Can social media censor content? Google does it. So does FB and Twitter
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Sunday, September 21, 2025 14:48
VIEWED: 10823
PAGE 3 of 12
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Again, the problem is the "town square" effect. I might not have stumbled across Alex Jones in the first place if he hadn't been on YouTube. I found some of the most interesting people by accident. "Letting" them keep their own websites kind reminds me of the "free speech" zones that were set up ahead of political conventions ... behind barbed wire, three miles away from anywhere.
You don't think you will stumble acrossmaybe even more interesting people (!) now that you aren't wasting your time with Alex Jones? You may have to look a little harder or deeper in Youtube - o' dear, poor thing.
Are you really an idiot, or is this all an act? I just can't believe that somebody is as stupid as you appear to be.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I just can't believe that somebody is as stupid as you appear to be.
Do explain. You believe the bs "town square" effect? Lay it on me genius.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Google Vs. Trump: "The Good Censor" On Collision Course With The Patriot President
... 2. Target Section 230
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a sacred privilege for social media companies. This law protects Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms from liability over the material published on their websites. One of the reasons these services are granted this privilege is the Congressional finding, embodied in legislation, that they “offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” [47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material] In contrast, newspapers are subject to libel actions over Letters to the Editor, because they are assumed to have exercised editorial judgement in publishing them.
Since it is highly questionable these platforms provide politically diverse forums anymore, it is arguably time for Congress to revisit Section 230. Not only is Big Tech’s censorship violating its spirit, so is their shifting claims on not being publishers. Indeed, Facebook’s lawyers have already paradoxically claimed that in some circumstances the company is a publisher, undermining the mega-platform’s numerous public claims that it is not a publisher. [Is Facebook a publisher? In public it says no, but in court it says yes, by Sam Levin, Guardian, July 2, 2018]
Both Google and Twitter have also undermined their own claims not to be publishers in litigation, according to court documents provided to the Watcher. Google claimed in its legal defense against PragerU’s lawsuit over censorship that it can exercise “editorial control and judgment” as a publisher. Twitter argued in court that it was similar to the New York Times and must have “exercise of editorial control and judgment” over the content it publishes.
Congress has an obligation to investigate these companies over their apparent Section 230 violations, and Trump should encourage them to do so. Nothing will terrify Big Tech more than having the President cheer on stripping them of their Section 230 protection.
Legislation amending Section 230 to explicitly state these companies may not engage in political discrimination would protect free expression for years to come...
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-12/google-vs-trump-good-censor-
collision-course-patriot-president
85-page Google memo justifying censorship, as linked in the ZH article
https://vdare.com/filemanager_source/The-Good-Censor-GOOGLE-LEAK.pdf
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I just can't believe that somebody is as stupid as you appear to be.
Do explain. You believe the bs "town square" effect? Lay it on me genius.
I'd tell you to read a book. But you don't like that simple answer.
So since you can't be bothered to learn anything from history I'm just going to let time sort it out and watch you bitch when they start censoring voices that you don't like in the future.
There are already signs of it happening. The large tech companies don't want anything on their platforms that could mess with their ad revenue, so they've begun purging voices on the left as well.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You have to remember that in return for censorship, FANGs promise security.
HA HA HA H HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ...
Were You One Of The 30 Million Hacked Facebook Users? Here's How To Check
The largest security breach in Facebook history
Oct 13, 2018 10:00 AM
tic tac
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
did some crazy immigrant jihad vegan woman try to shoot up youtube HQ because she got her bizzare yoga political exercise video censored or they didnt pay her enough for adverts or some crazy ideas?
anyways
Facebook Blocks Links to Competitor 'Minds'
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/10/12/facebook-blocks-links-to-fre
e-speech-competitor-minds/
Deplatformed: How to Fight Censorship in a World of Monopolies bitchute.com
https://www.bitchute.com/video/xHur7GMxDZau/
Google launch event overshadowed by privacy firestorm
https://phys.org/news/2018-10-google-event-overshadowed-privacy-firest
orm.html
?
Why You Should Use Duck Duck Go
https://peertube.video/videos/watch/2291b03c-63d0-409a-84f2-31d78194e5
fe
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If they are violating the law or rights, then they can be sued or prosecuted. Perhaps even taken to SCOTUS as a test case. And now that the odds have been "arranged" in favor of conservative ideals, well, you know the rest.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Social media is exempt from libel and hate speech laws because they disavow any responsibility for their content.
However, once social media starts "curating" what appears on their platforms, they start sliding over into the realm of "publisher", which has a whole boatload of responsibilities and liabilities attached.
This is in reference to "shadow-banning" or "demonetizing" content, or (in the case of Google/Youtube) skewing search results so thoroughly that it's impossible to find what you're looking for, even if you're very very specific with your search terms.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
did some crazy immigrant jihad vegan woman try to shoot up youtube HQ because she got her bizzare yoga political exercise video censored or they didnt pay her enough for adverts or some crazy ideas?
Yes. She did.
Quote:
Deplatformed: How to Fight Censorship in a World of Monopolies bitchute.com
Also look into alternet. I'm going to see if there is a way to invest in it.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Do explain. You believe the bs "town square" effect? Lay it on me genius.
I'd tell you to read a book. But you don't like that simple answer.
You're right - I don't like that answer because it sounds like a lot of your answers: a dodge. Surely if you understand the concept and believe in it AND if you have read a book about it, you can defend it or at least present a brief description of the parts that make sense to you. Or not.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Do explain. You believe the bs "town square" effect? Lay it on me genius.
I'd tell you to read a book. But you don't like that simple answer.
You're right - I don't like that answer because it sounds like a lot of your answers: a dodge. Surely if you understand the concept and believe in it AND if you have read a book about it, you can defend it or at least present a brief description of the parts that make sense to you. Or not.
I've already explained myself about this issue.
I laugh about the idea of you reading a book because you can't even be bothered to read a paragraph or two in the RWED.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME