Apple, Google, Twitter, Facebook Sued for Leftist Bias and Conservative Censorship

[Grandmastersexsay]

Exercising subjective editorial control makes them a publisher according to the law.

What law or case are you referring to please?

[Swordsmyth]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Seems the bias is not only external but internal as well - https://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...Trump-Election

[timosman]

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/09/...ech-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]