Real World Event Discussions
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 4 of 12
Tuesday, October 16, 2018 3:17 AM
Quote:They got an exemption from libel laws and all sorts of other liabilities by claiming to be "platforms", not publishers. They disavowed responsibility for content.
If they are violating the law or rights, then they can be sued or prosecuted. - SHINY
HOWEVER, once they start meddling with posts/tweets ... curating content based on political leanings ... then they become PUBLISHERS.
*****
FACEBOOK THE GREAT PURGE
(Or, FB's meddling in USA elections)
Quote:
Facebook has removed – in what some are calling the “Facebook purge”- more than 800 pages and accounts. Although the social media giant says those deleted were rule breakers engaged in “coordinated inauthentic behavior,” some of their defenders have claimed the sweeping action amounts to an attack on independent media, both representing left and right-wing political views.
https://heavy.com/news/2018/10/facebook-purge-list-deleted-accounts/
*****
FACEBOOK and TWITTER coordinate the purging of accounts.
-----------
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
Tuesday, October 16, 2018 12:25 PM
This is very clearly a last-ditch effort by the uber-wealthy transnational Democratic Silicon Valley elite to swing the November election.
Quote:free speech
Facebook Purged Pages Based On 'PropOrNot' Blacklist Promoted By Washington Post
Media outlets removed by Facebook on Thursday, in a massive purge of 800 accounts and pages, had previously been targeted in a blacklist of oppositional sites promoted by the Washington Post in November 2016.
The organizations censored by Facebook include The Anti-Media, with 2.1 million followers, The Free Thought Project, with 3.1 million followers, and Counter Current News, with 500,000 followers. All three of these groups had been on the blacklist.
In November 2016, the Washington Post published a puff-piece on a shadowy and up to then largely unknown organization called PropOrNot, which had compiled a list of organizations it claimed were part of a “sophisticatedRussian propaganda
Quote:free speech
campaign.”
The Post said the report “identifies more than 200 websites as routine peddlers ofRussian propaganda
Quote:huh?
during the election season, with combined audiences of at least 15 million Americans.”
The publication of the blacklist drew widespread media condemnation, including from journalists Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald, forcing the Post to publish a partial retraction. The newspaper declared that it “does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet.”
While the individuals behind PropOrNot have not identified themselves, the Washington Post said the group was a “collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds.”
PropOrNot, which remains active on Twitter, publicly gloated about Facebook’s removal of the pages on Thursday. “Russian propaganda is VERY VERY MAD about their various front outlets & fellow travellers getting suspended by @Facebook &/or @Twitter,” it wrote. The tweet tagged The Anti Media and The Free Thought Project, and included a Russian flag emoji next to an emoji depicting feces.
Quote:
PropOrNot did not attempt to reconcile its own narrative that the targeted organizations were front groups for the Kremlin with Facebook’s official claim that they operated independently of any government but sought to “stir up political debate” for financial motives. This is because both accusations are hollow pretexts for political censorship.
In a separate post, PropOrNot added: “Well, look at that... @Facebook removed some of the most important gray/black Russian propaganda outlets from their platform! Bravo @Facebook - better late than never, so a BIG thank you for this.”
It added, ominously: “All of these [organizations] are cross platform & have websites, but one thing at a time.”
These comments by PropOrNot make clear where the censorship measures supervised by the US government and implemented by the internet companies are going. While these organizations still “have websites,” the authorities are handling “one thing at a time.”
The clear implication is that censorship will not end with Google’s manipulation of its search platform or the removal of accounts by Facebook and Twitter. The ultimate aim is the total banning of oppositional news web sites.
The publication of the PropOrNot blacklist and its promotion by the Washington Post helped trigger a wave of censorship measures against oppositional news sites by the major technology companies, working at the instigation of the US intelligence agencies and leading politicians.
Last year, the World Socialist Web Site reported that it an other sites, including Global Research, Counterpunch, Consortium News, WikiLeaks and Truthout,saw their search traffic plunge after search giant Google implemented a change to its search ranking algorithm.
In the subsequent period, search traffic to these sites has fallen even further. Search traffic to Counterpunch has fallen by 39 percent, andNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, October 16, 2018 1:47 PM
So then, the usual...
Deep State, "But Obama!", Globalists.....etc.
So then, conspiracy theories as truth, that sort of thing.
Isn't that the way of things, that whenever something that supports or contributes to "your" beliefs gets restricted or eliminated, y'all scream
bloody murder! Spreading lies and fabrications has nothing to do with it.
Oh, wait...that's right, you're core beliefs are that MSM, including social
media outlets are the enemy here.
Democrats are wealthy, control transnational corps like Google and Twitter,
and they lean to the left. Is that how it works? So, naturally they control all lefties and the ultra double-secret societies that includes the MSM and
social media outlets.
Wow! Really!? Do Dems have that much power? Then why don't they control the world? I mean, come on, all that untapped wealth in North Korea. The market there would be off the chain. Seems pretty far-fetched, but if you say so.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
This is very clearly a last-ditch effort by the uber-wealthy transnational Democratic Silicon Valley elite to swing the November election.Quote:free speech
Facebook Purged Pages Based On 'PropOrNot' Blacklist Promoted By Washington Post
Media outlets removed by Facebook on Thursday, in a massive purge of 800 accounts and pages, had previously been targeted in a blacklist of oppositional sites promoted by the Washington Post in November 2016.
The organizations censored by Facebook include The Anti-Media, with 2.1 million followers, The Free Thought Project, with 3.1 million followers, and Counter Current News, with 500,000 followers. All three of these groups had been on the blacklist.
In November 2016, the Washington Post published a puff-piece on a shadowy and up to then largely unknown organization called PropOrNot, which had compiled a list of organizations it claimed were part of a “sophisticatedRussian propagandaQuote:free speech
campaign.”
The Post said the report “identifies more than 200 websites as routine peddlers ofRussian propagandaQuote:huh?
during the election season, with combined audiences of at least 15 million Americans.”
The publication of the blacklist drew widespread media condemnation, including from journalists Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald, forcing the Post to publish a partial retraction. The newspaper declared that it “does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet.”
While the individuals behind PropOrNot have not identified themselves, the Washington Post said the group was a “collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds.”
PropOrNot, which remains active on Twitter, publicly gloated about Facebook’s removal of the pages on Thursday. “Russian propaganda is VERY VERY MAD about their various front outlets & fellow travellers getting suspended by @Facebook &/or @Twitter,” it wrote. The tweet tagged The Anti Media and The Free Thought Project, and included a Russian flag emoji next to an emoji depicting feces.Quote:
PropOrNot did not attempt to reconcile its own narrative that the targeted organizations were front groups for the Kremlin with Facebook’s official claim that they operated independently of any government but sought to “stir up political debate” for financial motives. This is because both accusations are hollow pretexts for political censorship.
In a separate post, PropOrNot added: “Well, look at that... @Facebook removed some of the most important gray/black Russian propaganda outlets from their platform! Bravo @Facebook - better late than never, so a BIG thank you for this.”
It added, ominously: “All of these [organizations] are cross platform & have websites, but one thing at a time.”
These comments by PropOrNot make clear where the censorship measures supervised by the US government and implemented by the internetNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, October 16, 2018 2:33 PM
Quote:
HOWEVER, once they start meddling with posts/tweets ... curating content based on political leanings ... then they become PUBLISHERS.
I have a question: Is that what has been determined by legal authorities, you know, the Rule of Law that supposedly controls this country? Or is this just an opinion, a theory.
Give me 4 Ws: Who, what, when and where (the 5th is why). Is that an illegal
action taken by the control freaks and dishonest authority?
sgg
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, October 16, 2018 7:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: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.
You said I should read a book so I'm just asking what book. You sure do spook easy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, October 16, 2018 8:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
This is very clearly a last-ditch effort by the uber-wealthy transnational Democratic Silicon Valley elite to swing the November election.
Clearly!
I love this touch: Russian Propaganda = Free Speech < that right there is brilliant! I tip my hat to the shear preposterousness. A true gem.
Btw, fwiw, fyi: You have gone completely bat sh*t crazy. Or maybe since I've known you for so long, you are back to who I always thought you were, just more so.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, October 16, 2018 8:11 PM
And cue the pointless personal attack in 3 ... 2... 1...
Quote:
This is very clearly a last-ditch effort by the uber-wealthy transnational Democratic Silicon Valley elite to swing the November election. - SIGNY Clearly!
I love this touch: Russian Propaganda = Free Speech < that right there is brilliant! I tip my hat to the shear preposterousness. A true gem. Btw, fwiw, fyi: You have gone completely bat sh*t crazy. Or maybe since I've known you for so long, you are back to who I always thought you were, just more so. - GSTRING
Son, you couldn't be more delusional if you said the earth was flat. ONLY YOU (and your idiot friends) would confuse free speech with Russian propaganda! But that's your problem: ANYONE who disagrees with you is automatically either a "Russian troll" or a "Nazi" in your fevered imagination and must automatically be silenced.
Clearly, you hate free speech, you're completely authoritarian/anti-American/anti-democracy, and you can't think your way out of a paper bag! Otherwise you wouldn't resort to personal attacks that are completely stupid.
I'll give you a thought, since you don't seem to have brought any with you today ...
If you really want to demonstrate that censorship by Google, FB, Twitter et al is really such a great thing, why don't you look at the list of censored sites, do some research, and demonstrate for us that they're all Russia based! That WILL tend to prove your point that they're "Russian propaganda".
-----------
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
Tuesday, October 16, 2018 8:23 PM
Quote:
I have a question: Is that what has been determined by legal authorities, you know, the Rule of Law that supposedly controls this country? Or is this just an opinion, a theory.
Give me 4 Ws: Who, what, when and where (the 5th is why). Is that an illegal
action taken by the control freaks and dishonest authority?
The social media companies applied for an exemption from things like libel laws by claiming that they're not fully responsible for content, that they merely provide a space for other people to post, and that if there is any liability it attaches to the poster, not the platform. They were granted an exemption called Section 230, passed by Congress.
Here is a nice description and analysis of what that was all about:
Quote:
As Cruz properly understands, Section 230 encourages Internet platforms to moderate “offensive” speech, but the law was not intended to facilitate political censorship. Online platforms should receive immunity only if they maintain viewpoint neutrality, consistent with traditional legal norms for distributors of information. Before the Internet, common law held that newsstands, bookstores, and libraries had no duty to ensure that each book and newspaper they distributed was not defamatory. Courts initially extended this principle to online platforms. Then, in 1995, a federal judge found Prodigy, an early online service, liable for content on its message boards because the company had advertised that it removed obscene posts. The court reasoned that “utilizing technology and the manpower to delete” objectionable content made Prodigy more like a publisher than a library.
Congress responded by enacting Section 230, establishing that platforms could not be held liable as publishers of user-generated content and clarifying that they could not be held liable for removing any content that they believed in good faith to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” This provision does not allow platforms to remove whatever they wish, however. Courts have held that “otherwise objectionable” does not mean whatever a social media company objects to, but “must, at a minimum, involve or be similar” to obscenity, violence, or harassment. Political viewpoints, no matter how extreme or unpopular, do not fall under this category.
The Internet Association, which represents Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other major platforms, claims that Section 230 is necessary for these firms to “provide forums and tools for the public to engage in a wide variety of activities that the First Amendment protects.” But rather than facilitate free speech, Silicon Valley now uses Section 230 to justify censorship, leading to a legal and policy muddle. For instance, in response to a lawsuit challenging its speech policies, Google claimed that restricting its right to censor would “impose liability on YouTube as a publisher.” In the same motion, Google argues that its right to restrict political content also derives from its “First Amendment protection for a publisher’s editorial judgments,” which “encompasses the choice of how to present, or even whether to present, particular content.”
The dominant social media companies must choose: if they are neutral platforms, they should have immunity from litigation. If they are publishers making editorial choices, then they should relinquish this valuable exemption. They can’t claim that Section 230 immunity is necessary to protect free speech, while they shape, control, and censor the speech on their platforms. Either the courts or Congress should clarify the matter.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html
-----------
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?t
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, October 16, 2018 8:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
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.
You said I should read a book so I'm just asking what book. You sure do spook easy.
I'd suggest Hop on Pop by Dr. Seuss for starters.
We can work our way up from there.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, October 16, 2018 10:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
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.
You said I should read a book so I'm just asking what book. You sure do spook easy.
I'd suggest Hop on Pop by Dr. Seuss for starters.
We can work our way up from there.
Let me know when you finish.
You just keep dodging.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME