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

[Swordsmyth]

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/...ive-censorship

[timosman]

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?

[Grandmastersexsay]

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]

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

[Swordsmyth]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

Can we just get it over with and have two facebooks one Republican and one Democrat and libertarians are banned from the debate?