WH Launches Website to Report Social Media Censorship

[Smyrna]

@Jezcoe

How is it going to bite me in the ass?

My problem with these big tech companies has nothing to do with content.

It has everything with how they handle and sell the data that they collect on us.

That is an actual concern of the people.

Anecdotes that they are being meanie heads to “Conservatives”… there really is no proof of this.

I see that they are bending over backwards to not offend those who are constantly in a state of paranoid grievance.

I don’t have a crystal ball that can answer your question but I do know…it’s just a matter of time.

I share your concern on this too.

[Smyrna]

@Jezcoe

It is still anecdotal.

Not if they have screenshots. That’s hard evidence.

[party-free]

Bzzzt.

You knew when you typed that you were not making an apples/apples comparison. I can’t even say “nice try” because it wasn’t.

[Smyrna]

It’s been fun people but I have to run. Have a great Friday and tonight…have a great Frieday.

[party-free]

@Smyrna

ow did that go when your suggestion was applied between the races in our country? When you answer that honestly, hopefully…it will expose how wrong you are right now. It’s deja-vu all over again.

…except the part where conservatives aren’t banned for being conservative.

Next!

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

@Jezcoe

@Smyrna

@party-free

She already has free speech and an equal platform. She can choose to abide the rules she agreed to when she signed up, or she can lose her account. She currently has access to her account.

Btw, when can we expect your post in the community feedback forum demanding all rules be dropped immediately from this forum and we be allowed to say whatever we wish?

How did that go when your suggestion was applied between the races in our country? When you answer that honestly, hopefully…it will expose how wrong you are right now. It’s deja-vu all over again.

You are making a false comparison.

Discrimination for employment based on race or sex is not in any way relevant to an aggrieved conspiracy theorist losing the privilege of using a free service for a matter of hours.

If people won’t stand up for conspiracy theorists, are we really free?

[Jezcoe]

@party-free

But the big grievance that would spur that break up is Facebook banning conservative users from posting on Facebook.

People aren’t complaining about not being able to share messages they want on Whatsapp or pictures they want on Instagram.

I am speaking of a more technocratic position that the social media market should be broken up because it is quickly becoming a monopoly that exists to track us and sell our information.

Don’t like Facebook because of how they handle our data? Welll go to Instagram… ooops… Facebook owns them too.

That sort of thing.

[party-free]

@Smyrna

f this platform had the impact and potential political influence of the entire country that the platform we’re discussing does, it would then get the attention necessary to insure equality.

Then you’d better make damned sure you follow the rules or you won’t have access. This isn’t rocket science.

[Jezcoe]

@Smyrna

@Jezcoe

It is still anecdotal.

Not if they have screenshots. That’s hard evidence.

They have screenshots that they were banned.

It is anecdote that they were banned because they are “Conservative”

[party-free]

The point though is that WhatsApp Instagram and Facebook are three quite different services from each other so it’s not like you would leave one for the other if you are banned from one.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

My heart is happy this morning.

Trump supporters and Louis Farrakhan feel like the man is keeping them down.

[Jezcoe]

@party-free

The point though is that WhatsApp Instagram and Facebook are three quite different services from each other so it’s not like you would leave one for the other if you are banned from one.

It isn’t that the services are the same… they are not.

It is that they use your data the same.

If a company has a monopoly on the collection and selling of data for whatever reason then it is near impossible for a competitor to break into that market without getting gobbled up by the bigger company.

I know it seems weird to want to break them up, because the services are offered for free… but if we are going to the product to sell… then there should be a more robust market of sellers.

[zantax]

Yes it was. They argued free speech was a natural right. It was a universal right, that they confined their restriction against violating it to the government they were forming is understandable given they were forming a government. They also confined freedom of religion in the same manner but would you argue twitter, youtube and facebook should be able to ban all Muslims from their platform because there is no constitutional prohibition to their doing so?

[zantax]

Spare us the token Farrakhan ban. How many thousands like him aren’t banned?

[BlueTex]

@Smyrna

I just saw where a new political reporter for One American News was just suspended from Twitter. She’d been there for years, looks to be a very talented artist and has many followers. This appears to be the perfect example of a conservative being singled out strictly because they are a political threat to the meme being propagated by the platform owners. This…is going to get traction.

She last tweeted 10 hours ago… account is still live… It might get traction with those incapable of checking on these stories themselves and instead relying on certain sources exclusively.

[BlueTex]

@Smyrna

wonder if the limited time was due to an internal Twitter…“oh, oh” moment and realized…they may have messed with the wrong person or can you easily recognize the offense?

That’s gotta be it… they are terrified of her and OAN… LMAO

[BlueTex]

@Smyrna

If this platform had the impact and potential political influence of the entire country that the platform we’re discussing does, it would then get the attention necessary to insure equality.

Whew! I was about to demand OAN allow me to express my views on their network but they are clearly have little impact outside of certain circles.

[Jezcoe]

@zantax

Yes it was. They argued free speech was a natural right. It was a universal right, that they confined their restriction against violating it to the government they were forming is understandable given they were forming a government. They also confined freedom of religion in the same manner but would you argue twitter, youtube and facebook should be able to ban all Muslims from their platform because there is no constitutional prohibition to their doing so?

They were also pretty big on private property rights.

That is why “Congress” cannot infringe on speech.

[IBC]

@zantax

Yes it was. They argued free speech was a natural right. It was a universal right, that they confined their restriction against violating it to the government they were forming is understandable given they were forming a government. They also confined freedom of religion in the same manner but would you argue twitter, youtube and facebook should be able to ban all Muslims from their platform because there is no constitutional prohibition to their doing so?

Bingo. They confined their restriction against violating it to the government. Thanks for confirming my point, I appreciate it. That’s the only part that matters. The goverment cannot restrict or suppress your speech. It’s an entirely different scenario outside of that sphere. There is no absolute right to freedom of speech in practice and there are multitude examples of that practical reality in our every day lives. I can ban you from my place of business if you’re using your “free speech” in a way that I perceive is impairing my ability to conduct business, just for one example.

I’m a firm believer in freedom of association. Your enjoyment of your rights doesn’t get to limit mine, freedom of association included.

[zantax]

You know the right not to be racially or religiously discriminated against is constitutionally limited in the same fashion right? And yet…