Senate Republicans Vote To Subpoena Facebook and Twitter CEOs About Alleged Censorship (cnbc.com) 343
Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to authorize subpoenas for Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to testify about their handling of a recent unverified New York Post article about former Vice President Joe Biden's son. From a report: Twelve Republicans on the committee voted to authorize the subpoenas and ten Democrats sat out the markup in a protest of the session's earlier vote on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Zuckerberg and Dorsey are already set to testify before the Senate Commerce Committee next week alongside Google CEO Sundar Pichai about alleged bias and privacy matters. The Judiciary Committee voted to compel the Facebook and Twitter CEOs to testify about their "suppression and/or censorship" of two recent New York Post articles involving unverified allegations about emails supposedly taken from a computer belonging to the Democratic presidential nominee's son, Hunter Biden. The initial story alleged the younger Biden attempted to introduce a top executive at a Ukraine company he worked for to his father while he was serving as VP. The Democratic nominee has called the story a "smear." Facebook and Twitter took very different approaches to moderating the article, which contained unredacted email addresses in documents included in the story.
Good (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm an old free-speech loving, individualist-type democrat. That means today by dem standards I'm a right-wing nutbag
No, what you are is a Dixiecrat, or a liar.
The people who moderated you insightful are the dumbest fuckers alive on this spinning shitrock.
Let's put this into a fair analogue:
You sent in an advertisement to a newspaper, along with a picture.
Some guy at the newspaper said "na, that's fucking kiddy porn, man." and denied your request.
This was not an infringement on your free speech, because that newspaper has a right to free speech too- as well as a right to free agency which means they get to decide wh
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is nothing that prevents policing of content for either of those.
If they are ruled a Common Carrier, then we can talk. Otherwise, you're just trying to invent a set of rules that does not exist, never have existed, and for which I can't imagine why they would fucking exist, except to please you.
Re: (Score:2)
So we all agree. Social media is not entitled to safe harbor protections.
Re: (Score:3)
What I'm objecting to is the false dichotomy you're trying to construct that says if someone is eligibility for CDA230 protection, they can't be a publisher.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
That's how we know that I'm smarter than you; because you have the logic ability of a fucking toddler. That's also why it's no surprise that you're so partisan, while discussing the technical details of a completely fucking non-partisan topic.
Do me a favor and shoot yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I never once weighed in on that.
I merely tried to correct the dumbfuck assertion going around that it's somehow against the law.
The Republicans in congress currently agree with you, which is why they're trying to change the law. If the asserted condition were true (that somehow by some statute that no one can manage to cite, Twitter is prevented from both enjoying CDA230 protections, *and* editorially decide what content they host) then those same Republicans would have merely
Re: (Score:3)
Yes and no. Yes in that 230 immunity is not tested by case law to determine what is and what is not permissible. No in that:
No, this is nonsense.
It's very well held up in case law.
For your continued self-education. [wikipedia.org]
Furthermore- the cases that have been decided are in no way surprising, because CDA230 is actually *quite* clear... amazingly so.
1. Things like RICO make it illegal for private entities to gang up on other private entities.
No... no they do not.
The crimes that RICO addresses, as stated in the USC are:
Any violation of state statutes against gambling, murder, kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, bribery, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in the C
Re: (Score:3)
Call me an old fogey, but I still believe in the supremacy of the legislature in setting policy, not the executive or the courts. So no, I dont think the FCC can invent rules that don't exist, but the Senate judiciary committee literally exists to invent rules.
We agree 100% here, even if we disagree entirely on whether or not it's OK for the Government to force a neutral political platform for private parties.
No, you're an Anonymous Coward (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't a free speech issue. 8chan proved you've got plenty of free speech.
As others have pointed out, if the KKK wanted to put a sign on my lawn I'd tell them to piss off, it's my property. This is the GOP trying to force FB & Twitter to put a sign on their lawn; e.g. to host content they oppose.
Moreoever you're not going to get the free speech paradise you're talking about. The GOP will r
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
FB and Twitter are monopoly communications platforms. They can't have it both ways.
Either they want protection from liability for the content on their platform and act as a carrier or they want the right to censor content.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No, you're an Anonymous Coward (Score:5, Insightful)
If one campaign is removed/blocked/hindered in any way, do you think there could be a case for material support for the one which isn't?
Yes. Don't know if it would win, but material support has been construed from far less obvious things.
However- that would have no impact on Twitter what-so-ever.
What could potentially happen, is the FEC could consider the Biden campaign on the hook for declaring that support in their filing- but more likely, it would be handled like a SuperPAC- as long as their is no coordination, they're basically free to do what they will.
With regards to the fact-checking, do you think there may be a case for 'editorialization' when Twitter et al put a notice or markup the post?
I think it *is* editorialization, but I'm not aware of there being anything wrong with that.
Do you think there's a case against Twitter or FB with regards to 230 in situations (if any, this is hypothetical) where action is taken against a user for posting an idea but another isn't for posting a similar idea?
No, because CDA230 in no way tries to impose a neutral platform requirement upon the companies. That's the point of all this.
I'm not denying censorship, I'm flat-out claiming that those who think that it's somehow illegal don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
What comes to mind here is a point I remember when looking into the 'Biden laptop' situation; from what I understand, Twitter had stated the case for banning some related content or links, or blocking accounts sharing the info, was due to the information having been hacked thus not allowed, though in cases of leaks or other hacks, this type of action wasn't taken
OK- let's evaluate this from the worst case (which I don't believe, for a second)
Let's say twitter is brazenly partisan.
Let's say they straight up blocked that article because they didn't like it, and there's really difference between the NYPost article and anything else you're using as an example- i.e., you're not just engaging in some crack-headed moral relativism.
They haven't broken a law in doing that.
They haven't surrendered the CDA230 protections in doing that.
Is it wrong? Yes. Hands down, no question. But the recourse for that is to stop using them.
Twitter is *not* a common carrier, they're not bound to serve the needs of the public, and you have no right to their service, nor do they offer you any warranty as to the freedom of speech on their service.
Personally, I don't know that what you say is factual regarding uneven application of their "Hacked Materials" policy (whatever that is).
And I suspect that you are mistaken, and that they probably did apply it relatively evenly.
Most of what Republicans are currently labeling "censorship of the right" is tabloid articles being blocked from circulation. It's hard to have a "we're going to block your horse shit NYPost tabloid articles" policy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right now the big tech companies are on the side of Democrats. That sounds good when you're a Democrat and support the Democrat platform. But what happens when that's no longer true? A tech company is at its core a large, monopolistic, capitalist enterprise that can benefit greatly from the oppression of workers and control of consumers, and they're not above trying to control the laws to their own benefit.
So what happens when 90% of the political discourse occurs through these platforms and they can contro
Re: (Score:3)
While those companies may be on the side of Democrats, it's only because they can't fucking stomach the GOP right now.
Democrats actively want to split those fuckers apart. And good.
That however, is entirely unrelated to the fact that trying to force a company to host your views is fucking ridiculous, no matter what your view is.
Re: (Score:3)
Or maybe your opinion of whether Facebook has a left or right bias is based on where your views lie. If you are left of Facebook then they are right leaning else they are left. I don't even know how to form an opinion that is outside my frame of reference, and I assume that is the same for others (taken my frame of reference).
Just because Mark is rich does not mean he is right, or even that someone agrees with on aspect of someone's opinion, means you agree with other aspects. Facebook's leanings are probab
Re: (Score:3)
"news story". More like a plant from the alleged administration trying to slime Biden.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, either way it is news and it should be what everyone is talking about. In the philosophical charity world of the press aren't corrupt they are just capitalist and chasing sensationalism it is difficult to explain not blasting this or attacks on this all over mainstream media because it would certainly be driving ratings.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lol, "maybe it is, maybe it isn't". When even the editors of the New York Post don't want to attach their name to an article, how is there any doubt?
The Post is mostly tabloid crap, but even that the editors put their name on. When a story doesn't measure up to their limited standards, how do you give it any credibility at all?
And have you actually looked at the story? It's hilariously improbable, and whoever came up with it was definitely drunk when they did it.
Re: (Score:3)
I looked at the emails, they include addresses, headers and look appropriate to the typical English speech patterns of eastern speakers where appropriate. They include natural language and typos. One of the other people on some of the emails has come forward publicly confirming that content is valid.
And then there is the smell test. Hunter Biden lacks any sort of actual qualification or accomplishment in his own right that would qualify him to sit on any board, let alone this foreign oil and gas company boa
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Incompetent people are put on boards all the time, especially people with recognizable names. There are no lists of job qualifications to be on a board of directors. Burisma wanted Biden on the board because he *might* bring some influence; however this backfired because the Obama-Biden administration continued to be harsh on Ukraine corruption. So Hunter got some money, Burisma got nothing.
Hunter was never appointed to any position in the Obama administration, paid or unpaid. Meanwhile the Trump special children are all actively involved in the administration, despite having business ties in many countries including China, and his son in law acted as a diplomatic envoy. If we want to talk about inappropriateness of the activity of politicians' children, then there's a LOT more dirt on the Trump side by far.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you say with his father's blessings? Grown adults don't normally need their father's permissions to get a job. And if Biden did give his blessing it was not necessarily corruption, what is the crime?
We do know that Biden got the corrupt prosecutor fired. Not because the corrupt prosecutor was investigating Burisma, but because the corrupt prosecutor wasn't investigating anyone. Maybe it wasn't a smart move for Hunter to get on the board, but it's not illegal. The Justice Department, under the leadership of a Trump crony, has not charged the Bidens with anything and found no wrong doing. Was it a stupid thing to get Hunter on the board? Yes. Was it illegal? No evidence of any illegality.
We're not going into a compain with a saint running against a devil. The election is about two very deeply flawed people. Both Biden AND Trump.
Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)
Tabloids aren't news though. They are, at best, entertainment. If I want to know how Bat Boy and the Loch Ness Monster are getting along since they've added Bigfoot to their relationship and formed a polyamorous thruple, or where the Bug got the Edgar suit it's wearing while searching for the galaxy on Orion's belt; I will go to the tabloids. For real news? Nope. Not a chance.
Re: (Score:3)
So you are saying outright lies and misinformation should be rated the same as factual and truthful information?
Because with social media, there is little in place to manage that.
The News Paper has editors who will decide what story to show and not. If there is content shown to be false or inaccurate they wouldn't show it (call it censoring if you like) in order to keep their reputation.
A lot of this "LiBeRaL Media" is less of an agenda being pushed, just a failure to push the Conservative Agenda the way t
Don't think it's "unverified" now, however (Score:2, Informative)
A recipient released a statement yesterday confirming the details in at least one email. When a principal goes on the record like that, it moves up a step in trust.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
*As reported by Fox News and no other source.
Re: (Score:2)
*As reported by Fox News and no other source.
Does it make it automatically wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
It gives being wrong a much higher probability than if it were reported in many news outlets.
Re: (Score:2)
Does that make it not news?
Re: (Score:2)
Does it make it automatically wrong?
No, it makes it almost certainly wrong, and certainly misleading at best, based on prior performance.
Re: (Score:2)
So who would you rather report it? CNN? Didn't they lose a lot money for defaming that kid and then again for breaking the terms of the settlement? I don't know how anyone can seriously trust any major news source more than another. They are all ethically bankrupt and pushing agendas. They all lie and they all lie as often as the next.
Re: (Score:2)
So who would you rather report it? CNN?
Multiple sources. Duh, btw.
Re: (Score:2)
I trust Al Jazeera more than Fox. You can't go wrong with the AP and the BBC.
Re: (Score:2)
That is one bias but right or wrong it is major major news... why has the back and forth not been blasting all over every media source? It would certainly draw huge ratings so you can't say that explains the failure to report.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
However, what 99% of people who use Fox News for information are actually looking at are Op Eds, and talk show hosts.
If that was the source, then yes, that comes very close to making it automatically wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
It's objectively a red flag. Incidentally there's no harm in being skeptical about it even if you're the sort that hopehopehopehopebeoyondallhope this sinks Biden's ship, the worst that happens is you challenge the accuser to provide clearer evidence.
This is an opportunity to lead by example, don't blow it in the usual ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but given that it WAS reported by a major news source those challenges should have been public, the back and forth very public, it is all news and all these heated debates drive ratings.
Re:Don't think it's "unverified" now, however (Score:5, Informative)
My name is Tony Bobulinski. The facts set forth below are true and accurate; they are not any form of domestic or foreign disinformation. Any suggestion to the contrary is false and offensive. I am the recipient of the email published seven days ago by the New York Post which showed a copy to Hunter Biden and Rob Walker. That email is genuine.
This afternoon I received a request from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs and the Senate Committee on Finance requesting all documents relating to my business affairs with the Biden family as well as various foreign entities and individuals. I have extensive relevant records and communications and I intend to produce those items to both Committees in the immediate future.
I am the grandson of a 37 year Army Intelligence officer, the son of a 20+ year career Naval Officer and the brother of a 28 year career Naval Flight Officer. I myself served our country for 4 years and left the Navy as LT Bobulinski. I held a high level security clearance and was an instructor and then CTO for Naval Nuclear Power Training Command. I take great pride in the time my family and I served this country. I am also not a political person. What few campaign contributions I have made in my life were to Democrats.
If the media and Big Tech companies had done their jobs over the past several weeks I would be irrelevant in this story. Given my long standing service and devotion to this great country, I could no longer allow my family’s name to be associated or tied to Russian disinformation or implied lies and false narratives dominating the media right now.
After leaving the military I became an institutional investor investing extensively around the world and on every continent. I have traveled to over 50 countries. I believe, hands down, we live in the greatest country in the world.
What I am outlining is fact. I know it is fact because I lived it. I am the CEO of Sinohawk Holdings which was a partnership between the Chinese operating through CEFC/Chairman Ye and the Biden family. I was brought into the company to be the CEO by James Gilliar and Hunter Biden. The reference to “the Big Guy” in the much publicized May 13, 2017 email is in fact a reference to Joe Biden. The other “JB” referenced in that email is Jim Biden, Joe’s brother.
Hunter Biden called his dad ‘the Big Guy’ or ‘my Chairman,’ and frequently referenced asking him for his sign-off or advice on various potential deals that we were discussing. I’ve seen Vice President Biden saying he never talked to Hunter about his business. I’ve seen firsthand that that’s not true, because it wasn’t just Hunter’s business, they said they were putting the Biden family name and its legacy on the line.
I realized the Chinese were not really focused on a healthy financial ROI. They were looking at this as a political or influence investment. Once I realized that Hunter wanted to use the company as his personal piggy bank by just taking money out of it as soon as it came from the Chinese, I took steps to prevent that from happening.
The Johnson Report connected some dots in a way that shocked me — it made me realize the Bidens had gone behind my back and gotten paid millions of dollars by the Chinese, even though they told me they hadn’t and wouldn’t do that to their partners.
I would ask the Biden family to address the American people and outline the facts so I can go back to being irrelevant — and so I am not put in a position to have to answer those questions for them.
I don’t have a political ax to grind; I just saw behind the Biden curtain and I grew concerned with what I saw. The Biden family aggressively leveraged the Biden family name to make millions of dollars from foreign entities even though some were from communist controlled China.
God bless America. .
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps Mr. Bobulinski would be willing to let a legitimate investigative journalism outfit vet his claims.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps Mr. Bobulinski would be willing to let a legitimate investigative journalism outfit vet his claims.
There are emails. There are people on emails confirming they are legitimate via a public statement. There is National Security Director stating on record that they have no evidence to suggest this is fabricated. There is FBI investigation into money laundering.
A much better question is: Why is the rest of media refusing to cover this damaging story despite substantial evidence and corroboration?
Re: (Score:2)
Answer: Because the "evidence" as presented doesn't pass journalistic muster.
Re: (Score:3)
Answer: Because the "evidence" as presented doesn't pass journalistic muster.
Why is this "journalistic muster" not applied to widely reported story from The Atlantic about Trump allegedly calling troops "losers"? How are anonymous sources are not suspect there, despite many officials within Trump inner circle rebutting this story? What about NYT story about Trump's taxes? How is this story, if true, could be anything but a result of illegal access to private information? Why is standards of proof and sourcing are only selectively applied in a politically motivated way?
Re: (Score:3)
Why is this "journalistic muster" not applied to widely reported story from The Atlantic about Trump allegedly calling troops "losers"?
Multiple sources reported it.
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow your unwillingness to spend a short time at a search engine about a topic you're strongly opinionated on is a failing on my part. k.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is for everyone but the origin news source.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, when the whole wayfair child sex trafficking thing was floating around "wayfair says there is nothing to see here, so this is false and we must move along" passed jounalistic muster not as a mere story but an actual fact check result.
True or False this is news, the controversy over whether or not it is true is news. Nobody waited for a Michael Jackson conviction before reporting the accusation. Why is Joe Biden and his son Hunter, who lacks any sort of special accomplishment or qualification of h
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone can write emails after the fact. The alleged Nat. Sec. Director is another of the alleged president's eunuchs. The FBI hasn't said squat confirming this.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not what he said at all. He said “there is no intelligence that supports” the idea that the purported Hunter Biden laptop and the emails on it “are part of a Russian disinformation campaign.”. Nothing about them being real or fake.
Re:Don't think it's "unverified" now, however (Score:5, Insightful)
And you don't know John Ratcliffe's real title, "Director of National Intelligence". You must not know that he is one of the most politically biased DNIs in the history of the position, a known Trump stooge who gained national attention with his sycophancy during Trump's impeachment in the house.
You obfuscate the FBI's role, because they specifically are *not* commenting, and say they have "nothing to add", because gee, maybe intelligence operations aren't primarily meant to be political tools.
I think Hunter is a shady character, and I would not be entirely surprised to find that Biden Sr. talked about certain business dealings with his son. To the extent that Joe did not influence US policy for his or his son's benefit, then his participation in his son's dealings would be merely unethical - and clearly, the fact that the possibility of this story being true, however flimsy, bullshit, smells-like-disinformation it is, points to the fact that when you hold positions of high political office, you don't do business.
That said, I think it is *amazing* how GOP/conservative humans think that this is the scandal of the century - because even *if* it were all true, it would not justify Trump's high crimes regarding Ukraine. Biden's alleged, not proven, full-of-holes crimes would still pale in comparison to the crimes of the sitting president which I bet you support.
Re:Don't think it's "unverified" now, however (Score:5, Insightful)
If this is some kind of problem then Trump's Chinese bank account is even worse.
That's the problem with "his emails", Trump can't hope to compete with Biden on corruption because whatever Biden did we know Trump has done far worse just while he's been in office. Appointing your children to high level government jobs and then caving out exemptions to protect their businesses from the trade is far worse than anything Biden is accused of.
Well, the other problem is that if you lie constantly for 4 years people tend not to take your attacks on the other guy very seriously. He will try it on again this evening at the debate but is anyone going to care when he standards there ranting about "his emails"?
Re: (Score:3)
In what world is "having a bank account in a country that requires anyone doing business there to have one" is at the same level of corruption as "personal emails admitting to corruption"?
Also, kindly remind me, those children that Trump appointed to the top jobs. Are they doing them well, meaning they are good at those jobs on merits and not corrupt, or are they doing it for money like Biden Jr admits to in his emails?
Oh wait, historic peace deals in Middle East that best career diplomats said were impossi
Re:Don't think it's "unverified" now, however (Score:4, Insightful)
The key difference is that they are idiots and Trump did give them jobs, but Biden didn't actually take bribes.
Re: (Score:3)
Mere nepotism IS corruption.
The prosecutor who got fired was corrupt, the prosecutor was not rooting out corruption but enabling the corruption and refusing to investigate it. Biden should brag about this because Biden did help to remove that corruption. After being fired the prosecutor did claim he was investigating Burisma but it seems more like a last ditch complaint than that it actually was happening. Remember, Putin actively dislikes the new less corrupt Ukraine whereas Trump loves Putin, so it see
We are all an embarrassment to history yet 2 write (Score:2, Troll)
We are in a disgusting period for more than just the usual suspects.
Currently, Congress is threatening section 230, or outright breakup, if these tech giants don't censor harrassment. And the first target out of their mouths? The harrassing, wrong, or dangerous tweets of our political opponents.
This is a grotesque violation of the First Amendment. Dear readers might facetiously claim the issues are separated from the noble dutiez of section 230 changes or breakups, but I guarantee you the politicians don
Re: (Score:2)
I am not defending Republican actions, but it bothers me this censorious downmod this when it's on topic and exactly what's going on in this nation.
To quote someone, "How dare you!"
Why are you in favor of threatening to hurt companies if they don't censor political opponents? Isn't that the outrage the OP is trying to stir up against the Republicans?
How many times? (Score:3)
How many times are we going to hear about finger wagging theater acts by the government against this giant social networking contraptions. At this point it seems a near monthly occurrence, yet nothing is actually changed.
Government: BAD SOCIAL NETWORKS! BAD!
Zuck & company: "We do more good than harm."
Government gives stern look.
End scene.
Government to Zuck and company: Anybody up for cocktails?
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats: We will hurt you if you don't censor the way we want.
Republicans: We will hurt you if you do.
None of this should be happening in America, with its First Amendment.
How in god's name is this happening?!?!?
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans: We will hurt you if you do.
Dorsey and Zuckerburg: WTF dude? We got your 3rd-rate reality TV clown elected president! I thought we were cool!
Subpoena Enforcement (Score:3)
If only there were some way to enforce congressional subpoenas, like a 'real' subpoena before a court. We've had far too many congressional subpoenas simply ignored and left unenforced; I would not be surprised if we start seeing businesses ignore them as well.
The party of private property rights? (Score:3)
If the answer from either of them is anything other than "Our platform is not a public utility and we can regulate content posted on our property however the hell we want. Now kindly go piss up a rope." I'll be disappointed sorely disappointed.
Re: (Score:2)
That is their right but it needs to negate their protections from being sued related to the content on their service. Now they want to moderate to appease the cancel culture crowd but want to keep their protections it's one or the other.
Re: (Score:3)
If you think social media is being heavy-handed now without the threat of legal liability for the content posted on their platform, you're REALLY not going to like what happens if they lose that protection. Even the Trump administration seems to know that would blow up in their faces.
Blocking vs not (Score:2)
It is interesting that these social media outlets will say they're "just a carrier" when arguing about whether they should pay news services for content posted on their network, but have no issue with acting as a publisher in blocking or limiting access to certain news content.
Re:Blocking vs not (Score:5, Informative)
Nobody blocked or limited anyone's access to the Post article.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Likewise, China does not block anyone from accessing pictures of Tiananmen Square. All they do is prevent people from sharing the data on their infrastructure, as is their prerogative.
And what's up with road "blocks" - the road is still there, you can just drive around.
Sheesh, even the dictionary [dictionary.com] gets it wrong.
Re:Blocking vs not (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
...but have no issue with acting as a publisher in blocking or limiting access to certain news content.
"No issue" being "someone got killed and Twitter got part of the blame for not doing something about it".
It is interesting how strange and insane the world seems when important details are omitted.
Re: (Score:2)
While they're at it... (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps the Senators can ask why they haven't publicized Trump's secret Chinese bank account.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/trump-taxes-china-secret-bank-account-business-b1199033.html [independent.co.uk]
Oh...that's right...it shows their Dear Leader in a bad light, so it should be kept hidden.
I forgot they put party loyalty above the law.
That free market at work again (Score:2)
Damn that free market and private companies choosing what they can publish!
Facebook censoring Babylon Bee (Score:2)
Facebook just demonitized the Babylon Bee (right-leaning satire site) over this "news" article. [babylonbee.com]
WASHINGTON, D.C.—After two days of Amy Coney Barrett gracefully and stoically answering questions with perfect recall and no notes, suspicions grew on Capitol Hill that she might be a practitioner of the dark arts.
"Oh, she's a witch alright, just look at her!" said Senator Hirono. "Just look at the way she's dressed and how she's so much prettier and smarter than us! She's in league with Beelzebub himself, I just know it! We must burn her!"
Senator Hirono then pulled a live duck out of a massive burlap sack next to her and announced: "In addition to being a Senator, I am also quite wise in the ways of science. Everyone knows witches burn because they are made of wood. I think I read that somewhere. Wood floats, and so do ducks-- so logically, if Amy Coney Barrett weighs as much as this duck I found in the reflection pool outside, she is a witch and must be burned."
Facebook claims this article "incites violence."
There's been numerous leaks indicating FB (Score:2)
This is mostly due to the fact that the right wing users are easier to monetize (they're more prone to doom scrolling). 8 or 9 of the top political tweets are from right wing pundits (mostly Ben Shapiro's outfit).
Twitter has pretty obviously been taking down violence and disinformation and leaving e
Prerogative (Score:2)
I'm not sure why people feel like they have a God given right to post something on any specific social media site. It's a private website, and they can impose rules on what is allowed to post. If they wanted a "No Republicans allowed" policy, they can do that too.
Your free speech is not violated by such policies in any way shape or form. You are free to start your own website publishing whatever views your heart desires. Just because someone else is unwilling to amplify those views doesn't mean they are dis
Re: (Score:3)
The law recognizes that social media is something different from a content publisher, but it's also something different from a mere conduit.
The exemption for social media companies like Facebook recognizes the practical impossibility of operating a website that allows public content being posted if one is to be held accountable for all the content. The issue is that it would be quite impossible for Facebook (or any website allowing user posted content) to have 100% success in completely policing their site
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook, Twitter, etc are NOT "private websites" in the normal sense of that term. They lobbied for, and got, special legal protection that placed them into a category like phone companies where they are not liable for the content that flows through their sites, just as phone companies are not liable for the content that flows through their systems. It's based on the idea that they are just a neutral conduit for communication.
That's utter and complete bullshit.
CDA Section 230 was signed into law in 1996, Facebook was created in 2004 and Twitter in 2006. Please tell me how they where able to lobby for Section 230 almost 10 years before they where formed?
Secondly, NOWHERE does it say that they have to be neutral.
You are practicing historical negationism, either willingly or through sheer stupidity. Perhaps go and read up on the history of CDA Section 230 will teach you some facts.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you need to read up on what Ron Wyden and Chris Cox intended with the law and how it came about.
That you feel the need to lie to make your argument tells me that you know you don't really have an argument. I use the word lie for a reason, because the alternative is that you are stupid as fuck and didn't look things up until I pointed out the absurdity in your argument. You lied since it makes your argument more compelling for those who emotionally agree with your position, which is that Facebook and
Wait (Score:2)
Someone please remind me ... (Score:3)
Alleged ? (Score:2)
What is alleged about it?
It is a fact plain and simple.
“Conservative” Hypocrisy at its finest (Score:2)
FB operates on the internet and, as such, fall outside the purview of the FCC regarding broadcast responsibility. A reasonable thing
unimaginative (Score:3)
Their investigations into Trump's campaign shenanigans? They kept that completely secret until after Trump was elected. So much for not meddling in politics. The FBI was basically working to help get the republican candidate elected.
I occasionally watch Fox. It's been Hunter Biden this Hunter Biden that. I was telling several of my liberal friends that there would definitely be a public announcement about an investigation into Hunter Biden about 1-2 weeks before the election. And 2 weeks after it will quietly fade away. They thought I was being nuts. Lo and behold, here we are.
Oh, but they're all just doing their patriotic duty to investigate every angle (eyeroll). Meanwhile, the same people can't even bring themselves to give Trump a tiny slap on the wrist because they're all too spineless to stand up to the party leader on ANYTHING.
Fuck em (Score:4)
If Republicans cheer the ongoing corruption by the con artist, if they run interference for all the subpoenas Democrats have submitted for information which the administration has refused to abide by, including, as the law clearly states, turning over the faked tax returns of the con artist, the CEOs should flip them the middle finger and do nothing.
It's their companies, they can do what they want. Or do Republicans really want the story about Lindsey Graham's out of wedlock child with that Puerto Rican woman to be run?
Facts (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook and Twitter are exercising exactly the same right Fox News exercises when they decide what to publish: the right of private property. Section 230 protections are completely orthogonal to that right. It exists whether Section 230 protections exist or not.
The Trump Supreme Court is not going to meddle with private property rights, not for momentary and temporary political gain.
These disingenuous fuckheads know it and are in fact absolutely depending on it. They intend to exploit the fuck out of it for the next 40 years as corporations run roughshod over the human rights of American citizens and the Supreme Court stands idly by and lets it happen. That will eventually include Facebook and Twitter, not just the usual suspects, because, "It's just business. We have to to remain competitive."
This is transparent political grandstanding, nothing more, and we all know it, including the astroturfers infesting Slashdot lately.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you think Twitter / FaceBook / Generic_Private_Company owes you a dang thing?
They do not, and we do not owe them special protections from being held responsible for the content they choose to host by exercising their editorial control over their platforms.
Protections (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Ratcliffe, in an interview with Fox Business, did not elaborate on the basis of his conclusion, though he acknowledged knowing "little" about the material published by the New York Post."
So we only have to worry about bobolinski.
Re:Hunter's emails idependently verified (Score:5, Insightful)
It boggles the mind the way you people cling desperately to the sometimes completely ludicrous (pizzagate, anyone ?) and tiniest shred of evidence the candidate for the other side is a rotten piece of trash, while systematically and relentlessly rejecting mountains of evidence and testimony spanning almost five decades that the candidate for your side is an even worse piece of shit and a disgusting sexual predator and child-molesting sack of pus.
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone, and I still wouldn't lose any voters."
This tells you all you need to know about Trump supporters: Brainwashed, blind, mindless, absolute, tribal fanatics. Trump himself knows this, and admits it publicly and unapologeticaly.
Re: (Score:2)
"Trump himself knows this, and admits it publicly and unapologeticaly." This is what endears his supporters to him. It shows to them that he cares about them.
Re: (Score:2)
Verified by Fox News? What alternate universe is this considered noteworthy?
Re: (Score:2)
What they did do is show that there is at least one person claiming the have direct evidence that Joe Biden lied about whether or not he discusses business with his Son.
So while you do at least have some of a bone to pick, I suspect most of your reaction is still based on pure partisanship.
Re: (Score:3)
This is not limited to discussions. There is also other evidence present in these emails - that Joe Biden is a direct shareholder in a Chinese shell company that was used by Chinese government to pay Bidens.
Your links did not show that, sorry.
Furthermore, the NYPost expose more or less confirms Biden's story on Burisma; minus again- the lie about whether or not it was discussed.
It appears that Joe Biden used his influence to take down a corrupt prosecutor. Whether or not that benefited his son, his son's employer, isn't really relevant, because not only was it US policy to get rid of that corrupt fucker, but the rest of the western world's as well.
The actual NYPost article about the China connection is a
Re: (Score:2)
Biden's corruption is real
So, whaddya gonna vote for? Biden's corruption? Or Trump's corruption? Since everybody is going to vote for corruption, it really isn't an issue, is it? The last remaining question then becomes, Who looks better in a Speedo?
To me, the last remaining question is "Who managed to not start any wars" and "Who has the best chance to rein-in China" and "Who is the best at stopping riots". Your rationale might be different and you might reach different conclusions, but as you pointed out you have to have a clear view that Biden's corruption is real.
At the very least, now that Biden's being on the take from Chinese is out, they won't be able to blackmail him.
Re:Hunter's emails idependently verified (Score:5, Informative)
In what alternative reality can someone look at the past four years of the Trump administration, then look at Biden's history, and conclude that both are virtually identical? Is it intellectual laziness or just overripe cynicism?
I'm trying to understand this, but so far nobody I've interacted with who genuinely supports Trump is willing to explain to me why they believe Trump has made anything better.
Re: Hunter's emails idependently verified (Score:3)