My account on Twitter was suspended twice in a row for the same restriction for a total of 24 hours simply for asking why our public officials in the Democrat party who are openly fomenting sedition were not arrested yet and put in front of a firing squad, not naming names at all, just asking why the law wasn’t being enforced for treason, and yet a person who read my comment claimed it was a personal attack and I am currently shadowbanned for free speech.
Therefore it is imperative that social media giants, such as Twitter and Facebook, etc. , MUST NOT have the arbitrary authority to censor one political ideology, while promoting a different political ideology – that is not the stuff of free expression for free people.
The Federal Communications Commission hasn’t begun deliberations on whether it will follow through on President Donald Trump’s executive order demanding the agency investigate websites like Facebook, Twitter, Google, and YouTube over bullshit claims of discrimination against conservatives—and punish insufficiently Trump-loving sites by stripping their Communications Decency Act Section 230 liability protections.
In fact, Section 230 (c)(1) establishes that websites and owners cannot be “treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. ” This broadly protects sites from being sued over the actions of its users, applying to everything from uploads to YouTube or the comments sections of editorial operations like the New York Times and Gizmodo. (There are exceptions to this, including copyright enforcement.
On another occasion I was suspended for 30 days calling for an end of the violence by Antifa On another occasion I was suspended for pointing out the abuse by the internet companies on censoring free speech.
The first and most basic common misperception in the comments is that companies deleting content inherently violates the First Amendment (i. e. , any time a website deletes a comment, it’s unconstitutional).
Section (c)(2) separately shields platforms from facing liability for their content filtering or moderation decisions when operating in “good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected. ” That makes the liability protections under this provision conditional on “good faith.
We’ve put these comments below, with occasional annotations to fact-check or add context, the most egregious parts highlighted by us in bold, and with personal information of non-public individuals removed. (The comments are publicly available via the Electronic Comment Filing System under the proceeding RM-11862, and there’s 15 more days for the public to reply to those comments already filed. ) If at any point FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai or his even more luridly pro-Trump colleague Brendan Carr mentions that the vast majority of the 1,064 comments support Trump’s order, remember that these are kinds of insights they’re talking about.
Internet platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and others have extended the scope of this phrase to encompass any speech they, in their wisdom, do not like.
Some conservatives believe sites like Facebook, Twitter, and Google are covering up evidence the drug really works to hurt Trump politically, including by suppressing conspiracy videos like Plandemic or “censoring” a pro-hydroxychloroquine video produced by “America’s Frontline Doctors,” a sham group including a Texas doctor who believes some diseases are caused by demon sperm.
When several of these quasi-private companies act in apparent concert to ban the Speech of a particular user over the Internet Public Utility they do so “under color of law” and in violation of the Freedom of Speech of both the speaker and those who seek to receive the communication.
Many of those informed enough to know the Section 230 passages targeted by the Trump executive order, (c)(1) and (c)(2), argued incorrectly that they expose websites to liability if the sites delete content they disagree with.
If the companies wish to be publisher so be it, but they should have their liability protection remove, the same site I mention above have had user falsely slander me on multiple occasion and took no action because my political beliefs are not inline with the moderation staff.
Article 1 – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; ore the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Facebook, Google, and Twitter, retort, “We’re just a medium,” when asked about liability for BLM riots, Antifa, Isis, and others, but they want to claim to be a private entity when faced with opinions they don’t like.
It is about time that the monopolistic censoring done by tech companies, especially Google, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and Amazon were reined in.
Anonymized account’s speech can be limited at the social media companies discretion to prevent unaccountable rampant hate speech and troll activity.
This malicious online lynch mob has only grown under the watchful and approving eye of Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, who also follows well known ‘doxers. ’ We either have free and protected speech or we do not.
It’s not clear from the comment who Vincent Foxx is, or if that’s even their real name, but Vincent James Foxx (mentioned above) has been described as a propagandist or mouthpiece for violent white supremacists, anti-Semites, and/or conspiracy theorists by the Anti-Defamation League, ProPublica, Angry White Men, and OC Weekly.
Those who air opinions online—as well as websites that delete comments—are actually exercising their free speech rights granted by the amendment.
Well, their mod staff aged out of gaming and into the “adult” demographic (although for them, I use that term loosely) and they now view it as their life’s mission to censor messages they don’t like on a dying video game websight. At some point, gamefaqs. gamespot. com was acquired by CBS although their original poor mod staff remains: people who spend hours removing messages but are completely unpaid and have mod tools primarily due to clique connections.
If media companies want editorial control over users’ content, then they must also accept responsibility for content.
If they want section 230 protection anyone with a verified identity has unfettered free speech sans illegal activity.
One of the most common misperceptions was that by deleting content or banning users, sites lose their Section 230 rights and become editorial “publishers,” making them as civilly liable for user-generated content as a newspaper that publishes slander.
The suppression of free speech by internet platforms is more subversive than the book burnings of Nazi Germany.
We read the FCC comments on Trump's mindless social media order so Ajit Pai doesn't have to https://t.co/kvtAdSBgAi— Gizmodo (@Gizmodo) September 3, 2020