Trump's Far-Right Internet Trolls "Summit"

Oct 2014
32,533
5,902
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
#23
Banning some content/users could indeed create legal responsibility for illegal content. I am contented that Google, etc., can hire lawyers and lobbyists to cope with this threat.

Also, this is irrelevant to your claim that social media sites are banning LEGAL conservative content.

You missed something here... By blocking illegal content, they would be protecting themselves from liabilities.

By blocking legal content; say, pragerU, they get content blocked or removed because of discussion of controversial topics.

I have had arguments here on PH as to whether Sandy Hill hoax claims, etc. are tortious or criminal or protected free speech.
The question is too vague. Those who are going directly and confronting the parents, that's got some potential risk. A person discussing objective facts and analysis are protected.

And the examples I gave are the only censorship online issues I know about, aside from copyright.
YouTube doesn't even have a set approach to that topic; they have banned videos of people talking over copyright, which is standard fair use practice, no warnings, no chance to make the case, just a hard strike that required legal threats to fix.

Examples? Links? Are we talking about debates over unions or over whether the Holocaust occured?
Crowder - has so many videos demonetized, blocked, etc that he had to start his "mug club" to cope with content removed by YouTube for frivolous reasons. The fact that he still owns an active channel is proof of the frivolity of the claims.




I call bullshit on this claim.



Assuming this happens, so what? How can you reasonably demand American-style free speech rights on a privately owned, international platform?
call bullshit all you want... You don't care because it's not people you like getting banned, remember, when it's your turn to be silenced, everybody will care about you the same degree you cared when it was everyone else's turn.

Assuming it happens, it means they are NOT OPEN PLATFORMS. It means they are publishers.

They want to be platforms because that keeps the liability to the people adding content.

They want to be publishers because they want to control what content people see.

They do not want to be CALLED publishers because then they are liable for every murder, every crime, every death threat, every case of child porn, the cases of prostitution or other crimes using their publishi service.

It's literally a case of wanting to dance on the pin that they maintain until the courts decide their fates.

See, if Facebook was labelled as an outlet for leftists to discuss their politics and whatever... That's fine, they advertise their target audience and will cater to them. No, Facebook says "join the conversation" (unless they can label you something bad, then they can take all that you added in value from you).
 
Likes: Izzshemovin
Mar 2019
2,882
1,481
"US" of A
#24
You missed something here... By blocking illegal content, they would be protecting themselves from liabilities.

By blocking legal content; say, pragerU, they get content blocked or removed because of discussion of controversial topics.



The question is too vague. Those who are going directly and confronting the parents, that's got some potential risk. A person discussing objective facts and analysis are protected.



YouTube doesn't even have a set approach to that topic; they have banned videos of people talking over copyright, which is standard fair use practice, no warnings, no chance to make the case, just a hard strike that required legal threats to fix.



Crowder - has so many videos demonetized, blocked, etc that he had to start his "mug club" to cope with content removed by YouTube for frivolous reasons. The fact that he still owns an active channel is proof of the frivolity of the claims.






call bullshit all you want... You don't care because it's not people you like getting banned, remember, when it's your turn to be silenced, everybody will care about you the same degree you cared when it was everyone else's turn.

Assuming it happens, it means they are NOT OPEN PLATFORMS. It means they are publishers.

They want to be platforms because that keeps the liability to the people adding content.

They want to be publishers because they want to control what content people see.

They do not want to be CALLED publishers because then they are liable for every murder, every crime, every death threat, every case of child porn, the cases of prostitution or other crimes using their publishi service.

It's literally a case of wanting to dance on the pin that they maintain until the courts decide their fates.

See, if Facebook was labelled as an outlet for leftists to discuss their politics and whatever... That's fine, they advertise their target audience and will cater to them. No, Facebook says "join the conversation" (unless they can label you something bad, then they can take all that you added in value from you).
Is there any "threat" lobbyists cannot "manage"? They manage "representation" in our "democracy".
 
May 2013
17,862
17,093
Boise, ID
#28
Here is how the members of the RWC Internet Trolls acted after sleazy Trump did HIS capitulation on the citizenship question and left the podium in OUR Rose Garden w/o taking questions. DISGUSTING.
:cool:


Lol! What a lovely group of of loudmouths (better vid below). Every day is Fesivus in this White House. An airing of grievances. But the funny part is that these conspiracy loudmouths whine about being monitored on social media but they say NOTHING about the fake news from Russian bots and trolls that social media did NOTHING about which got their Orange Clown elected in the first place!


 
Jul 2011
59,705
11,884
NYC/Москва
#29
Lol! What a lovely group of of loudmouths (better vid below). Every day is Fesivus in this White House. An airing of grievances. But the funny part is that these conspiracy loudmouths whine about being monitored on social media but they say NOTHING about the fake news from Russian bots and trolls that social media did NOTHING about which got their Orange Clown elected in the first place!





It was your reporter from CNN who started the whole thing,.
 

Similar Discussions