But there are zero identity checks when creating an account on social. Make up a name, burner email account, you’re good. My identity on here could be fake for example.
1 Like
But haven’t you just supported David’s point? It’s your opinion that makes you think that fact check is incorrect?
2 Likes
No. What I am saying is people are posting opinions and they are getting blocked. More importantly there has been facts about the coronavirus getting blocked because of the fact checkers opinions. I was reading a Forbes article talking about a community flier for donations was blocked. I don’t mind if a company wants to try and weed out misinformation. It is their platform do whatever however I still think it is kinda scary that they can do this in a way that they can control a narrative. Get rid of all negative things or flag them and promote the positive things and they can control whatever they want. That is why I am glad people are stepping up with lawsuits like Candace Owens.
We are far away from the days when the constitution was written. Maybe it is time we put in some laws that make freedom of speech extend to places like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.
What action would you take?
So every website should be legally obligated to publish and promote anything I say, so long as it doesn’t explicitly violate an existing law? They should have no say in what is on their platform?
1 Like
Facebook and Twitter and Google are a bit different than talking about other companies. They have protections from lawsuits, yet they still control a narrative by blocking and removing things… And, lying about why they are doing it. Their excuses as to why they are doing it does not add up when you see the actual things they are blocking sometimes.
Twitter and Facebook do not know more than doctors. We should have a free exchange of information. To block medical opinions that counter the progressive narrative on a massive scale is not right. That is what Facebook Twitter and Google are doing.
What specific protections do Facebook, Twitter and Google enjoy that other companies do not?
1 Like
It’s been discussed here many times before. They have legal protections against libel and other things. They are protected by federal law.
We could set up identity checks, but there are also electronic means to ID where the post came from
Rebut the comment online
If you’re referring to Section 230 “safe harbor” provisions within the Communications and Decency Act then those apply to all service providers, from this forum up to and including the big three. If you’re referring to some other legislation that applies specifically to Facebook, Twitter and Google then I honestly have never heard of that before.
A lie can travel halfway around the world and back before the truth has finished lacing up its boots. Rebuttals-- like newspaper corrections-- are typically footnotes, and have little impact.
2 Likes
Yes, it does apply to all service providers. But no other 3 companies weld the power that Google, Twitter and Facebook does. And when they show inherent bias politically to one side, something must be done when they are as large and powerful as they are.
I’d much rather Twitter institute a real-names policy, or have an option where users can choose to only interact with other verified users. That said I’m not sure how much it would improve things considering how terribly I see people behave on community Facebook groups where they’re using their real names and photos, knowing they’ll be seen at the hardware store or in the checkout line or at the PTA meeting after spewing some vile non-sense. It is really disheartening.
3 Likes
Fair point, people can be douches, but we take care of those people in person if they effect us and IMO we could do the same online
That and you can control the narrative like they have been doing. Let’s take the Hunter Biden stuff again. When the laptop thing come out, news agencies blocked it. Facebook and Twitter removed it and banned people for posting the article. Now, the election is over and guess what: all of it was true and he is under investigation. CNN is now reporting it. Fox is reporting it. Facebook and Twitter is allowing it. All a couple days after states had to certify results. The New York post released this info months ago and was banned. There is no doubt in my mind why they did this: they wanted to protect the Biden family until after the election. That is what is scary. If we allow big tech to censor based solely on their political views or the narrative it is very dangerous. That is my whole argument.
Like right now the Hodgetwins are banned from TikTok. Why? Because they are conservative and they expressed their views on a platform. Liberals do the something the twins do however they don’t get banned. It is scary and it is not right.
1 Like
It is not right. If I remember right, there was a even thread here that had discussions about it - and it also got locked down here by Leo as well. We cannot discuss such things here either, it seems.
But youtube, facebook and google are much larger.
This week, youtube deplatformed a LOT of videos. All conservative. Apparently, you cannot talk about election fraud anymore now.
They want protections to be considered a “publisher” - but they are in fact now content providers. They do not deserve this protection, IMHO…
We used to be able to know stuff. Now, if it doesn’t fit a special narrative, it’s deleted from the internet. When it comes off of youtube and Google, it is a big deal. Sorry. It’s not the same as this forum removing content it disagrees with.
Face it, you guys are flat earthers. I know you believe with all your heart. But you might consider that the rest of the world thinks you’re nuts.
Conspiracy theories are just that. Not facts. And while I don’t mind it that you believe in them (I personally believe in fairies) I don’t want this forum to be consumed by propaganda for utterly crazy (and at this point anti-democratic) nonsense.
I imagine YouTube and Twitter feel the same. Give it up guys. Biden won. There was no election fraud. Case (and this nut-job thread) closed.
5 Likes