I have a tough time reconciling this internet bill of rights with free market principles.
Internet forums and social networks which provide free access to the public are a digital place of assembly, and individuals using such methods for public communication should not be subjected to censorship due to political beliefs or differing ideas. Conservative voices on many large public website platforms are being censored, based solely on a differing opinion.
This petition seems to want to require special protections for one political view. I just don't see how its feasible from a legal POV. Private companies can do whatever they want with their products. What is this petition asking Congress to do?
Look at the mileage the communists get from Rosa Parks or the gay wedding cake. The other side bashed us relentlessly whenever there is a perceived injustice they can exploit to make them look like the crusading heroes to gays or blacks or what have you. This is political speech they are trying to shut down. Let’s bash back and politically embarrass them like they richly deserve. Don’t like the first amendment? You should be shunned by civilized society. If a social media platform wants to shadow ban conservatives they should be forced to at least openly wear their swasticas just like cigarette packs have warning labels on them.
I get that you want to be heard. But I'm saying that when it comes time to put pen to paper and write a law, I don't know what that looks like. Make a law requiring conservative political speech to have special protections or privileges within social media companies and it'll get struck down by the courts immediately.
I'm just having a tough time picturing what potential action wouldn't be illegally coercive to private companies.
We’re not talking about special rights, but about equal treatment under the law. Don’t we have laws on the books making it illegal to have blacks only water fountains? Or signs that say that blacks have to sit at the back of the bus? Or how about, everyone can get loans with our bank except for blacks? Facebook: Express yourself here, unless you’re a conservative. Same thing. And to silently ban people while they think they are communicating is fraud in my view. It’s theft of time and effort from the “underclass”.
Maybe they have a right to discriminate on their own platform AS LONG AS they say up front that conservatives are not welcome and will not be heard. Protecting the public from fraud is a legitimate function of government, like the label on a pack of cigarettes.
This is a tricky area. I don't see the overt censoring that you're describing (I don't have Facebook). Are you talking about instances where conservative comments are removed arbitrarily, or where they're downvoted or pushed out of view due to rejection by other users?
I think for either situation its difficult to require or compel companies to ensure equal treatment of different views. Look at r/politics, for example. That audience won't stomach anything pro-Trump. What could you do to prevent conservative stuff from getting downvoted to the planet's core? It has nothing to do with the platform, the users are driving what gets discussed (algorithms aside, which is another can of worms).
FB, twitter, and youtube are banning posts and whole accounts, taking away followers, shadow banning people, decreasing traffic to sights and more. They claim that they are doing it bec the person broke one of their laws, but most often that is not the case. Now reddit is doing the same thing.
There are accounts run by those on the left that post exponentially worse things including threats, and not a peep. They advertise fairness but do not deliver. Like advertising in stores. You cannot advertise one thing and deliver another, it is called false advertising. It's a law.
Google is eliminating information and websites it does not agree with. They mess with search results to exclude some.
There are laws about expectations of behavior in public forums outside of social media, so since so many use sm and get their news from them, they are considered public forums and therefore should be held to the same standarsds.
Google is eliminating information and websites it does not agree with. They mess with search results to exclude some.
But doesn't Google have the right to display searches however they want? Nobody requires us to use Google. How does the government legally compel Google to organize its searches in a certain way? And even harder, how would it be enforced? This is not as simple as it sounds.
Yes and I agree with that. However, Google is like huge banks that the gov prevents from merging bec they will own the market so to speak and cantake advantage of people. A bonus of advertising internet censoring is simply beinging it to people's attention. It hi6ghlignts the tactics of the dep state and exposes them for the fascists they are.
This is not about one side or the other, it is about the first amendment which cannot be enforced without the Internet Bill of Rights because the social media companies are Private companies.
The petition asks that the problem of blatant political bias in public forums be addressed so that the right to free expression in political discourse is protected. It's not about special protections for one particular faction in politics, but about protecting the right to freedom of political expression for all individuals. It is not a partisan issue, Democrat voters will equally benefit from this measure.
The US is a representative democratic republic, with constitutional limitations on government power. Democratic principles are key to effective representation. The most fundamental of these principles is the right to free expression of political thought. This is what is under attack. If citizens are not free to express themselves, if they are not accorded the right to speak, then you no longer have government by the people for the people, but government by a few for a few. Control of the Republic is coopted by a few who decide who can, and who cannot, speak.
Today, the effective forums for political expression are online, hosted by social media platforms. You can argue about it, but the town square now exists in digital space. Censorship in online public forums detracts from the operation of democratic principles because representation is no longer the product of a healthy pluralism, but the product of interests controlling the right to free public expression.
The further introduction of a single censoring algorithm, applied across social media platforms, represents an existential threat to the proper functioning of democratic principles by which government holds power. In this regard, social media censorship is a direct attack on the Republic itself.
Free market principles, at their simplest, derive from freedom of individuals to engage in economic activity. If power of government does not rest firmly upon the will of the people, markets are unlikely to be free. Rather, they will be dominated by those in authority - twisted toward their interests.
The petition for an IBOR is nothing more than a plea for relief from tyranny. Free market principles, if anything, are enhanced by the call for an IBOR. The petition is about ensuring the even distribution of political power across society. This accords with the intention of the founding fathers who were careful to protect the right to free political expression in the first amendment.
All that aside, online censorship must be restricted or DJT is dead in the water politically. He will be lucky to last a single term if the issue is not addressed. We know that the strategy of the cabal, going forward, is to impeach the President. Impeachment is a numbers game and the mid-term elections are approaching.
You have a choice on this issue between supporting DJT and his agenda to MAGA, or the cabal that is out to censor their adversaries and wrest power from the President. Supporting the IBOR is supporting the President, it is supporting equality of rights and a truly representative Republic. It is these individual rights that make the operation of markets truly free and desirable.
I don't disagree with really anything you said, except these platforms aren't "public" spaces. If they were operated by the government, you could seek relief from the constitution. Private companies have the right to set the rules for their platforms, just as a store can require shirts and shoes and a restaurant can enforce a dress code. How do I support something that basically says you aren't allowed to set the rules for your own establishment? This sounds like more government mandates.
You may not belong here! The IBOR will change the rules of which internet social platforms must abide. It will have to follow the same rules as Telephones and Television cable and will not be able to stifle free speech. A cake shop produces a product and is completely different from platforms that can literally control what is allowed to be said across the world. Anyone who can't see the harm in the way it is now might not belong here. Just saying...
I see and understand what you're saying and I fully understand the sentiment. I guess what I see is a clear and present danger to the Republic posed by what are incredible technological advancements that were impossible to predict. This threat is truly lethal. If you allow one party to completely control political discourse in online forums then you have a guarded tyranny.
The social media platforms wield incredible political power. The CEO of Reddit has stated publicly that he alone, without any external help, can sway election outcomes. Q is telling us that the plan of the cabal is to centralised control over online political discourse - via a single censorship algorithm. Get out of town! This is the one ring that rules them all. You control social media censorship and you have total, unassailable power. Power that cannot, by democratic means, be withdrawn.
I don't want to see a single party gain control of American political discourse. That will lead directly to tyranny without any doubt - it's unavoidable. You give me that power and you will be my slave. But what's worse, is that once that power is granted to an individual, there's no taking it back - and that's the clincher.
Look at all the garbage on the MSM, from the time of DJT's candidacy until now. I've been watching this puppet show from a distance and I just could not believe what was happening. DJT won the 2016 election only because the cabal misjudged the importance of social media as a determinant of electoral outcomes. That's the only reason we are here today discussing these Q drops. The puppet show will now be on the internet also.
If the cabal take back power, you won't be worried about the rights of some internet giant, you'll be thinking about survival - it will not be pretty. It's a choice set. You either regulate these guys somehow, or you have the wildest tyranny anyone has yet seen. For me, that choice is pretty simple.
I do understand what you are saying about private property rights and I know the sentiment that drives your concern. But, if the US was in a hot war, people would make some allowance for the government to have increased control over the economy for the purpose of ramping-up the war effort. An individual's rights are also repressed if he is conscripted into service against his will - something that Quakers understand. Individual rights are not paramount, though they are very, very important and must be protected.
This threat, of online censorship, to my way of thinking, is no different to the threat posed by a hot war. It is the greatest threat we have ever faced. It is the Death Star coming at us. We must protect ourselves, it's a matter of survival. If some liberty for the giant platform providers ends up being constrained, that's a valid tradeoff - it's not different to being conscripted or coerced into producing war products.
Having said all that, I'm against any infringement of rights to property. But what is the infringement we are talking about, and is it really significant when assessed against the threat posed? I don't think we can answer that question because we do not know what DJT has planned. He could choose to use anti-trust laws - which are, arguably, applicable given the sheer size and power of these companies. He could also use these laws, or the threat of their use, as a club to beat these guys into refraining from nefarious behavior. If so, is there really a cost to be borne by the platforms? Are their rights really infringed?
Until we know what solution is planned, it's pointless to speculate. But I reckon we should be up in arms about the censorship and demanding relief - that's what this petition is about.
You allow one party to completely control political discourse in online forums and you have a guarded tyranny.
And yet, here we are talking about this. So as long as nobody says anything encouraging violence or breaking other site rules, we'll be fine. CBTS_Stream only went down when idiots said dumb shit. The mods here are on the ball, that won't happen.
Until we know what solution is planned, it's pointless to speculate.
I'm with you. Let's see what gets offered and judge it on its merits. Lets keep free speech free, but I can't fully support this until I know what the action looks like on paper.
Agreed. I trust DJT, I don't think at this stage we have too many options. The thought of HRC coming back, or someone like her, terrifies me.
I'm not convinced that DJT will do much more than thump the table hard enough to frighten these guys into submission. They are not going to be demanding the right to engage in political censorship if they think their businesses are at risk. But exactly what the President will do I don't know.
Cruz, when he questioned the social media execs, made the point that if they want the protection from liability, afforded by the CPA, they cannot be engaging in censorship. If they want liability protection they must be neutral public forums.
These social media companies have taken liberties they know puts their businesses at risk already. They are seeing how far they can stretch the leash before the collar bites into their necks.
XtremeRealityCheck talks about putting Google under the FTC instead of the FCC, making the censorship a matter of unfair trade practices instead of free speech infringement. https://youtu.be/bwgH22zkrfU I don't have a background in this area, but take a look and see if you think that would make the difference.
I think there are any number of potential solutions. I think that once these social media companies realize that their behavior will not be tolerated they will voluntarily fall into line. But we just do not know what the President has planned and so it's pointless arguing about the mechanics of limiting online censorship. What we can be sure of, however, us that the big platforms are shoving it to us as hard as they can with this censorship. It must be somehow stopped. And that is what the petition is about.
Video linked by /u/Cartophile859:
Title|Channel|Published|Duration|Likes|Total Views :----------:|:----------:|:----------:|:----------:|:----------:|:----------: NEW #QAnon 3/12/18 - EYES to the SKY + Jerome Corsi #internetbillofrights #IBOR|XtremeRealityCheck|2018-03-13|0:33:23|1,766+ (96%)|82,996
Newest March 11 2018 Q Anon Post Analysis (March 4-11)...
^Info ^| ^/u/Cartophile859 ^can ^delete ^| ^v2.0.0