Justice to convene meeting on whether social media companies are ‘intentionally stifling’ free speech.
In a statement issued right after executives from Facebook and Twitter finished testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Department of Justice (DOJ) also suggested that the platforms were running afoul of antitrust laws.
“The Attorney General has convened a meeting with a number of state attorneys general this month to discuss a growing concern that these companies may be hurting competition and intentionally stifling the free exchange of ideas on their platforms,” DOJ spokesman Devin O’Malley said in a statement issued near the end of the congressional hearing.
I can save them a bit of time and money, Of course they are thwarting a free exchange of ideas. Those companies are not in the business of protecting Free Speech, they are in the business of making money and to that end…protecting their domination of the market. I have several friends that stay Booked in Face Jail. They probably deserve it simply for being on my “friends” list. Those companies are all to quick to pull down the speech by Conservative leaning people. The list of those that have had it happen grows every day.
The DOJ’s move is the first sign of the administration taking concrete action to address alleged bias following President Trump’s public accusations against tech companies last week. It also comes at a time of tension between the president and his top law enforcement officer. Trump has repeatedly chastised Sessions over his decision to recuse himself from the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, faulting the attorney general in August for not taking control of what he sees as “corruption” at the Justice Department. And on Monday, Trump blasted Sessions on Twitter over recent indictments against two Republican congressmen.
The announcement also signals that the Justice Department is paying attention to the growing movement to challenge Facebook’s and Google’s market power.
I am not sure how they might apply Anti-Trust Law to stop all this. Brighter minds than mine must be at work. I can’t hate on them too much because The Book of Face is one of the primary sources of Stolen Valor evidence. Without the blowhards posting all their bloviated bullshit our job would be much harder.
The entire story is HERE.
Category: Bloggers, Government Incompetence
I’m not up on anti-trust, but removing their exemption from libel laws would be a start. They clearly are no longer a neutral forum. They editorialize and thus should be subject to being sued.
It’s a tricky problem. The way it apparently works now is that if a social media company is neutral, it’s a platform. If it editorializes it’s, at least in theory, subject to news media libel law considerations which are somewhat different from those for an individual. Facebook has always insisted it’s a neutral platform and not responsible for what its end users say on the platform.
Social media platform neutrality also seems to be running into trouble mostly when it comes to the lunatic fringe. Although censorship policies have been put in place to deal with the worst craziness, how that craziness is defined often seems to favor targeting the conservative side of the political spectrum. A recent example is Alex Jones getting suspended from Twitter.
Personally, I’m more concerned about the insidious influence of Google than issues with Facebook and Twitter. Google is the 300-pound gorilla in the advertising business, and poses a threat to the economic health of the online realm at multiple levels. It’s doubtful if Larry Page and Sergei Brin originally planned for things to reach such a current state, but they’ve also done little to mitigate Google’s now predatory impact.
It’s simple, if you’re a public forum then you don’t censor, block, or shadow ban people without violation of the law or a court order. Same rules as the street preacher spewing garbage in a park, on a street corner, or any other public venue.
If you block, remove, or otherwise tailor or cater your content, then you’re a publisher and are editorializing.
^this^^this^^this^^this^^this^and ^this^ Not on the spaced out in your page book of the face. Can do some lurking there via Sister’s. Looks as if the Golden Rule is brought into play here; ie, “He who has the Gold, Makes the Rules.”
Dunno, Mason. We might be drawing different parallels.
Some dingbat screeching on a soapbox in the park does have some constraints. For example, he doesn’t have the right to falsely accuse his neighbor of beating the wife and having carnal knowledge of domestic animals. The news media, on the other hand, can get away with such false accusations if the target of the accusation is a public figure, and it can be claimed that what was published was due to simple fact error and had an absence of malice.
I’m not comfortable with the idea of extending those same publisher protections to Facebook and Twitter. It’s already a big tent subject to abuses. Too, neither Facebook nor Twitter actually produce any content.
Should they be responsible for the content produced by their end users, or are they essentially similar to a public utility? Beats me. What seems to be the current state is that social media platforms want the benefit of publisher protections when it’s to their advantage, but don’t want the other responsibilities that might go along with it.
They already have that “speak harshly of public figure” exemption. The “press” right is not limited to pros, by longstanding and repeated SCOTUS decisions. It applies to all who speak/publish/press.
It is the presstitutes who claim a fictitious “special” speech right not possessed by others. That is actually called “nobility” where one is Noble thus above the common law.
Expressly forbidden, knaves. Expressly forbiddden.
Perry, I think we’re in agreement. They want the best of all worlds, meanwhile making billions. That they proclaim themselves a public forum to me says that you can’t then censor people without them breaking the law. I don’t think they should be sued for the content their users make, but that’s why they’re protected from such at the moment. They should lose that if they continue to censor political opinions.
They’ll end up getting themselves government regulated, which never benefits anyone but government bureaucrats. Zuckerberg even said he welcomes regulation, which shows when a dolt he can be.
So they collect and use information for profit.
Don’t like it don’t participate.
They use their platform to allow only speech they agree with.
Don’t like it build your own damn platform.
The DOJ and its FBI have manipulated people and information to a criminal extent in their efforts against Trump. They have a lot more housekeeping and truth telling to do before they investigate private companies for their business decisions. The game here is to create the appearance that there may be anti-trust violations as a cover for DOJ/FBI rooting around FB data and books. They have the blueprint for this game in the Mueller investigation. It stinks.
I have never been on either one of them, I don’t want to disclose my personal business to the world!
The main thing I’ve seen is youtube blocking gun channels based on flimsy crap about not wanting to promote “gun” violence. Cause we ALL know it’s the gun that does all the violence not the person holding it.
Another article on the Buckeye Firearms site says e-commerce Shopify is limiting service to companies which sell or deal with ‘unacceptable’ firearms.
Not really into gubmint telling private companies how they should run their business no matter how offensive the company may be to me. On the other hand, only the gubmint is capable of looking into things on behalf of all of us. It can be a delicate balance.
We need to keep a close eye on the watchers.
How many newspapers are compelled to print a submitted op-ed piece or even a letter to the editor with which the editor disagrees? All have some published standards even for their comment sections that follow articles. Is any of that stifling free speech? You bet, but the thing is that b/c the entities are not gov’t entities, they have no legal obligation to allow what they do not like. It’s that simple. The remedy is to divest oneself of FB stock, not buy any, send or post opposition comments, or start a company where anything goes. When the gov’t gets involved, when its powers are brought to bear, it doesn’t bode well for anyone in the long term. The Left is finding that out now. Just look at its reaction to the Kavanaugh nomination. I’d say that they’re not taking it very well.
I guess the other shoe from the Net Neutrality failure is dropping.
“Those companies are not in the business of protecting Free Speech, they are in the business of making money and to that end…protecting their domination of the market.”
Google proved that well over a decade ago when they made a deal with the Chinese government to block any sites the Chicoms found objectionable. In China one cannot find out what happened in 1989 with the Tiananmen Square massacre.
Google’s mission statement? “Our mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”
…But some Animals are more accessible than others.
Good one! I sure love me some Orwell!
I would maintain that much of this began in Federally Subsidized Universities and colleges where “Free Speech Areas” originated and “microagressions” are considered in the classrooms and free debate is stifled. Although these social media sites are a huge problem in our society, they did not begin the trend, they merely expanded something our government is already paying for.
It sounds like you’re blowing a dog whistle, Bill. (:
Well, they do call their workplace a “campus”.
I was banned by FB four +/- years ago for ‘language inconsistent with our standards’ or some such crap. The real reason was my vocal opposition to liberal slugs and support of 2A, among other ‘reasons’. So I sat on the sidelines and just read for a year. When I came back I took every opportunity to break it off in their ass. That didn’t last long … I am once again banned, this time perhaps forever. IDGAS
IMHO, the only utility of Book of Face aka Fakebook is a forum for gathering info on our never ending supply of POSers/valor thieves. People who post many details of their lives on it are morons who need another hobby or pastime.