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 5 of 12

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

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".

---

Wrong of course - when aren't you? It wasn't a pointless personal attack. The daily load of sh*t you dump on this forum - you deserve to be challenged pointedly and repeatedly.

And saying I'm against Free Speech? Shouldn't you be trashing Kiki about that? Have I ever tried to get you banned? Or moved to Troll Country? Nope. But you good ole buddy Kiki has -= why aren't you in her face? Hy-o-crite maybe?

BTW granny, I quoted you where you replaced Russian propaganda with free speech.

"The Post said the report “identifies more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda free speech..."

Or didn't you do that?

And thanks for this: "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!"

You owe yourself a keyboard! The amount of spittle you must produce! You've become such a joke. I really do hope you're getting paid for this.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

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".- SIGNY

Wrong of course - when aren't you? It wasn't a pointless personal attack. The daily load of sh*t you dump on this forum - you deserve to be challenged pointedly and repeatedly.

---

OK GSTRING, this is an epic fail right at the start.

You DON'T "challenge" me. "Challenging" requires you to REFUTE MY POINTS. But what you wind up doing is NAME-CALLING. Would I be "challenging" you if I called you a doody-head?
No?

So, how about addressing THE ISSUES?

Quote:

---

And saying I'm against Free Speech? Shouldn't you be trashing Kiki about that? Have I ever tried to get you banned? Or moved to Troll Country? Nope. But you good ole buddy Kiki has -= why aren't you in her face? Hy-o-crite maybe?

---

I don't ever recall KIKI trying to get you "banned". As for being moved to "troll country" ... well, that's on you.

Quote:

---

BTW granny, I quoted you where you replaced Russian propaganda with free speech.
"The Post said the report “identifies more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda free speech..."

---

Again, son, epic fail on your part.

You PRESUMED that what was banned was "Russian propaganda". Neither you nor Google, FB, or Twitter have actually DEMONSTRATED that the banned content was Russian in origin. In fact, many of the banned contributors are clearly American.

But I'll go one step further ... even if it was "Russian propaganda", as long as its said by Americans who're protected by the Constitution, it's allowed by free speech rights!

Crazy, I know!


But that WAS the point of protecting free speech... to allow the broadest possible inclusion of ideas into the town square/ marketplace of ideas.


And once again, cue the pointless personal attack in 3...2..1..

Quote:

---

And thanks for this: "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!" You owe yourself a keyboard! The amount of spittle you must produce! You've become such a joke. I really do hope you're getting paid for this.- GSTRING

---

Instead of demonstrating that you CAN think your way out of a paper bag, you go on to (once again) demonstrate that you can't, by resorting to insults and name-calling (again).

Really, GSTRING?

How about focusing on THE ISSUES, if at all possible?

What do you think should be banned. if anything?
Do online "platforms" have the right to ban political content?

-----------
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

So, I've had enough arguing with idiots today. Got a lot to do. GSTRING et al, unless you come back with an ISSUES-ORIENTED post, don't expect a reply.

Just to drive the point home: Name-calling doesn't count.

-----------
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:

---

Google Finally Acknowledges Censored Chinese Search Engine Project

---

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-16/google-finally-acknowledges-
chinese-search-engine-project
Well, yes, there's censorship here too!




-----------
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:

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.

---

I'm not dodging anything.

You are against free speech. Period.

I'm not the one here that has explaining to do.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Thanks for posting this, I will read and review, then give my take on the matter. My preliminary thought is that the social media platforms would do
everything in their power to insulate themselves from any wrongdoing and
civil lawsuits. Their argument held some sway and the government was convinced
to comply.

Although censor is a strong word, it's a fair question to ask, but I dare say
that the court/government gave it a fair amount of attention resulting in
Section 230.


SGG

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

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

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME