PDA

View Full Version : Apple, Google, Twitter, Facebook Sued for Leftist Bias and Conservative Censorship




Swordsmyth
08-31-2018, 09:20 PM
Five of the world’s largest tech companies are facing legal challenges to their alleged censorship of conservative viewpoints on their various platforms.
Apple, Google, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter are being sued by Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, for their apparent agenda to “quash and/or limit advocacy by conservative and pro-Trump public interest groups, advocates and others to further the leftist anti-conservative agendas.”
The complaint filed by Klayman in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeks nearly $1 billion in damages.
Klayman asserts — on behalf of Freedom Watch and “likely hundreds or more” conservative organizations whose content has been banned or embargoed by the tech giants — in his lawsuit that:
Acting in concert with traditional media outlets, including but not limited to Cable News Network (“CNN”), MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post — all of whom are owned and/or managed by persons with a leftist political ideology, Defendants have intentionally and willfully suppressed politically conservative content in order to take down President Donald Trump and his administration with the intent and purpose to have installed leftist government in the nation’s capital and the 50 states.
The goal of the censorship of right-wing media content, according to Klayman, is to “to re-craft the nation into their leftist design.”

More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/item/29928-apple-google-twitter-facebook-sued-for-leftist-bias-and-conservative-censorship

timosman
08-31-2018, 10:21 PM
Acting in concert with traditional media outlets, including but not limited to Cable News Network (“CNN”), MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post — all of whom are owned and/or managed by persons with a leftist political ideology, Defendants have intentionally and willfully suppressed politically conservative content in order to take down President Donald Trump and his administration with the intent and purpose to have installed leftist government in the nation’s capital and the 50 states.
The goal of the censorship of right-wing media content, according to Klayman, is to “to re-craft the nation into their leftist design.”


What about their internal structure? What values does it promote? :cool:

Grandmastersexsay
09-01-2018, 08:40 AM
They're private companies and can do whatever they want within the law. If they can be sued for promoting a left leaning agenda, why couldn't a site promoting a right leaning agenda be sued? There are free market solutions. Use or develop other video hosting services, search engines, and social media platforms.

Zippyjuan
09-01-2018, 12:23 PM
Are they going to sue Fox and Breitbart for their biases as well?

Swordsmyth
09-01-2018, 01:15 PM
They're private companies and can do whatever they want within the law. If they can be sued for promoting a left leaning agenda, why couldn't a site promoting a right leaning agenda be sued? There are free market solutions. Use or develop other video hosting services, search engines, and social media platforms.


Are they going to sue Fox and Breitbart for their biases as well?

The question is whether they are violating their own terms of service and advertised policy.

asurfaholic
09-01-2018, 01:19 PM
They're private companies and can do whatever they want within the law. If they can be sued for promoting a left leaning agenda, why couldn't a site promoting a right leaning agenda be sued? There are free market solutions. Use or develop other video hosting services, search engines, and social media platforms.

I’d start at the question - how much money has the federal government given these companies. As soon as the government is linked to the business operations it’s no longer a private entity that can do what ER it wants.

Just like if I turn my house into a commercial store, I all of a sudden have to comply with ADA, non discrimination, etc.

Swordsmyth
09-01-2018, 01:25 PM
I’d start at the question - how much money has the federal government given these companies. As soon as the government is linked to the business operations it’s no longer a private entity that can do what ER it wants.

Just like if I turn my house into a commercial store, I all of a sudden have to comply with ADA, non discrimination, etc.

In-Q-tel.

timosman
09-01-2018, 02:02 PM
I’d start at the question - how much money has the federal government given these companies. As soon as the government is linked to the business operations it’s no longer a private entity that can do what ER it wants.

Just like if I turn my house into a commercial store, I all of a sudden have to comply with ADA, non discrimination, etc.

Government contractors.

Grandmastersexsay
09-01-2018, 02:32 PM
I’d start at the question - how much money has the federal government given these companies. As soon as the government is linked to the business operations it’s no longer a private entity that can do what ER it wants.

Just like if I turn my house into a commercial store, I all of a sudden have to comply with ADA, non discrimination, etc.

One small problem with that. There is no law like ADA that says a private company can't be politically biased, nor should there be. Likewise, google never agreed to not be biased when recieving government money. Further more, I'm pretty sure the only government money google has gotten has been from local governments to incentivize google doing business in certain areas, not that it matters. You can't sue google for being politically biased because they took federal money. Your only recourse is to punish the politicians giving them the money.

I think you're being very short sighted in this because you don't like the agendas of these companies. If a successful lawsuit like this was possible, pretty much every online entity could be sued for political bias. Websites like this would be shut down. Your only avenue for political information would be from the mainstream media, back like the dark ages.

kpitcher
09-01-2018, 04:51 PM
Are they going to sue Fox and Breitbart for their biases as well?

If this would have worked some enterprising Ron Paul supporter would have sued Fox for going out of their way to ignore Dr. Paul so blatantly.

asurfaholic
09-01-2018, 05:58 PM
One small problem with that. There is no law like ADA that says a private company can't be politically biased, nor should there be. Likewise, google never agreed to not be biased when recieving government money. Further more, I'm pretty sure the only government money google has gotten has been from local governments to incentivize google doing business in certain areas, not that it matters. You can't sue google for being politically biased because they took federal money. Your only recourse is to punish the politicians giving them the money.

I think you're being very short sighted in this because you don't like the agendas of these companies. If a successful lawsuit like this was possible, pretty much every online entity could be sued for political bias. Websites like this would be shut down. Your only avenue for political information would be from the mainstream media, back like the dark ages.

No. It’s not being shortsighted.

It’s using discernment.

We all know that these Facebook, Twitter, etc are working hand in hand with the globalists to shape public opinion and censor out alternatives.

I can say without a flinch that this is not being shortsighted. If you don’t fight this censorship now there will never be a discussion about the political bias of any alternative platform because they have been censored out of existence.

Nice try defending the globalist agenda tho, way to veil in as a freedom issue. We all know this has nothing to do with protecting freedom though, so you can stop with that nonsense.

r3volution 3.0
09-01-2018, 07:00 PM
The question is whether they are violating their own terms of service and advertised policy.

I'd wager they aren't, considering how carefully they likely crafted the language of the TOS.

In any event, this isn't the real (political) issue, is it?

If the TOS had always explicitly stated that they reserved the right to remove content for any reason whatsoever, Jones fans et al would still be complaining. It's rather disingenuous for people who want social media companies to be compelled to tolerate a particular point of view to suddenly pretend to care about contracts (not unlike the hypocrisy of the cultural-left in suddenly supporting the right of a restaurateur to deny someone service).

Swordsmyth
09-01-2018, 07:59 PM
I'd wager they aren't, considering how carefully they likely crafted the language of the TOS.

In any event, this isn't the real (political) issue, is it?

If the TOS had always explicitly stated that they reserved the right to remove content for any reason whatsoever, Jones fans et al would still be complaining. It's rather disingenuous for people who want social media companies to be compelled to tolerate a particular point of view to suddenly pretend to care about contracts (not unlike the hypocrisy of the cultural-left in suddenly supporting the right of a restaurateur to deny someone service).
I don't want the government to compel anything but fulfillment of contracts and truth in advertising, if a company is not guilty of those then the proper response is to lead a boycott and a migration to competing platforms. (speaking of platforms, the companies should also be stripped of the immunity provided by that status if they are going to exercise editorial control of the content on their sites.)

r3volution 3.0
09-01-2018, 08:19 PM
I don't want the government to compel anything but fulfillment of contracts and truth in advertising

Well then you are a rare and special snowflake compared to the common anti-capitalist hordes wanting to force facebook to be "fair."


if a company is not guilty of those then the proper response is to lead a boycott and a migration to competing platforms.

Indeed

IMO, people ought to have stopped using facebook years ago (though for reasons having nothing at all to do with Alex Jones).


(speaking of platforms, the companies should also be stripped of the immunity provided by that status if they are going to exercise editorial control of the content on their sites.)

If a person murders someone with a hammer, should the hammer manufacturer be liable, just because the murderer used his product?

Swordsmyth
09-01-2018, 08:33 PM
IMO, people ought to have stopped using facebook years ago (though for reasons having nothing at all to do with Alex Jones).
True, but I am discussing conservatives who are going to use something like it no matter what.




If a person murders someone with a hammer, should the hammer manufacturer be liable, just because the murderer used his product?
That is the argument for giving neutral platforms immunity, but if they are going to exercise editorial control they should be liable for the content that they do allow.

r3volution 3.0
09-01-2018, 08:47 PM
That is the argument for giving neutral platforms immunity

That's the argument for not holding persons liable for actions which they neither undertook nor intentionally facilitated.

...as with not holding Hammer Co. liable.


but if they are going to exercise editorial control they should be liable for the content that they do allow.

The problem is in the definition of "editorial control."

A traditional publisher who personally reviews each article/book/whatever he publishes is one thing.

A company like facebook which moderates a trivial fraction of the content they allow their users to publish is another.

To suggest that facebook has "editorial control" just because it doesn't do nothing in the way of moderation is absurd.

Suppose RPF has 1,000,000 active posters instead of 20; you want to hold Bryan liable for everything, unless he allow a total free-for-all?

Or Hammer Co refuses to sell hammers to obviously insane people; you want to hold them liable for anything anyone does with their hammers?

Swordsmyth
09-01-2018, 08:57 PM
That's the argument for not holding persons liable for actions which they neither undertook nor intentionally facilitated.

...as with not holding Hammer Co. liable.



The problem is in the definition of "editorial control."

A traditional publisher who personally reviews each article/book/whatever he publishes is one thing.

A company like facebook which moderates a trivial fraction of the content they allow their users to publish is another.

To suggest that facebook has "editorial control" just because it doesn't do nothing in the way of moderation is absurd.

Suppose RPF has 1,000,000 active posters instead of 20; you want to hold Bryan liable for everything, unless he allow a total free-for-all?

Or Hammer Co refuses to sell hammers to obviously insane people; you want to hold them liable for anything anyone does with their hammers?

This site has a mission statement, if MugBook etc. come out and admit that going forward they are going to advocate for leftism then they can censor any viewpoints that they want, as long as they claim to be neutral then they can only censor things that are obviously criminal etc. or in violation of neutral prohibitions in their terms of service (like bullying), but they must enforce those equally, if they maintain their claims of neutrality but engage in political censorship/biased enforcement then they are responsible for the content they allow. (with a reasonable allowance of time for them to be notified and respond)

r3volution 3.0
09-01-2018, 09:13 PM
This site has a mission statement, if MugBook etc. come out and admit that going forward they are going to advocate for leftism then they can censor any viewpoints that they want, as long as they claim to be neutral then they can only censor things that are obviously criminal etc. or in violation of neutral prohibitions in their terms of service (like bullying), but they must enforce those equally, if they maintain their claims of neutrality but engage in political censorship/biased enforcement then they are responsible for the content they allow. (with a reasonable allowance of time for them to be notified and respond)

You're conflating two separate issues.

Any breach of contract re the TOS means liability to their users.

This has nothing to do with the liability that you're proposing they should have to people who are defamed (for example) by their users' content.

Swordsmyth
09-01-2018, 09:22 PM
You're conflating two separate issues.

Any breach of contract re the TOS means liability to their users.

This has nothing to do with the liability that you're proposing they should have to people who are defamed (for example) by their users' content.

It does have to do with it, if they are going to exercise subjective (not admitted in a mission statement or their terms of service) editorial control of the content on their sites then they are responsible for anything they don't remove within a reasonable period of time after it is reported.

In any case they are guilty of false advertising and violating their terms of service.

r3volution 3.0
09-01-2018, 09:28 PM
It does have to do with it, if they are going to exercise subjective (not admitted in a mission statement or their terms of service) editorial control of the content on their sites then they are responsible for anything they don't remove within a reasonable period of time after it is reported.

The terms of service is a contract between facebook and its users.

If they violate that, they are liable to their users (the other party to the contract).

This has nothing to do with liability to third parties for things their users do.


In any case they are guilty of false advertising and violating their terms of service.

I doubt it, but we'll see (and if they are, they'll simply pay whatever damages and change the terms of service going forward).

Swordsmyth
09-01-2018, 09:41 PM
The terms of service is a contract between facebook and its users.

If they violate that, they are liable to their users (the other party to the contract).

This has nothing to do with liability to third parties for things their users do.
The subjective editorial control is the point, you can't exercise subjective editorial control without being responsible for the content you publish.

r3volution 3.0
09-01-2018, 09:56 PM
The subjective editorial control is the point, you can't exercise subjective editorial control without being responsible for the content you publish.

So sayeth the federal government.

I, for reasons explained, disagree.

Swordsmyth
09-01-2018, 10:04 PM
So sayeth the federal government.

I, for reasons explained, disagree.
Publishing is not like selling hammers, it is like operating a wrecking ball for hire, if you knock down a house that doesn't belong to your client you are responsible.

r3volution 3.0
09-01-2018, 10:15 PM
Publishing is not like selling hammers, it is like operating a wrecking ball for hire, if you knock down a house that doesn't belong to your client you are responsible.

A more apt analogy would be between facebook and the guy who sells the wrecking balls.

Swordsmyth
09-01-2018, 10:19 PM
A more apt analogy would be between facebook and the guy who sells the wrecking balls.

How so?
MugBook operates the service that actually spreads the information, that is like being the service that actually knocks down the house.

r3volution 3.0
09-01-2018, 10:28 PM
How so?
MugBook operates the service that actually spreads the information, that is like being the service that actually knocks down the house.

Neither FB nor Wrecking Ball Inc. in any way facilitate the crimes of their users/customers, except by giving them a service/product.

If FB is to be responsible for the crimes of its users, there is no reason not to hold Wrecking Ball Inc. responsible for the crimes of its customers.

...and yet that would be absurd, wouldn't it?

P.S. I think some of the confusion arises because FB's service is online and somehow this seems different, but suppose that instead of facebook having an online platform, it owned huge cork boards all around the country, to which it allowed anyone to tack paper documents. Should it be liable for the contents of those documents? More, should it be liable if it does some moderating of them, but not liable if it does no moderating? How does that make any sense, either in terms of basic concepts of justice or of pragmatism?

Swordsmyth
09-01-2018, 10:33 PM
Neither FB nor Wrecking Ball Inc. in any way facilitate the crimes of their users/customers, except by giving them a service/product.

If FB is to be responsible for the crimes of its users, there is no reason not to hold Wrecking Ball Inc. responsible for the crimes of its customers.

...and yet that would be absurd, wouldn't it?
If WB Inc. fails to verify the ownership of the house it knocks down it is responsible, MugBook takes on the same kind of responsibility when it chooses to exercise subjective editorial control of the content on its site.

r3volution 3.0
09-01-2018, 10:41 PM
If WB Inc. fails to verify the ownership of the house it knocks down it is responsible,

...here the analogy has already gone off-track.

Wrecking Ball Inc. merely sells wrecking balls, as FB merely provides a service.

Wrecking Ball doesn't have anything to do with knocking down houses, as FB has nothing to do with posting content.

If Wrecking Ball decides to go wreck a house, and screws up, of course it's liable; as if FB decides to post content, and screws up.

Likewise, if Wrecking Ball decides to supervise wrecking, and screws up, it's liable; as if FB decides to edit content, and screws up.

But just because FB decides to edit some content doesn't mean it's liable for other, unedited content.

...it's responsible precisely for the content it approved, and nothing else.

Likewise, Wrecking Ball, if it supervised some of its customers, wouldn't therefore be responsible for all of them.

Though the analogy gets more complex, the basic principle here is extremely simple: people should be responsible only for their own actions.

Swordsmyth
09-01-2018, 10:53 PM
...here the analogy has already gone off-track.

Wrecking Ball Inc. merely sells wrecking balls, as FB merely provides a service.

Wrecking Ball doesn't have anything to do with knocking down houses, as FB has nothing to do with posting content.

If Wrecking Ball decides to go wreck a house, and screws up, of course it's liable; as if FB decides to post content, and screws up.

Likewise, if Wrecking Ball decides to supervise wrecking, and screws up, it's liable; as if FB decides to edit content, and screws up.

But just because FB decides to edit some content doesn't mean it's liable for other, unedited content.

...it's responsible precisely for the content it approved, and nothing else.

Likewise, Wrecking Ball, if it supervised some of its customers, wouldn't therefore be responsible for all of them.

Though the analogy gets more complex, the basic principle here is extremely simple: people should be responsible only for their own actions.

But MugBook does post the content submitted to it and if they take subjective control of what content they post then any content that does get posted and doesn't get removed has been approved by virtue of not being disapproved, they are supervising all the content both proactively and reactively.

nikcers
09-01-2018, 10:58 PM
Can we just get it over with and have two facebooks one Republican and one Democrat and libertarians are banned from the debate?

r3volution 3.0
09-01-2018, 11:00 PM
But MugBook does post the content submitted to it

Only in the mechanical sense that their servers handle the uploads.

No employee reviews anything 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% of the time.


and if they take subjective control of what content they post then any content that does get posted and doesn't get removed has been approved by virtue of not being disapproved

I'm aware of your assertion that any amount of moderation makes for liability for everything posted.

I'm not aware of any argument for why this should be the case.

...other than that it leads to your desired result in the particular case of facebook.


they are supervising all the content both proactively and reactively.

No, in fact they aren't.

Virtually nothing is supervised by a human being.

Software tries to locate and weed out certain kinds of content: e.g. porn.

FB's control of its users' content is not remotely similar to, e.g., the NYT's control of its content (every word of which is reviewed by a person).

Swordsmyth
09-01-2018, 11:09 PM
Only in the mechanical sense that their servers handle the uploads.

No employee reviews anything 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% of the time.



I'm aware of your assertion that any amount of moderation makes for liability for everything posted.

I'm not aware of any argument for why this should be the case.

...other than that it leads to your desired result in the particular case of facebook.



No, in fact they aren't.

Virtually nothing is supervised by a human being.

Software tries to locate and weed out certain kinds of content: e.g. porn.

FB's control of its users' content is not remotely similar to, e.g., the NYT's control of its content (every word of which is reviewed by a person).

They not only do have employees actively supervising content but they have AI doing so (as you pointed out) and even if we discount both of those they have a reporting system which they use to supervise content reactively.

r3volution 3.0
09-01-2018, 11:13 PM
They not only do have employees actively supervising content but they have AI doing so (as you pointed out) and even if we discount both of those they have a reporting system which they use to supervise content reactively.

All of that amounts to a minimal moderation, given the astounding volume of content posted per second on that dumpster fire.

In any event, in my view, it doesn't matter at all, in itself, how much they're moderating.

My point is that they should be liable only for the content which they in fact have moderated: consciously approved.

...ala the editor-in-chief of the NYT who okays a story.

The idea of holding them liable for all content on their platform, just because they've moderated some arbitrary fraction of all content, is perverse.

Swordsmyth
09-01-2018, 11:17 PM
All of that amounts to a minimal moderation, given the astounding volume of content posted per second on that dumpster fire.

In any event, in my view, it doesn't matter at all, in itself, how much they're moderating.

My point is that they should be liable as publishers only of the content which they in fact have moderated.

The idea of holding them liable for all content on their platform, just because they've moderated some arbitrary fraction of all content, is perverse.

And yet that is the responsibility they take on when they choose to subjectively exercise editorial control, it is poetic justice since their subjective censoring of conservatives while claiming neutrality is perverse, if I were them I wouldn't do it.

r3volution 3.0
09-01-2018, 11:20 PM
Can we just get it over with and have two facebooks one Republican and one Democrat and libertarians are banned from the debate?

That's basically the situation now.

...it is pretty funny how hopped up people have gotten about this, but nobody cares that libertarian are (and have been for decades) totally excluded from the national political narrative by all media outlets, including those magnificent bastions of freedom such as FOX, Breitbart, and Rush Limbaugh.

nikcers
09-01-2018, 11:31 PM
And yet that is the responsibility they take on when they choose to subjectively exercise editorial control, it is poetic justice since their subjective censoring of conservatives while claiming neutrality is perverse, if I were them I wouldn't do it.

That's never implied, there isn't a license agreement with Facebook that says that they are going to give me a safe space for free. This is the price you pay for using their service. I think its poetic justice that for years people made fun of facebook for not being able to monetize their website, even after it was sold for billions.

Swordsmyth
09-01-2018, 11:34 PM
That's never implied, there isn't a license agreement with Facebook that says that they are going to give me a safe space for free. This is the price you pay for using their service. I think its poetic justice that for years people made fun of facebook for not being able to monetize their website, even after it was sold for billions.
I'm not talking about Terms of Service or advertising right now although I maintain they did violate those, I'm talking about the legal principle of responsibility for the content they allow when they take it upon themselves to exercise subjective editorial control.

Schifference
09-02-2018, 04:42 AM
Government entities interject themselves into everything and claim zero culpability. A structure being built must have every kind of permit. An inspector mandates work be performed to a certain level and be inspected and approved before further proceeding. A food inspector goes into an establishment to perform an inspection and gives the entity a perfect review. The next day, hundreds or thousands are sick. Since the government entity interjected itself into these situations as inspectors should they not be held accountable for failing to catch problems?

timosman
09-04-2018, 12:12 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbDeypb0KaQ

Madison320
09-04-2018, 01:25 PM
And yet that is the responsibility they take on when they choose to subjectively exercise editorial control, it is poetic justice since their subjective censoring of conservatives while claiming neutrality is perverse, if I were them I wouldn't do it.

You're really reaching to find a reason for the government to take control over Facebook.

I think it's more important to make sure the government ISN'T controlling Facebook. Actually it could be interesting if this goes to court. I suspect some of Facebook's censoring of conservative groups may be from government pressure.

timosman
09-04-2018, 01:28 PM
You're really reaching to find a reason for the government to take control over Facebook.

I think it's more important to make sure the government ISN'T controlling Facebook. Actually it could be interesting if this goes to court. I suspect some of Facebook's censoring of conservative groups may be from government pressure.

Another compelling reason to bring this out in the open.

Swordsmyth
09-04-2018, 01:32 PM
You're really reaching to find a reason for the government to take control over Facebook.

I think it's more important to make sure the government ISN'T controlling Facebook. Actually it could be interesting if this goes to court. I suspect some of Facebook's censoring of conservative groups may be from government pressure.
I don't want the government to control them, I just want them to either admit they are left wing sites or lose their platform immunity.

Madison320
09-04-2018, 01:51 PM
I don't want the government to control them, I just want them to either admit they are left wing sites or lose their platform immunity.

What happens if they lose their "platform immunity"?

Swordsmyth
09-04-2018, 01:54 PM
What happens if they lose their "platform immunity"?

They are responsible for anything posted that they don't remove.

Madison320
09-04-2018, 01:54 PM
Another compelling reason to bring this out in the open.

That's the only good thing about this.

Do we really want the government judging every private media based company to make sure they are being "fair and balanced"?

Be careful what you wish for.

Madison320
09-04-2018, 01:58 PM
They are responsible for anything posted that they don't remove.

And who is going to determine if Facebook is responsible for damages. Who is going to enforce the remedy? That's why it amounts to government control.

Swordsmyth
09-04-2018, 02:02 PM
And who is going to determine if Facebook is responsible for damages. Who is going to enforce the remedy? That's why it amounts to government control.
No, government control would be to force them to be "neutral" (defined by the government) with no other options, but they do have other options, they can admit they are leftist sites and keep their immunity or they can change to a publisher and be held responsible for their content.

Madison320
09-04-2018, 02:52 PM
No, government control would be to force them to be "neutral" (defined by the government) with no other options, but they do have other options, they can admit they are leftist sites and keep their immunity or they can change to a publisher and be held responsible for their content.

So Facebook is "free" from government control because they have "options". LOL!

That's know as a distinction without a difference.

Using that logic the government could force you to provide shelter for immigrants. The option is you provide shelter or we take your house. Hey, it's optional!

Swordsmyth
09-04-2018, 02:57 PM
So Facebook is "free" from government control because they have "options". LOL!

That's know as a distinction without a difference.

Using that logic the government could force you to provide shelter for immigrants. The option is you provide shelter or we take your house. Hey, it's optional!
You are either a publisher or a platform, publishers are responsible for their content and platforms are not, if you are exercising subjective editorial control you are a publisher.

It isn't like saying you can shelter immigrants or you can give up your house, they can do exactly what they are doing if they make it objective and admit they are leftist sites.

What they are doing now is false advertising and being a publisher while trying to claim immunity they aren't entitled to.

Madison320
09-04-2018, 03:09 PM
You are either a publisher or a platform, publishers are responsible for their content and platforms are not, if you are exercising subjective editorial control you are a publisher.

It isn't like saying you can shelter immigrants or you can give up your house, they can do exactly what they are doing if they make it objective and admit they are leftist sites.

What they are doing now is false advertising and being a publisher while trying to claim immunity they aren't entitled to.

Facebook is not a publisher. Facebook can't exist under your terms.

Explain to me why Facebook should be responsible for some idiot's posting?

Define "leftist".

Swordsmyth
09-04-2018, 03:15 PM
Facebook is not a publisher. Facebook can't exist under your terms.
They can, they can act neutral or they can admit that they aren't neutral.


Explain to me why Facebook should be responsible for some idiot's posting?
Because they have chosen to exercise subjective editorial control over posts on their site, having taken the power and responsibility to remove posts that they don't agree with means that any post they don't remove is sanctioned.


Define "leftist".
Socialist, Democrat, Statist, Globalist etc.
It is however up to them to define what they believe in and are going to enforce on their site, something like this website's mission statement.

Madison320
09-04-2018, 03:23 PM
They can, they can act neutral or they can admit that they aren't neutral.


Because they have chosen to exercise subjective editorial control over posts on their site, having taken the power and responsibility to remove posts that they don't agree with means that any post they don't remove is sanctioned.


Socialist, Democrat, Statist, Globalist etc.
It is however up to them to define what they believe in and are going to enforce on their site, something like this website's mission statement.

What if Facebook just leaves their mission statement blank?

Swordsmyth
09-04-2018, 03:27 PM
What if Facebook just leaves their mission statement blank?
Then they are claiming to be neutral, in that case they had better act neutral if they want to keep their platform immunity.

Madison320
09-04-2018, 03:55 PM
Then they are claiming to be neutral, in that case they had better act neutral if they want to keep their platform immunity.

I go back to what I said before. Facebook can not exist under those terms.

First of all you do agree that Facebook cannot take responsibility for stuff that people post on their website. That's a death sentence. They'd be instantly sued out of existence.

Now pretend Facebook is just starting out and they decide to have zero editorial control. What happens when people start posting nudity? Child pornography? Death threats? If you were Facebook what would you do? You'd probably start exercising some "editorial control". But now you run the risk of being labeled "not neutral" by the government, and the death sentence imposed upon you. Or maybe Facebook decide to say it's "leftist" but then the government says that's not true and again, the death penalty. It's an impossible situation.

Swordsmyth
09-04-2018, 03:57 PM
I go back to what I said before. Facebook can not exist under those terms.

First of all you do agree that Facebook cannot take responsibility for stuff that people post on their website. That's a death sentence. They'd be instantly sued out of existence.

Now pretend Facebook is just starting out and they decide to have zero editorial control. What happens when people start posting nudity? Child pornography? Death threats? If you were Facebook what would you do? You'd probably start exercising some "editorial control". But now you run the risk of being labeled "not neutral" by the government, and the death sentence imposed upon you. Or maybe Facebook decide to say it's "leftist" but then the government says that's not true and again, the death penalty. It's an impossible situation.

All they have to do is announce "No nudity" etc. and then enforce that rule equally against everyone.

TheCount
09-04-2018, 03:58 PM
All they have to do is announce "No nudity" etc. and then enforce that rule equally against everyone.

Requires a definition of nudity and the judgement of moderators as to what violates that definition.

Grandmastersexsay
09-04-2018, 04:03 PM
You are either a publisher or a platform, publishers are responsible for their content and platforms are not, if you are exercising subjective editorial control you are a publisher.

It isn't like saying you can shelter immigrants or you can give up your house, they can do exactly what they are doing if they make it objective and admit they are leftist sites.

What they are doing now is false advertising and being a publisher while trying to claim immunity they aren't entitled to.

Lol. Can you provide some case law or regulation that says a platform can't be politically biased? I can't find any. Probably because they'd be struck down pretty quick for violation of the first amendment.

If you're arguing having a political bias makes a platform a publisher, that's not going to fly either.


Definition of publish
published; publishing; publishes
transitive verb
1 a : to make generally known
b : to make public announcement of
2 a : to disseminate to the public
b : to produce or release for distribution; specifically : print 2c
c : to issue the work of (an author)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/publishes

Facebook doesnt make anything. They aren't the ones posting articles. They aren't issuing work. No where in that definition is there anything about censorship making you a publisher.

For the record, I hate Facebook. Now Myspace, that was the shit. Facebook will not fall or be made fair through the courts. This problem will only be solved with free market solutions. How is this not evident to everyone on a Ron Paul forum?

Swordsmyth
09-04-2018, 04:03 PM
Requires a definition of nudity and the judgement of moderators as to what violates that definition.

There are grey areas in many aspects of life and we have to allow for those but MugBook and the others are nowhere near neutral, they allow blatant violations of the rules by the left while punishing those on the right for absolutely nothing.

Swordsmyth
09-04-2018, 04:06 PM
Lol. Can you provide some case law or regulation that says a platform can't be politically biased? I can't find any. Probably because they'd be struck down pretty quick for violation of the first amendment.
I never said that, I said they have to do so objectively instead of claiming to be neutral.


If you're arguing having a political bias makes a platform a publisher, that's not going to fly either.



Facebook doesnt make anything. They aren't the ones posting articles. No where in that definition is there anything about censorship making you a publisher.

For the record, I hate Facebook. Now Myspace, that was the $#@!. Facebook will not fall or made fair by the courts. This problem will only be solved with free market solutions. How is this not evident to everyone on a Ron Paul forum?
Exercising subjective editorial control makes them a publisher according to the law.

Madison320
09-04-2018, 04:10 PM
All they have to do is announce "No nudity" etc. and then enforce that rule equally against everyone.

And if the government decides that you didn't enforce the rule equally? Death penalty.

Before we go any further, please explain why Facebook should be responsible for harm caused by user posts.

Grandmastersexsay
09-04-2018, 04:14 PM
Exercising subjective editorial control makes them a publisher according to the law.

What law or case are you referring to please?

Swordsmyth
09-04-2018, 04:16 PM
And if the government decides that you didn't enforce the rule equally? Death penalty.
As I said to The Vampire there must be wiggle room but MugBook etc. are not even close.




Before we go any further, please explain why Facebook should be responsible for harm caused by user posts.
Because they are condoning the posts they don't delete, they have taken editorial control and they are choosing not to delete them.

Swordsmyth
09-04-2018, 04:19 PM
What law or case are you referring to please?

I don't have a citation right now, I may look for one later.
Perhaps Damian can help?


There are a few key major differences between a Platform and Publishers. Those differences include different sets of both Rights and Responsibilities.

Publisher:
- Right: Full Editorial Control
- Responsibility: Must be Responsible for what is said, including but not limited to Copyright, Libel, and Slander

Platform:
- Right: Protected from what is said by Platform Members
- Responsibility: Non Discrimination of Members based on Content or the Individual

Feel free to either add or make corrections. This is just my current and evolving understanding.

What seems to be desired by Big Tech is the Right to be protected from Responsibility, like a Platform, but they want full Editorial Control as a Publisher. They want their cake and to eat it too. Lets try a few examples. Stephen King has a Publisher. That Publisher can choose to publish Kings movies or books based on whatever criteria they want to apply. They can choose to publish something by King, and just as easily choose to not publish something by obscure authors. Another example would be Ron Paul Forums itself. RPF is the opposite of a Publisher, we are more of a Platform. The site owners are exempt from all responsibility of the content of what we say and do, which extends into the real world. If we say something in public that is not on RPF that does break the laws (Copyright, Libel, etc), RPF owners and admins are not held liable. RPF does have a responsibility to equally recognize each member as being equal to other members. Reasonable exceptions to the rule are Mods and Admins. We do have some rules. No bots or spam. Pretty obvious. No illegal content. No copyright infringement is permitted. Rules can also be extended as the Forum can be considered "Private Property". Interpretation of those rules is within the Rights of RPF to subjectively apply our own rules. "Fighting" is prohibited, but does not always result in a Ban of those fighting due to the subjective interpretation. Sometimes that "fighting" can be very constructive, thus allowed. Other times it can be highly disruptive, thus suspensions of those members can occur. What RPF does its best to do is not ban anyone based on opinions or discriminatory practices. Banning all members who are white would be considered discrimination as much as a ban on anyone for being liberal or liberal leaning.

The big point here is what is Google? Is it a Platform or a Publisher? What is Facebook, a Platform or Publisher? What is CNN? What Rights extend to which label? Is there even a difference between what is a Platform or Publisher? Would CNN have a Right to not interview Ron Paul? Would Facebook have a Right to ban Ron Paul from using it as a Platform?

People want Rights, and all too often forget the Responsibility side. People want to drive without insurance, that would be absolutely just fine and a-okay if people took responsibility for damages their driving caused, such as car accidents. The result is we end up with Laws in an effort to more clearly describe both the Rights and Responsibilities. The more irresponsible people in general behave, the more their Rights are restricted in an effort to be held Responsible for their actions.

Are there real Abuses of Free Speech? What are our Rights and Responsibilities? Would it be a good idea to define these all as clearly as we possibly can? If they came after Alex Jones, who is just a canary in a coal mine, they will inevitably come after us. What can we do to defend ourselves against this outright Censorship of any form of outlet, either Platform or Publisher, when they do come after us? We have a Terms of Service as well as Forum Rules, yet, those may not protect RPF should the Domain Registrar decide to turn us off, even if the RPF Servers are flat out owned and completely private. How do we defend ourselves when we are branded Hate Speech, or what ever rule they throw at us? Do we choose to Self Censor and comply only with extremist anti Free Speech demands, or do we maintain our stance that everyone has an equal set of Rights and Responsibilities? Are we "interfering" with Elections and "meddling" or are we exercising our Constitutional Right to peacefully assemble?

Its a lot to be asked, so take it as you will. The floor, for the time being, is wide open to you.

TheCount
09-04-2018, 05:06 PM
There are grey areas in many aspects of life and we have to allow for those but MugBook and the others are nowhere near neutral, they allow blatant violations of the rules by the left while punishing those on the right for absolutely nothing.
All of that is subjective.

And we don't even get to that point without assuming that your horrendously tortured interpretation of law is correct.

Madison320
09-04-2018, 07:31 PM
Because they are condoning the posts they don't delete, they have taken editorial control and they are choosing not to delete them.

Suppose a Facebook poster commits slander. Under which of the following conditions would Facebook be guilty of slander because they condone it?

1. Facebook claims to be neutral and they are:

2. Facebook claims to be neutral and they are not:

3. Facebook claims to be left wing and they are:

4. Facebook claims to be left wing and they are not:

Swordsmyth
09-04-2018, 07:37 PM
Suppose a Facebook poster commits slander. Under which of the following conditions would Facebook be guilty of slander because they condone it?

1. Facebook claims to be neutral and they are:
Not Guilty


2. Facebook claims to be neutral and they are not:
Guilty


3. Facebook claims to be left wing and they are:
Not Guilty


4. Facebook claims to be left wing and they are not:
How are they not?
Are they unfairly deleting leftist content while leaving rightwing content up? Guilty
Are they just not deleting rightwing content? Not Guilty

DamianTV
09-04-2018, 09:20 PM
I don't have a citation right now, I may look for one later.
Perhaps Damian can help?

Beyond my ability to cite any specific laws, not even sure if there is one. Most of that is just the foundation of the Business Model. Im sure that there have been lawsuits prior to the age of the Interwebz where Publishers are sued for behaving as Platforms, and Platforms held accountable for the content that was referenced by their users. Even soapboxes. As always, its a balance between Rights and Responsibilities. Everybody wants Rights, but no one seems to want to take any Responsibility.

Madison320
09-05-2018, 08:19 AM
Not Guilty


Guilty


Not Guilty


How are they not?
Are they unfairly deleting leftist content while leaving rightwing content up? Guilty
Are they just not deleting rightwing content? Not Guilty

Don't you see the problem? How can Facebook's liability for its users change based on their mission statement?

Suppose Facebook claims to be neutral, and one of its users violates copyright law by posting an entire novel. Your claim is that Facebook would be guilty of copyright violations if the government also finds that Facebook leans left. But if they claimed to be leftist they would not be guilty of copyright violations? What does the accuracy of their mission statement have to do with them being guilty of actions of their users?

Swordsmyth
09-05-2018, 02:27 PM
Don't you see the problem? How can Facebook's liability for its users change based on their mission statement?

Suppose Facebook claims to be neutral, and one of its users violates copyright law by posting an entire novel. Your claim is that Facebook would be guilty of copyright violations if the government also finds that Facebook leans left. But if they claimed to be leftist they would not be guilty of copyright violations? What does the accuracy of their mission statement have to do with them being guilty of actions of their users?
You could divide the responsibility up by category.
Does their Mission statement/ToS prohibit copyright violations or do they enforce it subjectively?
Do they allow one group to commit copyright violations with impunity while not allowing others reasonable use or do they treat everyone the same?


P.S. Would the law allow them immunity for not removing an entire novel after being notified about it under any circumstances?
I don't think so.

TheCount
09-05-2018, 02:48 PM
You could divide the responsibility up by category.
Does their Mission statement/ToS prohibit copyright violations or do they enforce it subjectively?
Do they allow one group to commit copyright violations with impunity while not allowing others reasonable use or do they treat everyone the same?

If UPS rejects some packages, do they become liable for the contents of all other packages?

Swordsmyth
09-05-2018, 02:59 PM
If UPS rejects some packages, do they become liable for the contents of all other packages?
Do they open and inspect all packages?
Were they notified that a certain package contained a bomb?

Madison320
09-06-2018, 08:34 AM
P.S. Would the law allow them immunity for not removing an entire novel after being notified about it under any circumstances?
I don't think so.



That highlights the key difference between a newspaper and a social media website. Newspapers start with a blank slate and then add stuff. Websites start with a full slate and then delete stuff. A case could be made that Facebook should be liable for stuff if they've been notified of it. But not stuff that they haven't been warned about. And none of it depends on their mission statement.

Swordsmyth
09-06-2018, 01:21 PM
That highlights the key difference between a newspaper and a social media website. Newspapers start with a blank slate and then add stuff. Websites start with a full slate and then delete stuff. A case could be made that Facebook should be liable for stuff if they've been notified of it. But not stuff that they haven't been warned about. And none of it depends on their mission statement.

Right now they get more immunity than that because they are considered a platform, they should lose that extra immunity if they are going to take subjective editorial control of their content.

timosman
09-14-2018, 02:33 AM
Seems the bias is not only external but internal as well - https://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?526381-LEAKED-VIDEO-Google-Leadership%92s-Dismayed-Reaction-to-Trump-Election

timosman
09-14-2018, 11:32 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/09/14/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-admits-conservative-staffers-dont-feel-safe-to-express-their-opinions-at-liberal-tech-giant.html


9/14/2018

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey admitted that the social media giant’s staffers who have right-leaning political views don’t feel comfortable to speak up because of the company’s ultra-liberal work environment.

“We have a lot of conservative-leaning folks in the company as well, and to be honest, they don’t feel safe to express their opinions at the company,” Dorsey told New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen in an interview published on Friday by Recode.

“They do feel silenced by just the general swirl of what they perceive to be the broader percentage of leanings within the company, and I don’t think that’s fair or right,” he added. “We should make sure that everyone feels safe to express themselves within the company, no matter where they come from and what their background is. I mean, my dad was a Republican.”

Dorsey said that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity were ”on the radio all the time” during his childhood but his mother ‘was on the opposite end of the spectrum” politically.

“I always felt safe to challenge both of them, especially my dad, and so it was definitely a privilege, but if we’re creating a culture that doesn’t enable people or empower people to speak up or not, we’re gonna be able to do that for our service,” he told the esteemed NYU professor.

The Twitter CEO recently told Fox News Radio that he understands why many conservatives are suspicious of the large tech companies, given the liberal-leaning culture of Silicon Valley.

Just last week, Dorsey laid out his company’s defense to allegations of anti-conservative bias on its platform and denied that the San Francisco-based company is biased.

“Twitter does not use political ideology to make any decisions, whether related to ranking content on our service or how we enforce our rules. We believe strongly in being impartial, and we strive to enforce our rules impartially,” he said in prepared testimony to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce obtained by Fox News.

Dorsey also denied shadow banning anyone based on political ideology – something Twitter has been accused of in the past. But while Dorsey has denied that the liberal views of his staffers don’t impact Twitter as a product, his latest comments suggest that conservatives have a reason to be skeptical.

“I think it’s more and more important to at least clarify what our own bias leans towards, and just express it… I’d rather know what someone biases to rather than try to interpret through their actions,” Dorsey told Rosen.

timosman
01-03-2019, 12:13 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlreZuSB-vM