Trump

[1972Shocker]

Think there isn't systemic bias in media, especially social media? Twitter trends for me this week include Vote Blue, IamLBGQT, ElizabethWarren & TrumpLies among many others.

Also, I went looking for Lt. Col Jim Hickman. I search Twitter. I saw some references to him. I clicked on People...no results. His @ is @Jim_Hickman13 I searched Jim Hickman. If you don't think the right is silenced (partially) in the media, you're insane.

I've definitely noticed that bias with the Google search results I generally get.

[Kung Wu]

Which base is the impeachment effort gen'ing up more, the Democrats or the Republicans?

[WuDrWu]

Which base is the impeachment effort gen'ing up more, the Democrats or the Republicans?

Who really knows, but given "polling" errors the last few years, I'd guess it's a large % of the GOP base, and a much smaller % of the hard left base. BUT, the election is a year away.

Tons can change between now and then, and it's possible those changes have nothing to do with impeachment.

[Kung Wu]

Who really knows, but given "polling" errors the last few years, I'd guess it's a large % of the GOP base, and a much smaller % of the hard left base. BUT, the election is a year away.

Tons can change between now and then, and it's possible those changes have nothing to do with impeachment.

True. And it's difficult to say how large the pseudo-conservative Never-Trump base is.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

Think there isn't systemic bias in media, especially social media? Twitter trends for me this week include Vote Blue, IamLBGQT, ElizabethWarren & TrumpLies among many others.

Also, I went looking for Lt. Col Jim Hickman. I search Twitter. I saw some references to him. I clicked on People...no results. His @ is @Jim_Hickman13 I searched Jim Hickman. If you don't think the right is silenced (partially) in the media, you're insane.

Just throwing this out there as something to think about and nothing more. Social Media is user driven hence the name "Social" The trends you see are based upon people you follow and the area that you live in. Im willing to bet dollars to donuts that you follow quite a few trolls who use those hashtags to disparage those are using it. No shame in that I have a couple myself. they're annoying as **** but when they're funny they're funny.


Regarding Jim Hickman - I've had to search for Wichita State pages before. if you search WSU softball the first hit you get is a video clip for Weber State. While I realize there is a huge difference between a Lt. Col and Wichita State Softball (IMO Lt. Col has some clout here) my main point is two unrelated things that are wildly popular with people and the same problems exist with both.

[jdshock]

I honestly don't understand the media bias argument. Let's assume there is a "systemic bias in media." That's entirely driven by the free market. Talk radio caters to conservatives. Fox News caters to conservatives. Internet journalism caters to liberals. Isn't the solution to just start up a conservative biased site? Which is how things like The Blaze and Red State pop up. And those websites are doing well.

I don't have Twitter, so I don't know how its search feature works. That said, I googled "Twitter Lt. Col Jim Hickman" and I got to a Tweet of his on the very first page of search results. And the first five results were articles that were reporting on Hickman's description of Vindman, and they certainly weren't reporting on it in a way that was disparaging to Hickman. I definitely think it's overblown to suggest there is any intentional silencing that's done. But assuming there is, it's because those are profit seeking companies that try to cater to their audience. So I don't understand what (especially conservative?) people think the governments role should be in trying to get those organizations to act more fairly.

[wufan]

I honestly don't understand the media bias argument. Let's assume there is a "systemic bias in media." That's entirely driven by the free market. Talk radio caters to conservatives. Fox News caters to conservatives. Internet journalism caters to liberals. Isn't the solution to just start up a conservative biased site? Which is how things like The Blaze and Red State pop up. And those websites are doing well.

That is the way it’s supposed to work. The bias that people are complaining about is that companies that host these sites are acting as publishers, in that they restrict some legal content, and that they use algorithms that enhances certain content. If they are biased, then they are selectively publishing their truth. Because these are platforms, they should not be censoring any content.

[wufan]

I definitely think it's overblown to suggest there is any intentional silencing that's done. But assuming there is, it's because those are profit seeking companies that try to cater to their audience. So I don't understand what (especially conservative?) people think the governments role should be in trying to get those organizations to act more fairly.

Ask Tulsi Gabbard what she thinks about Google, Twitter, and YouTube intentionally silencing her.

The gov should yank the platform status of the social media sites and the search engines and open them up to libel it they are going to censor content that is not illegal.

[jdshock]

The gov should yank the platform status of the social media sites and the search engines and open them up to libel it they are going to censor content that is not illegal.

What do you mean by "yank the platform status" of a website? Who gave them "platform status" to begin with, and what does "platform status" mean?

Should Breitbart moderators be allowed to delete my comments if I post a bunch of pro-Obama stuff? Should r/the_donald on reddit be allowed to delete my liberal propaganda? Should Kung Wu be allowed to delete my anti-Tekele Cotton posts on this forum? At what point in time do you have "platform status" and what does that even mean from a government perspective?

Moreover, what kind of evidence would you need presented for the government to "yank the platform status" of these websites? It sounds like you've already made up your mind that these websites are selectively publishing things, but every single one of the CEOs of these organizations have vehemently denied that is happening. What should the evidence look like in order for the government to come in and start yanking status?

[wufan]

What do you mean by "yank the platform status" of a website? Who gave them "platform status" to begin with, and what does "platform status" mean?

Should Breitbart moderators be allowed to delete my comments if I post a bunch of pro-Obama stuff? Should r/the_donald on reddit be allowed to delete my liberal propaganda? Should Kung Wu be allowed to delete my anti-Tekele Cotton posts on this forum? At what point in time do you have "platform status" and what does that even mean from a government perspective?

Moreover, what kind of evidence would you need presented for the government to "yank the platform status" of these websites? It sounds like you've already made up your mind that these websites are selectively publishing things, but every single one of the CEOs of these organizations have vehemently denied that is happening. What should the evidence look like in order for the government to come in and start yanking status?

For evidence, search Tulsi Gabbard google lawsuit, or Tulsi Gabbard shadow banned by YouTube in US. Let me know what you think.

Perhaps my language or perhaps my understanding is incorrect. Here’s my understanding: A platform is not responsible for the speech of the users. A platform provides open speech for any user and the speaker or libel for the speech, not the platform. A publisher makes decisions on what is viewed under their brand. Newspapers are publishers that are libel for what they send to the viewer and can therefore be held legally responsible.

The social media sites and search engines use algorithms to show or not show certain content. In my view, that makes them a publisher and they should be open to libel laws based on what they publish.

[jdshock]

For evidence, search Tulsi Gabbard google lawsuit, or Tulsi Gabbard shadow banned by YouTube in US. Let me know what you think.

Perhaps my language or perhaps my understanding is incorrect. Here’s my understanding: A platform is not responsible for the speech of the users. A platform provides open speech for any user and the speaker or libel for the speech, not the platform. A publisher makes decisions on what is viewed under their brand. Newspapers are publishers that are libel for what they send to the viewer and can therefore be held legally responsible.

The social media sites and search engines use algorithms to show or not show certain content. In my view, that makes them a publisher and they should be open to libel laws based on what they publish.

I think what you're referencing is Section 230, which says "interactive computer service" providers are considered "publishers." In light of that, what I think you are proposing is a deletion of this generally, correct?

The problem with that is that you would then have a totally impartial site (like shockernet) all of a sudden being subject to liability.

Or are you suggesting that only "impartial" sites would still get the Section 230 protection? In which case, I ask again, what evidence are you looking for? I am familiar with the Tulsi Gabbard lawsuit. But it's a lawsuit that will almost certainly be contested by Google because they think there is sufficient evidence on their side. What evidence would it take to find that a particular site wasn't impartial? Because, again, every single CEO is going to say they're impartial.

And are you saying this is a nationwide question that gets decided by the government right now? Like does the US Congress go through every single website and decide whether it is immune from being labeled a publisher? I absolutely do not trust a conservative congress to impartially make those decisions, just as you wouldn't trust a democratic congress to protect groups like r/the_donald on reddit. The alternative is that every single case adds the wrinkle that the judge or jury will decide whether the site qualifies for Section 230 immunity. In other words, when I sue shockernet for saying something inaccurate, Kung Wu is going to have to appear in order to offer testimony that it was moderated on an impartial basis. This creates a fact question and would be much more difficult to dispose of these matters at the pleading stage.

[wufan]

I think what you're referencing is Section 230, which says "interactive computer service" providers are considered "publishers." In light of that, what I think you are proposing is a deletion of this generally, correct?

The problem with that is that you would then have a totally impartial site (like shockernet) all of a sudden being subject to liability.

Or are you suggesting that only "impartial" sites would still get the Section 230 protection? In which case, I ask again, what evidence are you looking for? I am familiar with the Tulsi Gabbard lawsuit. But it's a lawsuit that will almost certainly be contested by Google because they think there is sufficient evidence on their side. What evidence would it take to find that a particular site wasn't impartial? Because, again, every single CEO is going to say they're impartial.

And are you saying this is a nationwide question that gets decided by the government right now? Like does the US Congress go through every single website and decide whether it is immune from being labeled a publisher? I absolutely do not trust a conservative congress to impartially make those decisions, just as you wouldn't trust a democratic congress to protect groups like r/the_donald on reddit. The alternative is that every single case adds the wrinkle that the judge or jury will decide whether the site qualifies for Section 230 immunity. In other words, when I sue shockernet for saying something inaccurate, Kung Wu is going to have to appear in order to offer testimony that it was moderated on an impartial basis. This creates a fact question and would be much more difficult to dispose of these matters at the pleading stage.

Nope. I’m not in favor of dismissing CDA 230. That’s not my argument at all. I’m not in favor of proving impartiality. That would be a frivolous waste of time. I think that CDA 230 needs to be modified. My solution is rather simple:

If you are a platform, then you should only remove speech that, in good faith, they believe to be illegal. You are then not libel for the content.

If you are a publisher, you can restrict whatever you like, but you are open to libel laws if you fail to restrict libel content.

That doesn’t require any of the knots you are tying to be undone. Just quit removing content.

Yes google is going to contest the lawsuit. Do you think what they did was any type of political censorship, or was it for the good of the people that you couldn’t get to her website when everyone was talking about her? Maybe it was good for business so that makes it okay? Was it the right thing to do?

[jdshock]

Nope. I’m not in favor of dismissing CDA 230. That’s not my argument at all. I’m not in favor of proving impartiality. That would be a frivolous waste of time. I think that CDA 230 needs to be modified. My solution is rather simple:

If you are a platform, then you should only remove speech that, in good faith, they believe to be illegal. You are then not libel for the content.

If you are a publisher, you can restrict whatever you like, but you are open to libel laws if you fail to restrict libel content.

That doesn’t require any of the knots you are tying to be undone. Just quit removing content.

That's literally what I said you're proposing. You're just saying it in a dismissive way and pretending like it creates no new hurdles.

I'm telling you that under your proposed law it will be a fact question in every single libel case relating to a website as to whether they were a "platform" or a "publisher." There's no such thing as a clear manifesto that says "alright, everything in category A is legal and everything in category B is illegal." Kung Wu is going to be very mad at you when I sue him for libel because Doc said I had bad body odor. KW is going to have to appear in court to offer testimony that he didn't remove non-illegal content. I'll pull up some evidence of Joerg or whoever who got banned, and then it's going to be a fact question for the jury as to whether they have immunity.

You don't just get to say "yep, no problems! makes sense to me!"

[wufan]

jdshock, you said, “The problem with that is that you would then have a totally impartial site (like shockernet) all of a sudden being subject to liability.”

That is NOT a reflection of my argument, which is why I dismissed it. Social sites SHOULD NOT be censoring content UNLESS it is illegal. That’s all. Under this law, Kungwu would be a platform and couldn’t ban someone unless they were harassing someone under the law. He doesn’t have to establish his impartiality, he only has to not ban people.

[wufan]

jdshock, How about google? It sure is a good thing they made it impossible for anyone to donate to her when she was at her greatest popularity! Am I right that this is a good law to protect them? It certainly isn’t evidence that google is censoring people. Am I right?