Big Tech is becoming Big Brother
washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/brad-pa...
washingtonexaminer.comPosted Aug 18, 2018, 6:24 PM UTC
4.6K228
washingtonexaminer.com[deleted]
150
(D)ING (D)ING (D)ING
58
Kinda has a feel of like a certain political system posing as a "religion"... weird.
11
Which is whyn absolutely needs regulation. Can't have government parties going around the Constitution
7
Here the thing, the US CONSTITUTION is restrictions largely on how/what gov can do and some by extension STATE/local.
NO REGULATION is needed for this matter, to deal with them; as they are breaking plenty of other laws.
2
The DNC was co-opted by a Communo-Globalist cult. We're letting huge parts of the cabal off the hook if we only focus on the political head of this hydra.
24
These fucking goblins must be stopped.
15
Interdimensional pot bellied goblins.
9
Vampires
3
Well truthfully it's like the 1776, very few actually fight; and often some on the other side, change their mind/hearts after awhile... how many AFterBurners are now Pedes? MOCK the Heads of the Hydra, the rest will fall into place.
1
Bing bong!
10
And this recent spate of censorship is all starting to boil up just coincidently before the midterms...
3
[deleted]
1
Ironically threatening to impeach Trump would probably increase voter turnout and republican votes, no?
1
6555
0
We’re here already. Social media platforms acting as speech platforms must be managed as speech platforms, not private companies. These tools are used to magnify individual speech, and should be treated as such. In the US that means 1st amendment > terms of use.
64
Honestly tho I agree but they are also allowed to run their business however they want and don’t have to allow freedom of speech on their platform. My fear is people get the government to regulate the internet and then once our government is fully controlled by liberals again we lose all of our freedom of speech completely.
23
This is an excellent point, but we must not forget that there are certain protections in place because these social media giants claimed to be public platforms. So the government needs to make them give up their protections, or be subject to adhere to the constitution and it's amendments.
I do believe we should and still can move to different platforms. I think though that ultimately people are going to have to accept that people are going to have to host their own servers at some point for most things.
Email imo, is one of the more important things. As most email services are setup like a "PO box" rather than a mailbox that is on our property. If we encourage people to host their own email boxes that would be the first big step into taking power out of the current monopolies hands.
23
You got me thinking about decentralized e-mail services. Decentralized social media, e-mail, messengers, voice chat all with open source specifications and code...I don't know how that would all be set up but I do know it'd be a nightmare for anyone drunk with misinformation and power, also intelligence services which heaven for fend they may have to get off their computer chairs and do some real work!
If I were such a drunk however I would respond by cracking down on all existing cloud platforms (Microsoft, Amazon...) and services (Facebook, Twitter) for "hate speech violations," constitution be damned. Then I'd push for all computers and computer softwares to be regulated on the basis that mainstream conservatives are a violent element, and unless we have total control of all communications, they will destroy the country. If I were such a drunk I would fund every politician and judge who supports me and never, ever stop even if it means spending a billion dollars to fund every politician in Washington who can be bought.
Looks like the process is already underway by the real drunks though...
12
Hard to say how it could be done.
If people are willing to host their own emails and "pages", and if VPN was a tad bit more common, I believe it possible.
2
decentralized has a security advantage like say for a nuke attack on arpanet.
nowdays for email decentralized is just 1000 different ways to have security flaws/leaks.
1
Missing the point....
1.) Their platform protections are largely illegal, and so shielding them from illegal activity being done on their platforms is null an void.
2.) The serious laws they are breaking have nothing to do with being a public platform.
3.) Corp death penalty inbound.
2
I am not well versed in communication laws, if it was illegally then it's curious as to why they have been seemingly "blameless" this whole time.
I don't see them getting any real penalties for a good while. Although I hope that they do.
2
Telling Facebook not to censor people is not "regulating the internet"
Corporate shills use those misleading talking point in order to make it sound much worse than it really is is
"Oh no i domt want govt to censor the internet!"
That's not even close to what this is. And the people who came up with that talking point know that. It's just that they work for big Tech
6
AMEN, call it a straight arrow EnvironmentalMarket9 Pede!!
1
If you have to bake gay cakes then you have to allow gay speech. Funny how that works, eh libs?
5
and that is part of how they take down the REPUBLIC, just like other areas of the law.
Key is to stop them with arguing the proper defense, so then it not only wins the case for the Baker; but makes the gov department prosecuting them disappear as it's no power to exist.
2
At what point does a business become a utility?
5
I LOVE THIS QUESTION, it's one of my personal favorites for decades!!!!
Sadly, after their corporate death sentance, they wont be providing a utility service
1
There are already limitations on companies, namely, when they are monopolies.
That doesn't mean the government is running all companies.
I don't see why the same shouldn't apply to companies, with regards to being big enough to replace "civlian/government" function, like being the public square.
It should be about ethics in social media platform, but they're way past that. Now it's about the rights of one individual, who has that platform, infringing on the rights of everyone else, and what's better for the greater good.
In the same way one person is not allowed to kill other, because that kinda infringe on their rights more than on that person's "need" to shoot people.
3
businesses that were created o n the taxpayer's nickel, btw, and they presume to decide what should be censored? No. Since they have proven themselves to be unreliable with this responsibility, they must be regulated. No selling of our data, no censoring our speech.
3
Sole Proprietership sure, run it however they want!
1
I think they should have to support the 1st amendment if they claim they are all for free speech I just know it’s never a good thing when the government gets involved and we aren’t suppose to be for bigger government and allowing the government to have more control of us. We just need to use our own platform or use their platform against them.
1
The first amendment, like the rest of the constitution, is comprised of negative liberties - things the government cannot do to you.
2
As long as it doesnt break any federal laws like chile porn or bestiality.
1
OK REPEAT after me, "PRIVATE COMPANIES does not equal PUBLICALY LISTED STOCKS"
1
We will no longer surrender The_Donald or its Winners to the false song of Algorithms!
64
Al Gore BTFO
18
Ya except they already have T_D at least 1/2 de-platformed IMO.
2
Aaron Swartz (co-founder of reddit) sacraficed his life to fight against this. He saw it coming long before anyone else. He said his biggest regret was selling Reddit to Conde Nast. You should watch the documentary Internets Own Boy on YouTube. Pretty inspiring shit. So much promise and potential lost, but you can suffice that he died for a good cause we are still fighting against today. It's looking like a lost war at this point, with the SEC ruling cryptocurrencies as security's and and the regulations that are coming with it, restricting people from purchasing it, Censorship online, banning people like Alex Jones (regardless if you actually think he's crazy or not, freedom of speech is freedom of speech). Let's see how this turns out but it's looking like if you don't shut up and conform to mainstream ideas and agree with their agendas and ideology then you are the nail sticking out and be prepared to be hammered down, as you see with our President Trump being the biggest example.
55
The leftists saw how we effectively shut them down through social media during the election and got President Trump elected. It was a huge modern day grassroots movement and we kicked ass at it.
They are not going to let that happen again.
We are seeing them moving on us swiftly before the mid terms. This is their last desperate grasp to hold power.
27
It's not just the leftists, either. It's the Uniparty globalists. The NeverTrumpers would love to see speech that opposes their sacred cows shut down, too.
12
How short people's memories are, long before this (6 years ago, not that long I guess) election we used the internet to foil big brother. We used the internet to band together issuing online petitions which effectively shut down Congress's bill, SOPA (Stop Online Privacy Act), which would be the biggest censorship act ever imposed in U.S history. Aaron Swartz was the guy who created the online petition system, had the connections in Silicon Valley to spread the word, which led to millions of petitions across the US, blackouts of Google, reddit, Wikipedia, YouTube etc. Senators had no choice at this point to back out and not support the bill in fear of the public backlash and elections etc. However, I don't think we will ever have another Aaron Swartz that has the fame, political, technical skills, connections, with the same passion he did about privacy and free speech. Especially after an example was made out of him.
I just don't know who has our backs anymore. The Edward Snowdens and Aaron Swartz of the world are very rare because it takes bravery to do what's right when you face jail time, public and social humility, exhaustion of financial resources to pay legal fees which will drag on for years, it will literally ruin someone's life.
The shitty part is that we all know our judicial system and govt. Is corrupt, we all know the govt. no longer works for the people but to suppress the people. We all know big corporations, private bankers and funders, own our govt thanks to the federal reserve.
2
Just got home from a long day at work. (day off to boot) and see this awesome response and that it only had one upvote, have another.
This time we have someone more powerful and with better connections and the means to make something happen. President Trump.
He needs to crack down hard on this fast and his tweets today give me hope that some big changes are coming if not well on its way.
If not we can try to stop it but like I warned before here and on twitter, the left won't make the same mistake they did during the election. They will silence us before midterms if allowed by the powers that be and by us.
We are spreading the message but don't carry any power when the left controls the switchboard. They had it "in the bag" during the election and got Trumped hard by we the people. That won't happen again as we are witnessing now.
1
Controlling the public opinion and communications and intel gathering on individuals is their m.o. in their COMMIE PLAYBOOK.
1
They have literally become what they said ISPs would become if we got rid of net neutrality.
“Fight for a Free and Open Internet” my fucking ass.
EDIT: Perfect example. Gab.ai has been ruined in the eyes of the public as a pro-Nazi platform, with all of big tech not allowing their app on any phone platform. How can Gab.ai be a pro-Nazi platform when their only claim to fame is not censoring anyone? The mere fact that no one will allow them to the broad market has only bolstered this view, as racists and other extremists aren’t allowed anywhere else, meanwhile one of the top comments on Trump’s “We’re Back!” tweet was a fucking ISIS recruitment video. https://imgur.com/6pclYQ7
They can ruin anyone/thing via their ad partnerships with media companies, by simply calling them alt-right, they are not allowed anymore, even in the abscence of evidence.
A private company has the right to refuse service to anyone, but social media doesn’t operate in the same way as they are an ad-supported public platform. Imagine if only certain people were allowed to use the internet at all? What if Chrome could bar you from even using their browser? And then they could share this information with all sorts of other companies who will also disallow you from their websites as you are may be someone flagged as “offensive” or “alt-right”?
48
They are just pushing to see how far they can get.
I say squash this shit so hard, the idea never sees light of day again.
19
[deleted]
16
I warned people years ago not to send there bloody DNA to private companies and now we have 23andMe coming through on this shit:
6
They already are. They are the "big brother" of a socialist state.
They watch you from the minute you wake up until the minute you go to bed.
Google. Apple. Twitter. Facebook. They all know everything about you.
Where you go on holidays. How many kids you have. If you're married. Everything.
They know everything.
Now you can see them influencing elections. Censoring political opinions.
They could easily become a government body if a socialist came to power in America. Just look at the UK. They work with police to hunt down "wrongthink" online.
They will become the thought police if no one stands up to them.
13
I can see still using Google and Apple. Especially Google as that’s a hard trap to escape. (At least for me with YouTube)
But why in the hell does anyone still use Facebook?
6
To find out when it is someone's birthday?
Facebook is hemorrhaging users and views. They are dying.
2
Myspace them, and send them to China (where they belong).
11
AHAHAHHA CHINA already inside them
1
This is a primo opportunity to put pressure on Citizens United. Ignoring the amounts of money these corporations wield for a moment, we have a situation where they can participate in our system politically. Couple that fact with the rules on foreign ownership being scant enough and we've effectively given a legitimate political voice to foreign actors.
11
I have to wonder if term limits could of somewhat prevented this. Not in a direct way but the people making the laws should absolutely be aware of what today’s technology is capable of. The majority of law makers seem completely clueless or willingly ignorant due to age or corruption.
11
Totally unpopular wisdom here, but the only Term Limits in America should be for people that directly lead armed standing troops (President, Generals, and maybe heads of large city police forces where the city have INFRINGED on citizens 2A).
Simply put (search my last weeks comments for more) TERM LIMITS make the staff and bueurocrates all powerful, they get to stay for life and run the show most of the time anyhow. The problem is Ending Seniority in Congress; and restoring Senators to represent the political power of the States, not acting like an Upper House with direct elections.
spez.
and btw the laws these companies are breaking are older than the internet so, doesn't matter, its just about enforcement; and getting gov agencies and foreign actors out of TECH so enforcement can happen; it's identical to the FBI leadership non-sense.
2
[deleted]
10
[deleted]
2
Literally 16 years too late on this one
7
17! BTW WHEN DOES ARTICLE 5 GET INVOKED to deal with deaths of NATO Country Citizens on NATO soil by NON-NATO members??? Is the number 2996? or ...
2
It's the end goal of a police state. Citizens policing citizens. Good to see big tech just fucking pissing on the most sacred tenets of our republic and racing toward that goal. FFS.
7
Tell me how Walmart.com knows I purchased Brillo pads and dishwasher detergent in one of their stores...with cash! I went on their website this morning and there was a section towards the bottom that read "Stock up on your favorites."
HOW?!?! No phone number used, no credit/debit card used.
7
Im on the case this is interesting.
Did you have a smartphone with you?
Have you ever purchased those items before with a card or from their website?
3
[deleted]
4
And they're calling it "sound analysis"
Got to love all the commie euphemisms for infringing on our rights.
5
This is terrifying
1
Even a dumbphone, or RFID tags in wallet or such work too. Real easy tech is over 10 yrs old, 20 if being more tech on a commercial lvl.
2
I definitely had my phone with me, but have paid cash for every item purchased in person over the last 5 years. This particular brand of dishwasher detergent was a completely new buy for me. The whole thing had me rattled yesterday.
1
It is probably a mix of your phone data and video cameras that were able to piece together what you bought.
I dont know if the store started using new tech or if you did something different via your phone but this type of infomation wouldn't be hard to piece together with the technology they are implementing these days.
I am guessing they knew your location in the store, the camera has your id(real or created) in the system, via the camera/or upc code the system knows/hypothesizes it was you at the checkout with that particular product due to your phone and video camera face/object recognition tech.
I dont know if you have noticed when entering a store there are cameras around eye level? Facial recognition to catch "shoplifters". There are also cameras at the end of each aisle in many stores.
Do a google search about a restaurant or park etc....google shows you how busy it is by the hour using historical location data from everyones cell phone.
All this reminds me I need to make a L.E.D hat that is supposed to hide your face. the guy talks about it in this video. Lol. An old video so the tech has come a long way since.
Track me if you can
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xpdwws
If alot of this stuff sounds far-fetched....I can post some more info for you.
2
Wow, this is absolutely terrifying. A couple of years ago I would say your explanation was far-fetched, but knowing what I know now about the government and big corporations, it's not far-fetched at all. I understand the good that can come from the technology, i.e. catching shoplifters, but...what about the infringement on a citizen's privacy?! It's scary.
Edit: thank you for your help in explaining this craziness to me!
1
👀
5
🎧🎥📀
2
Remember - it's illegal for you to possess these emails, you have to rely on US, the media, to tell you what's in them.
5
[deleted]
5
It’s almost like the bill of rights is the Democrat’s hit list
5
YA they KEEP HITTING it with their PROGRESSIVE destruction of our REPUBLIC and breaking it.
1
Becoming? It already is! Some of us have been trying to encourage a right-wing hosted platform for a while!
We are literally mid-war with big tech!
http://magaimg.net/img/5ys6.jpg
Classic
Bill Clinton is a rapist
INFOWARS DOT COM
#BitChute.com
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/98ev09/follow_alex_jones_on_bitchute/
Regulate Facebook. why Facebook isn't just a "private "
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/05/ensuring_internet_free_speech.html
[deleted]
I wish more people realized this. It's a long term coordinated effort between social media giants and government rats that want to set up government oversight and regulation once the democrats get back into power. Once that happens, it's game over.
Regulation? Absolutely not. Don’t want. What I personally believe is that tech platforms where people can give their opinions should fall under first amendment rights. People used to go into the public square and be able to say what they want without fear of being silenced by the government. The public square of debate today happens more often online.
I agree. Government controlling social media content is not a good idea.
The one thing I will say though, is that they should be held accountable from a 'false advertising' standpoint and made to put a prominent label on their service and ALL advertising similar to tobacco products.
"FCC WARNING: Facebook is NOT a vehicle for universal free speech. You may be arbitrarily targeted for removal of your content based on your skin color, political ideas or otherwise".
They absolutely should be regulated, considering they are oligopolies that owe their existence and dominance to corporate welfare/preferential treatment from the federal government.
Facebook/YouTube/Twitter do not exist/dominate/censor in a competitive free market vacuum.
Bad idea. To regulate GFT is to affirm that they are so crucial and permanent as to require the tendrils of government to unite with their infrastructure. Such a union would only strengthen GFT immensely; if we admit we cannot gather information without them they gain invincibility. Nature has a way of sorting this stuff out. Don't take the bait.
Besides the idea that heterodox ideas need GFT to be disseminated is wrong. I get none of my info there, tho I admit I would be sad if they banned this dom.
Edit: I use YouTube. Forgot that was gulag.
They ARE crucial and permanent
Covering your ears and saying lalalalala while pretending they're not major players isn't going to change it
it's delusional when these people who don't even use Facebook clean the Facebook is about to die and be replaced. It's not. It never will be.
We regulate things all the time. Cluding big Telecom.
there is no evil that came from it that caused the government to censor your phone calls
there's no bait here. There's just big Tech paying people to recite talking points against regulating big tech
I have to add that A LOT of people still think they're private companies, but they're are ACTUALLY public forums, as what this article says.
So serious question.
How long until you're willing to demand legislation to protect against this
Will it have to be after every conservative and right winger is banned from all social media platforms and no longer has a voice? Will have to be after the Democrats retake every single branch of government because of it? Will it ever happen? Or will you be fine just living in a country that effectively doesn't have free speech and is ruled by l party
L
These are the liberal newspapers telling us not to regulate Facebook
https://imgur.com/WRB17JH.jpg
They’re laying in the briar patch here. Tread carefully. “There ought to be a law!” is one of the most dangerous things a person can say.
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Be very very leary of the 'make a new law' temptation, it's like asking your doctor for a new pill to fix some problem; then a few years later you wonder why you're taking 20+ pills a day, feel terrible and you're taking pills for side effects of pills...
But in fact, what allows the one-sided censorship now IS a law: the Communications Decency Act. It affords Facebook, Twatter, YouTube, etc. immunity from defamation and fraud suits because they are (supposedly) open platforms, not publishers. If this law didn't exist, they could be sued for contributors' defamatory or fraudulent content, like any other media outlet: https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html
Agreed. If you think there should be a law regulating something, you must be comfortable with someone being killed for not following that law.
No it's not. I'm tired of these talking points. Instead of debating actual laws on the Merit of the laws and using facts and logic people just scramble to "muh ideology" about "laws are bad. Mmkay?"
If you don't think a la like that would be good or wouldn't work then debated on its merits. But enough of the corporate big Tech talking points about never regulating anything
The laws technically already exist, they're just not being enforced. Sooner or later there will be a court case that will hold them to their "common carrier" status, or else they will become publishers and lose their liability protections.
This. Like many, many things in the US, we don't need new laws we need to actually enforce those already on the books.
Enforce Western & US Contract Law and all these problems get fixed; time to put some bricks back into shoring up our US Constitutional Foundations; the LEFTIEs have been chisseling for far too long.
[deleted]
Trump is already putting the squeeze on FB. They filed a lawsuit, and he's calling these A holes out on tweeter. Lets see what happens.
I honestly wonder if this is already constitutional law, particularly if they are deemed to meet the criteria of a public forum. It just needs to get to the Supreme Court, which takes time.
Well the only reason it needs to go to the High Court, is because they have a mountain of cash to take it there. The legal matter is rather old and simple; they could be in the widget trade or whatever; they're breaking laws far more serious than forum debate. spez'd mistyped a word tone bad.
My fellow PEDE, it's like the 2A :)
LAWS don't protect you, Laws are for punishing people after the fact of a crime occuring; criminals walk right through laws, that's why they are criminals.
ALL THE LAWS needed already exist to go after them for their wrongdoing and illegal activities.
OK REPEAT AFTER ME, "PRIVATE COMPANY" and "PUBLICALLY LISTED STOCK" do not go together in the same sentance!
at least gotta hand it to the LEFTIE playboook they really are great at inverting definitions to reprive the conversation. MARRIAGE = MAN + WOMAN of consenting, adult age, unmarried, of sound mind (some exceptions based on states for guardians and slightly underage etc) MARRIAGE IS NOT YOU GET TO BE WITH WHO YOU LOVE!
Forum or not doesn't matter-- they be breaking other more serious laws.
I don't want a right wing platform either. I just want a platform where all ideas no matter how stupid our crazy can be shared. Google and Facebook could do that. I love Google and use many of their products but I can't stand their political stance.
Exactly
I dont want one platform for liberals amd moderates and a separate platform to quarantine rightwing
I want the one platforms everybody else uses to allow conservatives to use it
Agreed, and I think people are going the right way about this so far; class action lawsuits and pressure from POTUS calling them out on their bullshit.
Ya but it's like the Christian Bakers cases, the cases are being argued on the wrong legal grounds; just like same sex marriage; at least 1/2 of the Rep Lawyers out there are RINO/etc types and can loose a case by trying 'real hard fighting' on the principles of the BILL OF RIGHTS!!!! but it's not the right applicable law. spez typo
What you are describing without realizing it, is our US Constitution; because if it's not, then guess what you end up with majority rules, monarchy, dictatorship, commieland, theocracy, anarchy, etc.
SO YOU probably WANT a RIGHT platform, because OUR Republic tolerates/empowers/etc all citizens equally; the left does not. spez typo
The hosts will have to be right-wing. Even with the most decentralized systems, there has to be a centralization point to prevent spam and/or censorship.
Even pol has issues with left-wing hosts. Hence why the shilling is so bad there.
A truly decentralized platform may seem ideal, but it is a form of lawlessness that most people will not be able to handle.
So the key centralization point, where at the least people can connect, even if all the information is decentralized, there still has to be a centralization point. It must be right-wing, because if it is not it will be left-wing. There are some matters where any "non-biased" centrist platform will always choose a side when push comes to shove.
Try Minds.com.
[removed]
THE PLATFORM you are looking for is called a SOAPBOX, very handy to bring to an intersection or town square nearby.
Here's the deal. Just like LEFTIEs and commies can have what they really want and be compatible with our REPUBLIC, or other groups that are incompatible with Western Representative Republics...
Social media platforms are structured (in current form/generation) based on their LEFTIE incompatable ideologies. Better example lets take Free Heathcare. They have their proposals for "free healthcare' and they are all based on their leftist ideology and a NO GO. It is possible to have 'free healthcare' that is fully compatible with our Constitution, liberty, Republic values, etc.; it's built on an entirely different structural framework to make work sucessfully.
SO To will the next generation of RIGHT social media based of REPUBLIC, INDIVIDUALS, LIBERTY, EQUALITY(everyone is treated the same by the system); etc. And it wont be funded by dopey princes, chicoms, H1B/H2B visa abuse, and will be FAR FAR from SAND HILL RD.
someone needs to do it and become filthy rich there is MILLIONS and MILLIONS of us.
I don't think money can be involved, not initially. It's why a few years back when lots of decentralized media was popping up nothing ever took off. The current social media revenue is based on ad revenue and selling user information. It's not profitable for a "start-up" when there is far too many still using current social media platforms.
It's like trying to start a farm in certain parts of africa, but then people from foreign countries just keep sending free food. The farmer can never turn a profit. While the farmer's food may be more consistent than the aid, if he relies on money to stay viable he most likely won't be able to do it.
Although, I don't want to be pessimistic about it. I just think we are going to have to avoid any ties to money initially.
Money is fine, and your post hits
a2 nails on the head!! 2 scoops 2 spez 2 termsThis sub alarm Lee has an average of 20000 people online at any given point. And it's on one of the largest websites in the world
Donald Trump's gab.ai Only only has 75, 000 followers
It's not millions and millions of people who would cancel their Facebook for Faceboovm that promises not to censor beheading videos and actual nazis
at most you would have a couple hundred thousand people that would switch. Chances are not even
A truism about this business though, or any business (esp 44 ERA) if your competition is getting billions in free 0% interest money, it's nearly impossible to actually compete with them or even raise money to startup to fight them (most investors would just be like say hey make it big and sell it out to them like utube or rest).
Like ISIS, gotta cut off the dopey princes, chicoms, H1B/H2B, etc funding before a RIGHT side can compete
A right wing platform will just be an echo chamber where the message wont reach anyone new.
The only reason why I Remain on this god damned platform. The left doesn’t understand that though.
Right wing is a big tent. Constitutional Pedes would make it ok, NWO or RINO's not so much.
gab.ai?
Doesn't necessarily need to be a right-wing platform, just a neutral platform without censorship would be great.
Amen to this. Free speech is a good thing. Censorship is fascism.
Ya a Neutral Platform without censorship would have to be run by Constutional Loving Pedes by definition.
The strange thing is that big tech is allying themselves with the left who wants to regulate them. Their only saving grace could be to make sure the right defends them through our belief of freedom for corporations, free speech etc.
Now, they will lose the only ones who can and would’ve been willing to save them.
Fuck em.
AMEN PEDE!
LEFTIES + GOV =
REPUBLICthis is why they keep trying to unite gov power with the left since FED, FBI, SEC, FDR,.... CFPB,...
Better we will shitpost in the shade. king leonidas
MEME WALL!!!!!!!! FORMATION!!!!!!!!
That MotherZucker is the worst. He has that Bill Clinton lying kind of way to him.
THey have sided with foreign citizens, foreign money, dopey princes, H1B/H2B abuse; and the real crimes that will bring them all down to negative market cap are already on the books and have near nothing to do with them being big tech.
A new crop of social media will rise from the ashes, built far away from Sand Hill Rd, by Constitutional Loving Americians; and not funded by the above.
spez. As far as the gov side of the equation, at least since 17 years ago, it's been unlimited big brother; so that isn't even the issue, they've been built into the inside of every new platform since.
The Trump admin should revoke the publisher exception for social media companies that employ politically targeted censorship. If social media companies are going to try to use suspensions and bans to manipulate user behavior - where they arbitrarily dictate what behavior is approved and disapproved - then they are going to be treated as publishers. They won't be protected from libel lawsuits, etc.
If social media companies are going to strictly curate the discussions on their platforms, then they will need to be held responsible when that strictly curated speech targets, harasses, libels, or oppresses others.
I know it's you Alex
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8h_v_our_Q