]

Usually the Republican argument is don’t give regulation powers to Gov because what if a Dems controls the Gov then you’ll give regulation powers to Dems and they’ll censor people.


This argument doesn’t really hold because Gov can not regulate speech no matter what (unless you use speech to call for violence) because of the 1st Amendment.


Packingham v. North Carolina case shows that after North Carolina passed a law to restrict registered sex offenders from using social media that the supreme court then later unanimously voted that kind of speech constraint is unconstitutional under the 1st amendment law that gov can not restrict access to the public square. Gov can’t pass laws to restrict speech access so Conservative argument doesn’t hold.



This also sets precedent that the Supreme Court views social media as a public square. Most people use social media to debate now a days because you reach a wider audience that way. Hardly anyone is going to go to a local event to hear debates at a town hall, it’s all on social media now because it’s easier, so most political discourse is on social media. The Supreme Court views Social Media as the modern public square, and it can be regulated like any other public square if we pass laws.

Stop making sense immediately, you might get banned for explaining the obvious.

 

[ZeroT21]

Asif locking up wikileaks founder didn't happen

 

[SG854]

Largely irrelevant because the case he cited doesn't apply to websites. You can't 'stand outside of' websites to collect signatures for a cause. You're either on the platform or you're not. And just to create an account, you have to agree to the platform's ToS/EULA/rules/etc, and subsequently abide by them. Otherwise risk deletion of comments or an account ban. It's always been the same, even before Myspace was popular and a million different forums/geocities sites ruled the web.

The Trump administration has no more right telling social media sites how to enforce their rules than they do telling GBAtemp how to enforce ours.

Currently no laws exists but they can if we pass laws.


Social Media should be seen as a civil rights issue and should be regulated as such. Platform access is a civil right. Access to these big social media platforms is a prerequisite to meaningful free speech nowadays. Most public political discourse is on these platforms, and the Supreme Court unanimously views them as a public square.



The Muh Private business argument some people are bringing up in this thread doesn’t hold because we have many civil rights laws that regulate access to private business. When private companies violate human rights we pass laws to regulate them all the time. And you probably even don’t need regulators either, you can create a right of private action and get the courts involved through litigation.


Nobody complains about courts regulating by passing civil rights laws to protect blacks that access the public square, or Bush passing the TCPA act that enforces litigation on telecom companies. Washington DC has laws that have political affiliation and source of income as protected human rights. Social Media access is a matter of civil rights, and should be treated like that.

 

[osaka35]

Not if it's not illegal, no. If it's so wrong and easily disproven, surely you can argue against it on the free market of ideas, no?

as long as it's not in a private group that seek out and prey on individuals or where they themselves delete or block folks if they have different opinions.

it's a cultivated experience on social media, driven by data and similar ideas, it's not exactly an even playing field for everyone involved.

 

[SG854]

This should be fun.....more than conservatives/christians get censored. A lot of leftists and anti-religious people are silenced too.

But trump and his ilk are too fucking ignorant to understand that.

Anti War Left are getting censored and Feminists for wrong think. This is why we need to treat this as a civil rights issue and protect access to a public square.


And it’s so weird, in this twisted reality, the left supporting the Muh Private Business argument. The left use suppose to be against Private Corporations from running wild, and God forbid people that wanting to ban together to protect the common person because they have the audacity to have an opinion.

People’s working lives that heavily rely reaching to a huge audience on social media are having their incomes damaged because of them getting banned. Especially political commentators where’re it’s their source of income, or people that promote themselves and reach out to a huge group of people and rely on social media to do that. We can introduce litigation that will protect their ability to earn income.

 

[FAST6191]

yes, people have been using 'racism' as a shorthand for a group of ideals and behaviors that almost always go hand in hand with racism. like hate or 'fear' of religions, for example. because people often channel their hate of religion x as a response to visual cues, like someone 'looking like one of them terrorists with the brown skin and the white clothing and the turban and the beard and all that'. or having big noses.

people being lazy and unwilling to explain 50 other words and a dozen mechanisms for random hate based on superficialities (that often at their core do have very clear race based hatred anyways), when racism does very much suffice to get the point across, doesn't change the reality that it is very much still a thing and that it affects people in so many ways.

There are usually perfectly good existing words for such things, and reducing the meaning of another well understood and useful term is something that really ought to be done with good reason.
I would also feel inclined to note religion is something you theoretically choose to do (nobody really converts in later life -- it is something that you really have to have drummed into you as a kid, usually by the ones that also keep you safe and feed you, or sanctioned and encouraged by said same) and thus falls under character and actions, clothing maybe also being associated with that. It might be afforded some measure of protection but it falls under an entirely different field to the biological traits side of things, and I would also hesitate to call it a superfluous trait as well.

How many government subsidies does it take to make it not a private company anymore?
https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/facebook

Did they get it in writing? If you are throwing that kind of money around and employ some 80000 lawyers ( https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1749 ), not to mention can be said to be the ones to write on the laws on the matter, I have little sympathy if they don't have a contract there.

 

[Xzi]

Arbitrary gatekeeping, nobody in the political sphere knows anything about IT, besides McAfee, which would be a funny pick for the saviour of the Internet. On a more serious note, you can keep taking digs at Trump all you want, I can't wait to see the result of this program.

Nobody currently in government knows anything about IT, but you'd be completely disingenuous to suggest that candidates like Andrew Yang know nothing about it.

As for the "result" of this program, I wouldn't be holding my breath. Unless the administration is offering recompense for the advertisers lost by allowing toxic individuals to remain on their platforms, nothing is going to change in regard to the way social media operates.

friggin drumpf!

Ah yes, Alabama. Where you can be assured that your sister will be forced to carry that seven-fingered, two-headed incest baby to term. Roll Tide!

 

[Foxi4]

Nobody currently in government knows anything about IT, but you'd be completely disingenuous to suggest that candidates like Andrew Yang know nothing about it.

As for the "result" of this program, I wouldn't be holding my breath. Unless the administration is offering recompense for the advertisers lost by allowing toxic individuals to remain on their platforms, nothing is going to change in regard to the way social media operates.

Did you switch from Bernie and joined the Yang Gang? Good on you, a NEET bag is sweet swag, yo.

 

[Xzi]

Did you switch from Bernie and joined the Yang Gang? Good in you, a NEET bag is sweet swag, yo.

The only person in the Democratic primary I'd really have to hold my nose while voting for would be Biden. And regardless of whether I vote for him or not, he's the only candidate in the race that I don't believe can beat Trump. Everybody else has something distinctive to set them apart.

 

[Rabbid4240]

This looks like the beginning of TrollTrace...

 

[SG854]

Dr. Ray Blanchard who contributed to the DSM V was blocked on Twitter.


So now they now apparently blocked a clinical psychologists who

Earned an A.B. in psychology from University of Pensilvania, earned a PHD at the University of Illinois, was the chief of Clinical Sexology Services in the Law and Mental Health Program at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto, Ontario from 1995 to 2010,


Who has published many peer-reviewed articles in publications like the Archives of Sexual Behavior, the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, and the Journal of Psychiatric Research, has also has contributed chapters to many books, including the Encyclopedia of Psychology and Gender Dysphoria: Development, Research, Management.

And who was in the past president of the International Academy of Sex Research

Blocked for stating medical facts and opinions about transgenders because it violates their “Rules for Hateful Conduct”. You can’t say Gender Dysphoria and Mental Disorder in the same sentence or you’ll get blocked. They restored his account after he complained probably because of his PHD, but it shows that their rules are out of wack, are anti science, how they view these types of topics and what can’t be said.


Source



This interview is very interesting too Here. He said the name change from transsexualism or gender identity disorder, was changed to gender dysphoria not because of scientific research but because of politics to make people happy.

 

[Xzi]

Dr. Ray Blanchard who contributed to the DSM V was blocked on Twitter.

So now they now apparently blocked a clinical psychologists

Twitter is pretty terrible about consistent rule enforcement. To be expected I suppose when you have to make a bunch of exceptions to the rules for the reality TV president, who simultaneously drags the entire platform's discourse into the mud. There's probably nobody on the entire staff who knows what rules exactly to enforce, and when to enforce them.

 

[cots]

Usually the Republican argument is don’t give regulation powers to Gov because what if a Dems controls the Gov then you’ll give regulation powers to Dems and they’ll censor people.

This argument doesn’t really hold because Gov can not regulate speech no matter what (unless you use speech to call for violence) because of the 1st Amendment.

Packingham v. North Carolina case shows that after North Carolina passed a law to restrict registered sex offenders from using social media that the supreme court then later unanimously voted that kind of speech constraint is unconstitutional under the 1st amendment law that gov can not restrict access to the public square. Gov can’t pass laws to restrict speech access so Conservative argument doesn’t hold.

This also sets precedent that the Supreme Court views social media as a public square. Most people use social media to debate now a days because you reach a wider audience that way. Hardly anyone is going to go to a local event to hear debates at a town hall, it’s all on social media now because it’s easier, so most political discourse is on social media. The Supreme Court views Social Media as the modern public square, and it can be regulated like any other public square if we pass laws.

So I mentioned the silly Liberals so that makes me a Republican? I'm sorry, but what notmp wrote describes the hypocritical media sites (CNN, ABC, etc ...) down to a penny. I can't help that they are also the ones pushing the Liberal agenda. The Republican's are taking credit for this one and I'm telling you that going around narking out your fellow citizens to the Government is probably a really bad idea and I gave examples of what will probably happen - Sites being taken down, censorship of sites, owners and users being targeted, arrested, etc ...

How would you like it if I reported you for using a mostly Nintendo related hacking relating site using Nintendo's submit piracy form on their website?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

For everyone reading along, cots is misunderstanding the quote again.

In his mind adding liberal in front of stuff makes it "the enemy".

Haha media doesnt employ behavioral psychologists, and facebook does. He's such a buffoon. They do to make you spend more time on their platform btw. Give your feeds some push and pull.

Actually, what you described is almost 100% true of CNN and ABC and they do infact involve behavioral psychologists in their "bullshit news reporting" process. I had no idea you were specifically targeting Facebook, but what you said can be applied to those other scummy sites. I don't use Facebook, don't have a Facebook account, don't visit Facebook and never will. Whoever thinks it would be a good idea to plaster your personal life on one central Internet blog is fucking retarded and asking for trouble. Remember folks, privacy doesn't exist.

 

[Foxi4]

The only person in the Democratic primary I'd really have to hold my nose while voting for would be Biden. And regardless of whether I vote for him or not, he's the only candidate in the race that I don't believe can beat Trump. Everybody else has something distinctive to set them apart.

I have a hard time thinking of any current democrats who would even remotely have a chance against Trump besides Creepy Joe, but then again, I might be underestimating the long-term consequences of T.D.S. Time will tell.

as long as it's not in a private group that seek out and prey on individuals or where they themselves delete or block folks if they have different opinions.

it's a cultivated experience on social media, driven by data and similar ideas, it's not exactly an even playing field for everyone involved.

Funnily enough, I would be perfectly fine if Facebook policed itself by allowing users to moderate the content themselves. The public wall would be public while private groups could elect their own moderators and set their own codes of conduct. That would be entirely fair in my book, it emphasises freedom of association without excluding people from the public square.

 

[Xzi]

I have a hard time thinking of any current democrats who would even remotely have a chance against Trump besides Creepy Joe, but then again, I might be underestimating the long-term consequences of T.D.S. Time will tell.

Creepy Joe doesn't stand a chance because he's basically Trump's doppelganger on the left-wing. A corporate neoliberal. Running someone like that would not energize the base like what happened during last year's elections. It would just be a repeat of Hillary.

Trump won last time by plagiarizing Bernie's whole populist platform, and he delivered on none of it. If he actually has to run against the real thing, he'll lose by a wide margin. If he has to run against any of the younger candidates, it will highlight how old, fat, and out of touch he is. Particularly when it comes to matters of technology.

 

[cots]

friggin drumpf!

I feel so bad for this child. She won't be able to legally commit murder. I mean, we should be saving the trees as they are living organisms, but when it comes to human babies we should just kill em off, right? I have an idea. How about we don't kill off our natural resources AND don't kill babies?

 

[zomborg]

Racism just being a buzzword and the situation being blown out of proportions is certainly the case racists have been making in public for decades.
It has never been true. But it's kind of unveiling whenever you hear it.

the other stuff sounds borderline insane again, you keep on arguing within these 'what if' fantasy hypotheticals that aren't reality to make your case.
those are not arguments

Funny thing about it is, you are a part of the problem. Not the solution. You typify the pc culture and whereas your response to my last post may have sounded condescending and smug, it was actually very unveiling about you. You have been programmed with this modern mentality that everything is offensive and if no real offense can be found just make some up.

You are too busy virtue signaling to contribute anything positive. Just because a man has extensive education doesn't mean he has all the answers or knows everything. I have a novel idea. What if universities actually returned to teaching our young men and women HOW to think instead of teaching them WHAT to think. It's not as I have heard it stated many times, that receiving a higher education, enlightens young adults and leads them to the truth. Instead they are being led further away from the truth.

If all you are learning is how to dissect opposing view points and effectively debate them. If all you are learning is how unfair the world is and that someone needs to go out there and defend against all of the isms in the world, you are not contributing anything positive to society but you are effectively contributing to make the world infinitely worse. Why don't you actually try to be contribute something productive and positive to society instead of crying mommy the bad man hurt my feelings?

By the way, the bulk of my previous post which you so casually dismissed as hypothetical and not a real argument. ROFL! Wake up and get your head out of the sand. It was not hypothetical in the least.
It is what as known as an illustration to get my point across and to make it easier for your npc mind to understand.
Simply put, if the world, for it's defense against an invading army had to rely on the types of young men our universities are churning out today. We would have been conquered by now. It's a scary thought to me that I may actually have to rely on weak, snowflake, virtue signaling NPCs to defend us.

 

[dpad_5678]

I filled it out and because I'm a 12 year old at heart, I submitted some of the most vile shit I could think of.
I should also add that private websites are ALLOWED to violate Free Speech, as there's nothing to say they have to obey them in the first place. The government does, not corps.

Ah yes, Alabama. Where you can be assured that your sister will be forced to carry that seven-fingered, two-headed incest baby to term. Roll Tide!

You're crazy if you think that that's not going to be my new sig.

 

[KingVamp]

So, has anyone reported Trump yet?

 

[SG854]

So I mentioned the silly Liberals so that makes me a Republican?

Republican argument. You don’t have to be a republican to use a republican argument.

I'm sorry, but what notmp wrote describes the hypocritical media sites (CNN, ABC, etc ...) down to a penny. I can't help that they are also the ones pushing the Liberal agenda. The Republican's are taking credit for this one and I'm telling you that going around narking out your fellow citizens to the Government is probably a really bad idea and I gave examples of what will probably happen - Sites being taken down, censorship of sites, owners and users being targeted, arrested, etc ...

Of what could happen. I gave you a real life case where they tried and it failed in the Supreme Court. Gov can’t limit speech, it’s in the 1st amendment. Give me a real life example where your case has happened.



Social Media sites are becoming a monopoly. Big corporations can pay buy off/pay Twitter or Facebook to promote their agenda and silence opinion they don’t like. Which is why we need protections of free speech. They are blocking people now to promote certain beliefs over others. They are blocking people now without any gov intervention. Your case you describe is happening now.


And also should we get rid of the 1st amendment using your thinking. Isn’t giving gov power to enforce free speech laws a bad thing. So get rid of the 1st amendment. And be like European countries that have no 1st amendment protections.