I've started to just refer to them as "social media publishers". The more we repeat that instead of platforms, the more it will stick into people's vocabulary.
social media publishers
social media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publishers
Imagine if Ma Bell didn’t like the fact that you were trying to call your conservative friends. So no matter what number you dialed, it always connected you to people who have “more acceptable” political views.
There's no desire to do anything about this within the halls of the house & congress. The DNC and GOP globalists hate American citizens and their so-called "freedom of speech." They want to disassemble America's constitution and bill of rights and sell us off to the lowest bidder (or just give it away). All of them need to be hung for treason on public TV on K Street in Washington DC.
This statement is a great first step, but we need to find some way to help. Is there any way we can find someone to help fund lawsuits against these companies? I wouldn't really know where to start. Any pedes have connections to wealthy conservatives?
I agree. Talk is cheap, what can we DO?
Trump can only do so much. Any lawyers here? This may be a pay day. If we get a couple thousand people to donate a few bucks each we can get a real case started. Anyone can sue for breach of laws.
Trump needs to create a department in his campaign staff that organizes conservatives for actions like this. Not just "send some donations" or "get out and vote", but give us all something to do. Tell us to call certain people and ask for action on a subject. Ask for lawyers to collaborate on class action suits. Lawfare is effective. Hell, even if you ask for money, tell us "We're raising money to buy advertising time on a major TV channel to play the censored HCQ doctors video".
You would see a massive upswell of support for these agendas. We would only trust Trump though, too many other snake oil salesmen or grifters waiting to seize patriot's money for their own causes.
Disgorge the companies. Our government needs to respond to the Miller Act Notice submitted by Leader Technologies under Michael McKibben, the creators of the technologies that drive scalable social media.
For a brief overview:
"The Truth About Facebook" by The Truth Factory on YouTube.
aim4truth.org
However many people are clamoring for the opposite. The EO is attempting to regulate this in the opposite direction too; it even uses the word "platform" to describe social media.
This failure to define the service for what it is will continue to make this issue muddy and ultimately a mess.
Read the user agreement on each of the services in question. They all explicitly stipulate that user submitted content is subject to censorship. And as we can observe, this is not just written policy, it is put into practice.
A large part of the problem is that so few actually read the fine print before agreeing to use the service, and assumed they were using some free speech platform. They never were, and it is their own fault for not understanding the agreement.
And this will always be the case for these companies. You can't force them to change their ways by government edict. You can try, but you end up with an entirely unnatural situation where they are still biased, but play cat and mouse just enough to avoid regulatory scrutiny.
Many people think this is the answer. Seems unlikely to work out, and just supports the monopoly these companies already enjoy, by supporting the erroneous conclusion that they are the new "town halls". This flawed interpretation traps the users in a service that treats them poorly.
I'd suggest the EO should have aimed for the reverse: classify these services as publishers, once and for all, since that is what they truly are. Lift the veil, expose the truth: these services are abusing the users and their content.
As publishers, the services can be held liable for damages for problematic content. We stop pretending user submitted content on the service is free speech. This allows for competition in this market, where consumers can choose to support the publisher that has the most value. The one that treats them fairly. The one that is not a propaganda tool for globalists.
This is Obozo's legacy. Big tech has grown into a cartel and seized control over the internet during 8 years of Obozo, partly because of his support, partly because of the financial crisis which smashed the traditional industries and gave them a unique opportunity.
Big tech is stepping up for each measure Trump crushes the main stream outlets. President Trump commands the narrative with an open line of communication. This has to piss them of that they have become the go around and voice for everything they hate. Desperately trying to stop the pre- election Trump train.
On Monday, the Department of Commerce, as directed by President Donald J. Trump’s Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship, filed a petition to clarify the scope of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. The petition requests that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) clarify that Section 230 does not permit social media companies that alter or editorialize users’ speech to escape civil liability. The petition also requests that the FCC clarify when an online platform curates content in “good faith,” and requests transparency requirements on their moderation practices, similar to requirements imposed on broadband service providers under Title I of the Communications Act. President Trump will continue to fight back against unfair, un-American, and politically biased censorship of Americans online.
I for one don't know. It's really a slam dunk q/a: the regulations already say that, he's just asking them to officially confirm that--which is all calling them out--though a lot of commissions require that a complaint be filed--they don't look for violations. It would be great if this was applied retroactively, as it should be, so Twit and YT could be sued into extinction.
Short and savagely on target!
Big tech are publishers not platforms. Hold them to account instead of giving them free passes.
I've started to just refer to them as "social media publishers". The more we repeat that instead of platforms, the more it will stick into people's vocabulary.
Trump + Kayleigh + Ajit "Reese's Pieces" Pai = Best Combo Ever
Loony Lefties: Wahhhh, Trump is a dictator because he is using an Executive Order to prevent censorship.
Also Loonies: Trump wants to censor minority voices by preventing censorship!
social media publishers social media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publisherssocial media publishers
Socialist Media Publishers
FTFY
I'm gonna write this on the black board 50 times, or until it sticks.
Imagine if Ma Bell didn’t like the fact that you were trying to call your conservative friends. So no matter what number you dialed, it always connected you to people who have “more acceptable” political views.
Excellent, well-put point. If Bell could be broken apart, Google absolutely could (and should) be.
There's no desire to do anything about this within the halls of the house & congress. The DNC and GOP globalists hate American citizens and their so-called "freedom of speech." They want to disassemble America's constitution and bill of rights and sell us off to the lowest bidder (or just give it away). All of them need to be hung for treason on public TV on K Street in Washington DC.
Their interference is the real Russian interference. Their CEO, Sergey Brin, is a russian immigrant from soviet union.
perfect way of putting it.
This statement is a great first step, but we need to find some way to help. Is there any way we can find someone to help fund lawsuits against these companies? I wouldn't really know where to start. Any pedes have connections to wealthy conservatives?
I agree. Talk is cheap, what can we DO? Trump can only do so much. Any lawyers here? This may be a pay day. If we get a couple thousand people to donate a few bucks each we can get a real case started. Anyone can sue for breach of laws.
Trump needs to create a department in his campaign staff that organizes conservatives for actions like this. Not just "send some donations" or "get out and vote", but give us all something to do. Tell us to call certain people and ask for action on a subject. Ask for lawyers to collaborate on class action suits. Lawfare is effective. Hell, even if you ask for money, tell us "We're raising money to buy advertising time on a major TV channel to play the censored HCQ doctors video".
You would see a massive upswell of support for these agendas. We would only trust Trump though, too many other snake oil salesmen or grifters waiting to seize patriot's money for their own causes.
Disgorge the companies. Our government needs to respond to the Miller Act Notice submitted by Leader Technologies under Michael McKibben, the creators of the technologies that drive scalable social media.
For a brief overview: "The Truth About Facebook" by The Truth Factory on YouTube. aim4truth.org
I know Tulsi Gabbard sued Google but that got dismissed.
Agreed, this is demonstrably true.
However many people are clamoring for the opposite. The EO is attempting to regulate this in the opposite direction too; it even uses the word "platform" to describe social media.
This failure to define the service for what it is will continue to make this issue muddy and ultimately a mess.
Read the user agreement on each of the services in question. They all explicitly stipulate that user submitted content is subject to censorship. And as we can observe, this is not just written policy, it is put into practice.
A large part of the problem is that so few actually read the fine print before agreeing to use the service, and assumed they were using some free speech platform. They never were, and it is their own fault for not understanding the agreement.
And this will always be the case for these companies. You can't force them to change their ways by government edict. You can try, but you end up with an entirely unnatural situation where they are still biased, but play cat and mouse just enough to avoid regulatory scrutiny.
Many people think this is the answer. Seems unlikely to work out, and just supports the monopoly these companies already enjoy, by supporting the erroneous conclusion that they are the new "town halls". This flawed interpretation traps the users in a service that treats them poorly.
I'd suggest the EO should have aimed for the reverse: classify these services as publishers, once and for all, since that is what they truly are. Lift the veil, expose the truth: these services are abusing the users and their content.
As publishers, the services can be held liable for damages for problematic content. We stop pretending user submitted content on the service is free speech. This allows for competition in this market, where consumers can choose to support the publisher that has the most value. The one that treats them fairly. The one that is not a propaganda tool for globalists.
This is Obozo's legacy. Big tech has grown into a cartel and seized control over the internet during 8 years of Obozo, partly because of his support, partly because of the financial crisis which smashed the traditional industries and gave them a unique opportunity.
Big tech is stepping up for each measure Trump crushes the main stream outlets. President Trump commands the narrative with an open line of communication. This has to piss them of that they have become the go around and voice for everything they hate. Desperately trying to stop the pre- election Trump train.
For the lazy:
I'd upvote, but I'm too lazy...
Now it’s our job to class action lawsuit these Silicon Valley fucks.
Sounds legit and reasonable to me. Wonder how the Brian Stelters are going to twist this into Drumpf being Literally Hitler.
The key verb is "to clarify"...watch this one spin out of control.
Do you know what the timeline is on the clarification? Is it another 30 days from filing the request with the FCC?
I for one don't know. It's really a slam dunk q/a: the regulations already say that, he's just asking them to officially confirm that--which is all calling them out--though a lot of commissions require that a complaint be filed--they don't look for violations. It would be great if this was applied retroactively, as it should be, so Twit and YT could be sued into extinction.