Senator Hawley releases bill to stop social media from censoring conservatives, but not everyone agrees…

Senator Hawley released a new bill today that would force social media companies to prove that they are neutral if they want to continue enjoying immunity protections. In other words, if they don’t want to be held liable for content posted by users, they need to prove they aren’t censoring one political side of the aisle.

DAILY CALLER – Hawley introduced the Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act, which dramatically amends a law providing internet companies broad immunity from being sued for content others post on their websites. His bill, if it becomes law, would provide big tech companies such immunity only if they can show they are politically neutral.

“With Section 230, tech companies get a sweetheart deal that no other industry enjoys: complete exemption from traditional publisher liability in exchange for providing a forum free of political censorship,” Hawley wrote in a statement announcing the bill. “Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, big tech has failed to hold up its end of the bargain.”

He was referring to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which was passed in 1996 when the Internet was young and growing. Congress was concerned at the time that subjecting the fledgling platform to the same civil liability as all other businesses would stymie growth.

The bill applies only to companies with more than 30 million active monthly users in the U.S., or that have more than $500 million in global annual revenue. Big tech companies would have to prove their neutrality to the Federal Trade Commission and reapply for immunity every two years, according to a copy of the legislation.

Ted Cruz has referenced these immunity protections as well in the past and has also suggested that companies shouldn’t enjoy them if they are censoring conservatives.



But not everyone agrees that this will result in ending censorship of conservatives. Phillip Klein argues that it could end with more censorship if the protections are repealed:

DC EXAMINER – Under Hawley’s proposal, the immunity would be ended, but social media giants could apply to the Federal Trade Commission every two years to obtain a certificate of immunity if they can demonstrate that they are removing content on a politically neutral basis.

However, it seems to me that if social media firms are worried about being liable for user generated content, they’re likely to be more aggressive in taking down any vaguely political content, out of fear that it could put them in legal jeopardy. They aren’t likely to respond by being more open to controversial posts from all sides.

To the extent they allow news or political content, it’s likely to come from legacy media who the tech giants know themselves have to guard against the potential of lawsuits.

Lawyers will no doubt take some time to look at whether the Hawley “certification” approach would pass constitutional muster. But from a policy perspective, it’s awful.

Partisan control of the FTC changes from administration to administration, and there’s no objective criteria for determining political neutrality. So this would leave decisions about political content on social media up to the arbitrary judgment calls of federal regulators.

I get that conservatives are frustrated about bias shown in decisions to ban or suspend users, but this response would only lead to a more restrictive speech code.

I think the idea from Hawley is that social media companies will be forced to become neutral if they want to keep from being sued. But what happens if they fail to do so and are thus forced to start nixing content that they could be liable for?

Klein makes an interesting point, especially given the partisan nature of the executive branch. Under Democrat administrations social media companies may feel free to censor conservatives at will, while only becoming neutral when a Republican administration is about to be elected.

What do you think?

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

365 thoughts on “Senator Hawley releases bill to stop social media from censoring conservatives, but not everyone agrees…

  1. OK, so to make this easier and contain it under one subthread, I’m going to take all three of your guys’ arguments (which are the same argument) and we’ll have one simple conversation here.

    You’re asserting that by trading data for site usage, that you’ve entered into a contract (under the site’s TOCs) – and that when you are then denied usage, they are in breach of that contract. Your faces then get red and steam comes comically out of your ears and you cry injustice.

    Is that an accurate representation of your position? Because I don’t want to be accused of misrepresenting it.

    If not, then let’s correct it here before moving on. I’ll wait.

  2. It is truly astonishing to see self-identified conservatives cheering the Hawley bill (S.1914), which would seek to impose “politically neutral” content moderation requirements on the nation’s Social Media companies.

    Whereas in the past conservatives would have taken the position that such federal intrusion would be unnecessary and unwelcome in the private sector (on free speech and property rights grounds), today’s conservatives cheer State-imposed outcomes. Of course, the embrace of State power by today’s conservatives extends far beyond Social Media. The embrace of protectionism and tariffs to dictate supply chain and consumer choices is another example where contemporary conservatives have put State power ahead of free markets. What it means to be a conservative today is radically different from what it once meant to be a conservative.

    Based on their criticism of Social Media companies, the conservatives’ goal behind the Hawley legislation is to alter the balance of Social Media content in a fashion that serves their views. This is their “Fairness Doctrine.” Moreover, it would be enacted via legislation rather than regulatory policy.

    Success of such legislation would create a precedent by which others could pursue similar mechanisms to further their own interests, which may well be incompatible with those currently espoused by conservatives. Later, for example, should the Democrats win control of the White House, one could envision a Democratic-led FCC responding in kind to restore some variant of the Fairness Doctrine on radio.

    Almost certainly, today’s conservatives would revile such an outcome. “This is different!” they would argue. In fact, it would be different only in terms of winners and losers. The broad notion of imposing “fair access” via State power would be exactly the same.

    Moreover, should litigation be pursued, there is Supreme Court precedent in which the Fairness Doctrine was upheld. In Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in part:

    It does not violate the First Amendment to treat licensees given the privilege of using scarce radio frequencies as proxies for the entire community, obligated to give suitable time and attention to matters of great public concern. To condition the granting or renewal of licenses on a willingness to present representative community views on controversial issues is consistent with the ends and purposes of those constitutional provisions forbidding the abridgment of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Congress need not stand idly by and permit those with licenses to ignore the problems which beset the people or to exclude from the airways anything but their own views of fundamental questions.

    The Fairness Doctrine was bad policy. The Hawley bill would be bad law.

    1. @don-sutherland
      “The embrace of protectionism and tariffs to dictate supply chain and consumer choices is another example where contemporary conservatives have put State power ahead of free markets.

      What it means to be a conservative today is radically different from what it once meant to be a conservative.”

      Completely agree. It’s astounding that conservatives can’t/won’t/don’t recognize what they have become.

      1. The erosion of a strong free market constituency raises potential risks going forward. The balance of policy risks may now be tilted toward an increased State role more than would have been the case had there been a stronger and larger free market constituency. Considering the role markets play in employment, wages, products/services, and living standards this erosion in the free market constituency could have long-term adverse implications.

        1. Where is the “erosion of a strong free market” except where there is unfair trade and unfair censorship? You are making my arguments. Thank you!

      2. I see it. I see it clear as day. And it sickens me.

        I refuse to even call them conservatives anymore. They’re progressive right. That’s the only term that reasonably applies.

      3. If conservatism is so much in favor of big business at the expense of the common man, then yes I guess I am not a conservative. Utterly ridiculous.

        1. @tracy these people AT, Don, et al. aren’t Conservative–they are big government/big business RINOs. These are the same people who supported Bush/BO’s bailout of big banks and big insurance! If it’s between the freedom and big business, they ALWAYS side with BIG BUSINESS!

          1. I never supported bailouts. I dare you to find a single post I’ve ever written in favor of it. You’re poisoning the well, Frank. Because you know you don’t have a leg to stand on here.

            Hey by the way, where do you stand on Trump’s tariffs that have the direct result of him doing a farm bailout? Let me guess…. “My life for him!”

      4. Red herring. No one is embracing protectionism. If you can’t see by now that tariffs used by Trump are for negotiation purposes on trade deals then you simply aren’t paying attention.

        You RINOs need to stop calling yourself Conservatives because there is nothing Conservative about the Bush years (if that’s your gold standard)

        1. This has nothing to do with the Bush years…zero, zip

          When has Government interference ever resulted in what is good for the American people?

        2. The retaliation on tariffs is tariffs.
          Maybe cut off Foreign Aid, there is no retaliation for that.

          Or, with all the Foreign Aid we give, why not set up “safe zones” in THEIR country in order to keep their citizens there, rather than have them invade our country at OUR expense. After all, we occupy most foreign countries.

    2. Again lots of falsities, false comparisons not to mention presumptions on your part.

      You are using tunnel vision to look at this with the false premise that you are siding with “limited government”. When all said and done, a FEW GIANT CORPORATIONS exercise power with the help of the federal government to wreak havoc on the freedoms of thousands of entrepreneurs across the world. Discussion and actions are long overdue on this–I welcome this debate to be had if not via this bill or some other or that SCOTUS settle this matter once and for all. I can maybe understand your stance if there wasn’t outward bias uncovered by James O’Keefe and others, but it’s as clear as night and day that we have bad actors that need to dealt with. No government entity would put up with this if such actions were taken by a small mom and pop shop let alone a gigantic global corporation like Google/FB/Twitter, etc..

      Contrary to your claim, Conservatives want action to do what’s right not to just advance an agenda like leftists do. I would be having same position if any corporation was doing this from the right as well. As an example, when the bailouts were getting handed out to the big businesses and banks, I didn’t care or know what the political leanings of these institutions were. I just knew it was WRONG! I am wondering where you stood on those big government bailouts, Mr. Limited Government?

    3. It’s nothing like the Fairness doctrine that put a burden on radio stations to give up air time to the other side.

      All Hawley is saying in this legislation is be neutral – dont remove people from a platform because you dont like what they are saying. As long as its lawful, it should be left alone.

      You are making bad comparisons.

  3. Overall, I want the government to stay out of our business. But if these liberal companies enjoy some sort of immunity or tax breaks or whatever and are allowed to block, censor, demonetize, etc. at will, then there’s something wrong. This should be remedied somehow.

  4. Government censorship is a troubling thought. Their good intentions offer have disastrous consequences.

  5. If you haven’t seen it, watch one of Tim Pool’s videos of where tech giants might be going and how commercial speech could be next:

    Do you want your buying options determined by your political leanings?

    “Something” does need to done and requires government intervention before a tipping point is reached. Whether this bill qualifies is an open question. Like Hawley, it’s hyper-legalistic.

    1. Tim Pool is doing a great job covering and exposing this topic and he’s not even on the right! Just a classical anti-censorship liberal.

    2. Tim Pool is more of a real journalist than anybody on the networks. Liberal or not, he admits his leanings, but reports straight down the line. Plus he made Jack from Twitter and his affirmative action legal representation look like a bunch of amateurs on Rogan’s podcast. I watched his video on this yesterday and he really covered it well why this might actually be a good idea.
      https://youtu.be/-jlqYJg96kk

      Saw this on YT comments and laughed.
      Tech CEOs: This will ruin us. Please don’t do this!
      Everyone: Thank you for your feedback

  6. I remember making the exact same argument about the effects of getting rid of CDA immunity (i.e. more censorship) months and being roundly criticized…

    1. How so? This Hawley thing is an actual certification of neutrality; but Conservative sites (including this one) have been talking about suing the big platforms as “publishers” and arguing that they had no safe harbor because of their political biases in limiting the speech of some of their users.

      Ben Shapiro talked about it on his show even before Ted Cruz asked his questions of Zuckerberg regarding this issue. That was over a year ago:

      1. Right, the thing is that if they lose immunity, then they’re going to be extremely vigilant about what appears on their platform. Keep in mind that you can’t sue them for removing opinions, you’d need to sue them for something for which a publisher could actually be liable (i.e. defamation). And they’ll take every precaution to ensure that objectionable content doesn’t appear on their platforms.

        1. Nah, I highly doubt that’ll be their calculus. Their choices will be:
          1. Maintain safe harbor provisions by reducing their detailed oversight of content and the creators of that content. Do everything they can to remain a “platform”.
          2. Police all content to be absolutely sure that good “journalistic” practices are followed by each and every member of their site. Without a newspaper’s level of editing, they will be constantly subject to lawsuits… all in the name of promoting their political biases.

          The first one would be technically possible and fit in their existing profitable business models. The second one is not possible to achieve and would wreck their business models.

          Which do you think they’ll pursue?

        2. Right, the thing is that if they lose immunity, then they’re going to be extremely vigilant about what appears on their platform.

          Yeppers. That was the exact same prediction I had.

          Which is a blow to the marketplace of ideas, not a boon.

  7. I’m not a big fan of government certifications on political fairness. You can bet your life that once Democrats are in charge of determining fairness that the whole system will be corrupted and abused.

    1. This isn’t something Congress would control, but something the courts would determine like any discrimination lawsuit.

      1. If that’s the case, then why worry about “certification” as a statute? Just find the right time when some person on Facebook says something demonstrably factually incorrect about another person. Help the aggrieve party sue Facebook for libel and argue to the court that FB does not meet the safe harbor provisions of the CDA.

      2. Yeah let’s trust the courts – good idea. The people advocating big government expansion don’t realize their guy isn’t going to president forever.

        We need a pro freedom small government political party.

  8. I don’t believe this legislation is necessary. Just revoke their platform protections…no new law needed.

    1. I agree. I’m absolutely entitled to something you have to provide me. Fairness is a human right. If they’re not going to do as I say, I’m just going to have to make them. By control, force, and coercion. Insert other patent stupidity.

  9. About freaking time.

    Cue up the anti individual freedom and pro corporate facisism crowd.

    1. Nah. I’m tired. And I’ve already eaten your lunch on this subject.

      Whine away, proggy snowflake! Tell us all about your entitlements and your rights to have other people provide you something.

      1. Eaten my lunch? ROFL All you’ve shown is the liar you are! And you think that insulting others means “winning” the argument! Haha

        1. Great points, they are tired of trying to convince us that to be principled is to allow these monopolies to censor lawful speech.

          1. Thanks @tracy It’s really interesting how they act “principled” when Conservatives are getting the raw deal.

            1. Holy Hell, that’s terrifying. Facebook will, essentially, consume the government. They will control our speech, and our money.

        2. You have to love those that claim to have won some sort of argument, when they know it was their lunch that was eaten, but practice projection. The left is famous for that.

    2. Will you have a similar response if, let’s say, AOC introduces a substantial income redistribution bill to “level the playing field?” The current case essentially amounts to limiting private companies’ control over platforms they worked to create. The latter would involve taking a share of income people generated from their work efforts. The statist Hawley bill is incompatible with limited government and a dilution of property rights.

        1. Yes, I understand that for some such as Hawley, reducing others’ property rights is ok if it benefits his tribe so to speak. For him and others like him, support for limited government comes with a giant asterisk in which the heavy hand of the state can be deployed to produce outcomes that reward his tribe. The principle of limited government for some, only, is not one for limited government in general.

      1. This is about freedom of speech. These platforms have protections when users make terrible speech that is still lawful. Why censor?

  10. He might as well have reintroduced the “Fairness Doctrine” given his zeal to expand government’s role. In reality, the creators of content should be accountable for their content and the “Fairness Doctrine” should not be introduced. Then again, yesterday’s conservatives believed in personal responsibility. Today’s believe in holding others accountable e.g., Hawley’s wanting to hold Social Media companies—private firms—for others’ content. Can the notion of collective guilt be far behind?

    1. What? The fairness doctrine was applied to radio/TV with limited hours in a day to broadcast.

      Not the same with social media.

    2. And by “holding accountable” we’re really just talking about spiking footballs in their faces because winning.

    3. Lots of mistruth there. First of all, this isnt even close to fairness doctrine since fairness doctrine applied to content creators not platforms. This applies to platform not content creators.

      1. The common point concerns state intrusion in the private sphere. Such intrusion should be opposed if one believes in limited government.

        1. That intrusion is already present in the market except in big media tech. Why do you think big media tech should have that exception!?

  11. If the big tech companies go all in on censorship on all sides then the small startups like Gab that do not censor lawful rhetoric will rise up.

    It’s a good start to the problem

  12. If they remove any content not already covered…lose platform status.

    Content already covered by law

    Threats

    Pedophilia

    Etc.

  13. DO NOTHING! I don’t care if these private companies choose to censor. It’s their choice to do this. Leave this fake ass fedgov out of it!
    Of course you so called conservatives “must have equality and by golly fedgov come help us.” Be damned small gov’t, right? Ha!

    Ohhh my does this country and the world need a real Thanos!

      1. Yep. They do not get to act as a publisher and receive the protection of a platform. Some dolts here don’t understand the difference between a platform vs a publisher.

    1. So you’re voting for dystopia…here’s what your world could look like in a video by Tim Pool:

    2. But but but…. it says right there in the constitution. “Thou shalt have the absolute right to youtube.” We fought a war over this, remember? We dressed up like elizabeth warren and snuck aboard Silicon Valley’s ships and threw all their peripherals into Boston Harbor. And then we were like “Four score and twenty upvotes ago, our googles brought forth on this internet a new website, conceived in cat videos and dedicated to the proposition that you have to host them.”

      History Channel bro. Watch it more.

      1. Hey AT-AT…. Instead of walking the snow on Hoth and blowing up stuff, how about trying to remain consistent in your arguments. Do you become schizophrenic when someone who you don’t like makes the same arguments as you incessantly do?
        Calm down “bro!” This crap isn’t even that serious.

          1. Copy that! And I apologize for my snark thrown your way as I misunderstood your stance in your retort. But my snark was kinda funny though?? Ha! Star Wars fans would get it. I’d bet you are one.
            I’ve enjoyed reading your comments over the last several months as you and I do share very similar views and enjoy stirring up the pot. Keep them coming.

    3. What would you say if AT&T decided that someone with the wrong views could no longer talk on the phone?

      Muh private company tho amiright?

      1. Then I switch to verizon or some other.
        You are smart tracy and know exactly my point so silly scenarios don’t work. The point is that fedgov should stay out of as much as possible. Stick with increased innovation and new outlets. That is the only answer in a free market society. More regulation is never the answer.

        1. …but Verizon and Sprint only exist because the Fed Gov’t stepped in and broke up AT&T.

          I’m all for a free market solution. Let’s break up the tech giants as the monopolies they are.

          1. TX….that is something I would be in favor for if they are violating established anti-trust laws.
            Look….I f’ing hate the largess corporations. I personally choose to do business with as many small mom n pops as I can here in the Houston area but I also run my own business for my living wage and definitely don’t want fedgov infringing upon my ability to make as many benjamins as I possibly can.

            Btw…I watched the tim cook video and yes…for sure he has good points. I would especially highlight the absolute fact of an unholy alliance between fedgov and those tech companies. So …. the breaking up of these companies could be some sort of solution but I doubt it. The pieces parts will likely be “owned” by fedgov enabling a continuation of this bs.

            Also….this cook dude was very hard to watch. He might as well rename himself… Rachel Hayes. 🙂

  14. The problem, as I see it, with those like Facebook, Twitter, Google etc. is every time a smaller start up trying to compete, who starts gaining some membership, the above much larger and wealthier companies named above make the start ups an offer they cannot refuse, and turn the new company into the same biased company they already own.

    I’m not thrilled with Hawley’s bill. Antitrust legislation is what I think would be better. There are some that have argued-if you don’t like those platforms start your own. Again, every time a new start up gets going, the bigger more wealthy company makes them an offer they can’t refuse.

    1. an offer they cannot refuse

      They could refuse it if they wanted. The question is whether they’re after a brass ring, or if they’re working for some greater benefit than their own personal enrichment.

      I don’t begrudge them taking the brass ring, of course – but for all the folks (myself included) who talk about building conservative alternatives to these social media giants, well… at the end of the day, most of us are capitalists.

      It’s a business, not a charity for conservatives who want to post their content.

      1. It’s not just any business, but one with special rights. No other national/global business can do what they do. Can the sole cable company in your area refuse service to you because they don’t like your politics?

    1. To quote above, maybe comparing apples to rabbits is not the best approach.

      These companies enjoy unique liability protections created by the government.

      The government created these protections in the interest of encouraging open debate and the growth of neutral platforms where a broad spectrum of voices can be heard. Instead, a small group of tech giants have monopolized the space and begun exercising editorial control over the content.

      Remove their unique protections is the laissez-faire approach. The Hawley bill might not be right. Maybe the government should just completely get out of the business and not offer protections to anyone.

  15. I suspect that such a move will flip the dynamic on how stuff ends up on the internet. No longer will it be a free for all for people to post whatever they want, where review is triggered upon reporting/flagging. Instead, people will likely have to submit it to an approvals board who will decide whether it’s post-worthy after the review it. I mean, they’d have to right? Which will indeed make them publishers, but be a massive blow to the open internet.

    And then you’ve got the other side of the argument which, suppose after these folks approve something to be published, someone – anyone – takes offense to it. How exactly does one “prove their neutrality?”

    Sacrificing the platform nature of the internet is going down a real dark road. It’s not worth whatever “win” the snowflakes think it’s going to net them “for conservatism” (lol).

  16. OK, so to make this easier and contain it under one subthread, I’m going to take all three of your guys’ arguments (which are the same argument) and we’ll have one simple conversation here.

    You’re asserting that by trading data for site usage, that you’ve entered into a contract (under the site’s TOCs) – and that when you are then denied usage, they are in breach of that contract. Your faces then get red and steam comes comically out of your ears and you cry injustice.

    Is that an accurate representation of your position? Because I don’t want to be accused of misrepresenting it.

    If not, then let’s correct it here before moving on. I’ll wait.

    1. My argument is they are a public square and cannot ban anyone solely due to speech.

      You are the one who claims it’s completely free to use. We are the product, we pay for it with our data.

      1. I’m ignoring the “public square” crap because that’s nonsense. They’re private property. It’s someone else’s stuff. They’re just letting you use it. They can revoke that permission anytime they want. But let’s not go down that rabbit hole. I’m more interested in your reasoning here. To wit:

        You are the one who claims it’s completely free to use. We are the product, we pay for it with our data.

        OK, so you pay with it for your data. I assume by “pay” you’re implying that you are trading your data for a return – namely, the ability to post stuff to their website.

        So they kick you off. Meaning you can’t use it anymore. Well that’s fine. There’s nothing wrong with them doing that. They can choose to end their relationship with you anytime they want, right? They just have to stop taking your data.

        So if they stop taking your data, and you’re no longer permitted on the site – that’s fair right? We’ve reached an amicable solution, correct? You’re not “paying” anything anymore, and they’re not “offering” you anything anymore.

          1. Are you upset about a public square, or are you upset about paying data?

            I thought it was the latter. Now you’re changing things up. Do you not wish to pursue the “I paid data” argument anymore?

    2. 1) No, there isn’t just one argument. I gave you multiple arguments including anti-trust for which you completely ignored. As I said before, Microsoft was less of a monopoly than Google when they were charged by DOJ.

      2) You don’t have a good understanding of the problem as you don’t even know who has been deplatformed/demonetized and the facts surrounding them. I suggest, at minimum, you get some grasp of this if even just to understand the more reknown incident surrounding Crowder to start with!

      3) You don’t approach things logically, but resort to cute one-liner mantras or straight out insults. All of us here want less government intervention, but the whole idea of government is to protect all persons equally. When you have one company with more rights than others, it goes against our founding principles and the Constitution. What do you do when we have new technology and the government has to adapt the laws accordingly, your solution is to do nothing just so we don’t violate your simplistic one-liner rule of not involving government.

      4) Considering the above points, I came to the conclusion that you are a TROLL.

      1. BTW: Live Crowder show w/that progressive guy, Ted Cruz as guest where Cruz called out Google as a monopoly!

        1. I’m glad you posted this. I needed a tangent to reply to your other stupidity that DOESN’T have to do with the contract issue that’s being asserted here.

          You don’t approach things logically

          I only approach things logically. But I wrap them in derisive laughter and mockery.

          But I’m not doing that right now.

          All of us here want less government intervention

          …sounds like you want more government intervention.

          but the whole idea of government is to protect all persons equally

          Which is true(ish, not exactly accurate but close enough), but not at issue here.

          When you have one company with more rights than others

          What more rights do they have?

          What do you do when we have new technology and the government has to adapt the laws accordingly

          They don’t have to adapt anything. Nothing has changed such that government needs to get involved.

          Unless you’d like to go back to the contract issue. Do you want to go back to that, or down this pit of stupidity of yours?

      2. I gave you multiple arguments including anti-trust for which you completely ignored

        Yea blah blah blah those are all stupid. This argument here is the only one with legs. That’s why I’m entertaining it rather than slapping you around like a red-headed stepchild for the lols.

        as you don’t even know who has been deplatformed/demonetized and the facts surrounding them

        That’s irrelevant. It’s happened, and there’s a reason. That’s all that matters. Let’s go from there.

        You paid with data, and then now are deplatformed. Go from there. Make an argument.

        1. Wow. You’re getting unhinged. lol. Like I said previously, you lash out when you get cornered. I think you had enough. I’ll let you go back in the wild.

            1. The way it works is first you would attack my arguments (not my person) then I would begin to defend them. Good luck!

              1. Your arguments are absurd and I dismissed them out of hand because I’ve already refuted them multiple times.

                The only argument that has had any legs in this discussion is that somehow you’ve been wronged by a breach of contract when you’re kicked off youtube. That’s it. All your other nonsense about free speech and monopolies and save me government is flat out bogus.

                Now if you want to discuss the contract angle, I’m offering you a sincere discussion with no mockery. But if you continue down these idiotic rabbit holes that make no sense and have zero substance, then I’m just going to keep bitchslapping them down.

                So, either discuss the argument with merit, or shut up.

                1. Breathe in breathe out. Have you ever thought of doing Yoga for relaxation? Again, attack the arguments NOT the *person* or SHUT UP!

                2. You can’t even come up with your own mocks. You’re just cribbing mine at this point.

                  And I don’t think you know what “attack the person” means. You keep misusing that term.

  17. My $0.03 (inflation, don’t you know):

    Right idea, wrong implementation. Instead of a government panel deciding whether something is “politically neutral” (the Democrats’ idea of politically neutral is somewhere between left and hard left), give people that are on these services the right to challenge legally their treatment by these services based on the Terms Of Service. Let the companies be sued for not following their own rules, and the problem will take care of itself, IMHO.

    1. What would be the damages they’d be claiming? “They didn’t let me use their free website however I wanted?”

      1. Reinstatement to said service, and if found to be malicious, an injunction against any removal from said service without court review would be a good start.

        In case you forgot how to read, AT, this is for when THEY DON’T FOLLOW THEIR OWN DAMNED RULES in order to harass conservatives.

        Why are you against making them follow their own rules?

        1. So… that kind of implies that they have a right to said service. Is that what you’re suggesting? And it also seems like you’re pro-government control over them if they don’t act the way you demand of them.

          What you’re forgetting is: They don’t really have to follow their own rules. And, much as we might not like it, they’re kind of allowed to harass conservatives. They’re free to do that. It’s awful, but I’ll support freedom more than I will discourage awfulness.

          Why are you against making them follow their own rules?

          Because it’s their stuff. The “rules” are arbitrary. They can be whatever they want them to be at any time they want them to be it.

          1. This will never go anywhere until you get the clue pounded into your thick skull that these companies want your data more than they want your money, and they’re willing to provide their service in exchange for it. That’s a business transaction just like a business transaction involving money. Terms of service go both ways making a contract; if they don’t live up to their end of the contract, then they deserve to be sued for it. Oh, and courts have ruled a nigh-infinite number of times that TOU conditions like “we can change the rules at any time” are completely invalid and unenforceable, so don’t even try to go down that road because it’s a total non-starter.

            1. You’re really reaching here buddy.

              You seem to think there are contracts where there aren’t. You seem to think there’s a business relationship where there’s not. You seem to think that by posting something to a free site, some kind of contract is created (yea, I’d love to see that provision of the UCC).

              At the end of the day, you seem to think you have a right to something someone else must provide you. You don’t. You don’t have that right, FF.

              If I have a platform on my front lawn and say “Anyone can perform!” And then you come up with your dancing cats and I say “Whoa, no cats. Get outta here!” and then refuse to let you perform – you have not been aggrieved in any way shape or form. You get that, right?

              1. You’re completely wrong and your “example” is bull$hit. You can yell “Dead men DO bleed!” all you want BUT IT DOESN’T MAKE IT TRUE.

                Your skull is too thick for clues to be pounded into it, so I’m going to ignore everything you say on this subject except where I can mock and laugh at you.

                Why do companies get in legal trouble for mishandling consumer’s personal data if it isn’t something of value? Why do you think handing something of value like your personal data to a company in exchange for a service is not a contract, other than the simple fact that it knocks your whole silly tower of blocks down and you refuse to admit that?

                1. Why do companies get in legal trouble for mishandling consumer’s personal data if it isn’t something of value?

                  I thought your gripe was about conservatives not being able to use the youtubes and the twitters.

                2. They don’t seem very logical. I think you’ve just rationalized yourself a position on the subject that you won’t take criticism of.

                  Are you upset about contracts, or are you upset at the youtubes?

                3. You won’t answer my question about whether you think your personal data is of any value or not, so why should I bother to answer yours, cretin?

                4. Exchange of something of value for something else of value. Sane people which excludes you call that a business transaction.

                5. Uh huh, so I’m assuming that youtube has a file cabinet somewhere with a bunch of the contracts they created with the billion or so people that use it? And that you’re going to subpoena a copy of it so that you can argue its enforceability to protect your cat videos?

                6. The breadth of what you don’t understand is breathtaking. It’s like you’ve never even heard of digital documents and digital signatures.

            2. How do you like banging your head on the wall of AT?

              Our data is worth something and that is what we give these corps to use their service. Exactly right.

              1. It’s amusing to see the gears grind in her head as she tries to find a way to rationalize that she’s right.

                1. So you get your data back, but you can’t use youtube.

                  Something tells me you’re still not satisfied. Because you don’t actually care about the data, right? You care about a fictional right to youtube.

                  Right?

                  So the whole data crap is disingenuous in the first place. There. I entertained it even though it was a bullshit remark pretending to be a point.

              2. I’m quoting this nonsense of AT here just in case she deletes it:

                Uh huh, so I’m assuming that youtube has a file cabinet somewhere with a bunch of the contracts they created with the billion or so people that use it?

                Hilarious.

                1. I won’t delete it. Not how I roll. I stand by everything I said.

                  The only thing I delete are typos, or if I come up with something cleverer that makes the same point.

              3. Did your contract say, “I give you my data, you let me do whatever I want on your website?”

          2. What you’re forgetting is: They don’t really have to follow their own rules. And, much as we might not like it, they’re kind of allowed to harass conservatives.

            Ya, and that’s the whole issue Gomer! Any other company CAN NOT get away with this, but they can because of the special rights they get from federal government via reg. 302! So apparently, you are perfectly ok with big tech getting some special exception to get away with this bias and harassment!

            1. I can get away with it. I could go down the hall right now and fire anyone I want and say, “It’s because I don’t like your coffee cup with the COEXIST banner on it. And your tie. Your tie is ugly. Here’s a box. Get out.”

              When it’s my place, Frank – you are here at my sufferance. You don’t have a right to your space in my place. Not a physical one, not a digital one.

              1. Is your state an at-will employment state? If not your whole example here falls flat on its stupid face.

                1. AT, again ignoring the question and asking something irrelevant. What is the law in your state, AT?

                2. Ah ah ah, this first. It gets to the creamy nougat of principle at the core of this whole discussion:

                  Does a person have a right to something someone else has to provide them?

                3. What is the LAW in your state, AT?

                  You keep dodging questions by bringing up irrelevant questions.

                4. It’s not irrelevant – and the fact that you keep trying to avoid it tells me you know damn well it’s not.

                  The law in my state, on the other hand, is irrelevant. Because that’s a personal question about me. Not about this discussion.

                5. Gomer, you always fallback to your simplistic, do people have a right to ___. There’s something called contracts, agreements, etc… You can’t just go around do whatever you want; otherwise, it’s anarchy! Let me give you advice. When you lose the argument, accept and admit it instead of defaulting to these lame one-liners!

                6. I love how you avoid that simplicity though. DOES a person have a right to ___?

                  The answer is always yes or no, but then you go screeching off in a different direction because you know that answering one way or the other brings your argument to its knees. So. lol.

                  And take your own advice, Frank.

                  NOM NOM NOM YOUR LUNCH.

                7. Only if the website has a Terms of Service, DUH. Did you even think before you posted that supposed ‘gotcha’? Or is all your brainpower being devoted to shoring up the increasingly smaller intellectual position you’ve attempted to carve out?

                8. And what happens when they say you violated those terms? They take down your video, right?

                  So…..? They’re not allowed to do that?

                9. And they have a trend of violating their own agreements. NO, they don’t have any right to do that. That’s at minimum unethical if not illegal. If a store advertises a product and you go there and they try to sell you a different product, that’s called, “bait and switch”. It’s illegal!! Why does YouTube getaway with that when no other company can??? Go ahead and defend the indefensible!!!

                10. But they’re not baiting and switching. It’s always been clear that you don’t have a right to post whatever you want on youtube – that they can exercise discretion if it violates their TOS. And who are you to interpret their TOS for them?

                  If you think they’ve interpreted their TOS incorrectly, or prejudicially, fine – take ’em to court. Not exactly sure what your damages are or what you expect in restitution – your data back, I guess? OK then, well enjoy.

                11. @atomicsentinel you’re obviously speaking out of your ass and don’t have all the information. Go watch the Crowder video on this. YouTube admitted he didn’t violate their agreement, but they took action ANYWAYS!! And there are many more who didn’t violate their agreements, yet they flat out shut them down. I think they were careful with Crowder that they didn’t shut him down because he was big and they knew the backlash would be huge, but the thousands they shut down were minor in comparison and there was no big voice to cry on their behalf, so they were turned off quietly in the dark!

                12. “Anyways” isn’t a word.

                  so they were turned off quietly in the dark!

                  And apparently that was a breach of contract, right? So, go sue them for it and demand restitution.

                  You’re not going to get specific performance, because that’s not going to apply here. There are no monetary damages. So… what, do you want your data back?

                  Fine. Take your data back, and you’re still kicked off youtube.

                  But you’re still not happy, are you.

                13. FAIL. I don’t have any videos on youtube.

                  Don’t you get tired of planting your face into the pavement?

                14. I didn’t say you did, it was simply asking how it works. Feel free to replace it with “someone” and “their”.

                  And for pete’s sake, don’t get pedantic.

          1. They are going to remove all my data from Google and get it back from companies they sold it then?
            I dont think so.

  18. My $0.03 (inflation, don’t you know):

    Right idea, wrong implementation. Instead of a government panel deciding whether something is “politically neutral” (the Democrats’ idea of politically neutral is somewhere between left and hard left), give people that are on these services the right to challenge legally their treatment by these services based on the Terms Of Service. Let the companies be sued for not following their own rules, and the problem will take care of itself, IMHO.

    1. What would be the damages they’d be claiming? “They didn’t let me use their free website however I wanted?”

      1. Reinstatement to said service, and if found to be malicious, an injunction against any removal from said service without court review would be a good start.

        In case you forgot how to read, AT, this is for when THEY DON’T FOLLOW THEIR OWN DAMNED RULES in order to harass conservatives.

        Why are you against making them follow their own rules?

        1. So… that kind of implies that they have a right to said service. Is that what you’re suggesting? And it also seems like you’re pro-government control over them if they don’t act the way you demand of them.

          What you’re forgetting is: They don’t really have to follow their own rules. And, much as we might not like it, they’re kind of allowed to harass conservatives. They’re free to do that. It’s awful, but I’ll support freedom more than I will discourage awfulness.

          Why are you against making them follow their own rules?

          Because it’s their stuff. The “rules” are arbitrary. They can be whatever they want them to be at any time they want them to be it.

          1. This will never go anywhere until you get the clue pounded into your thick skull that these companies want your data more than they want your money, and they’re willing to provide their service in exchange for it. That’s a business transaction just like a business transaction involving money. Terms of service go both ways making a contract; if they don’t live up to their end of the contract, then they deserve to be sued for it. Oh, and courts have ruled a nigh-infinite number of times that TOU conditions like “we can change the rules at any time” are completely invalid and unenforceable, so don’t even try to go down that road because it’s a total non-starter.

            1. You’re really reaching here buddy.

              You seem to think there are contracts where there aren’t. You seem to think there’s a business relationship where there’s not. You seem to think that by posting something to a free site, some kind of contract is created (yea, I’d love to see that provision of the UCC).

              At the end of the day, you seem to think you have a right to something someone else must provide you. You don’t. You don’t have that right, FF.

              If I have a platform on my front lawn and say “Anyone can perform!” And then you come up with your dancing cats and I say “Whoa, no cats. Get outta here!” and then refuse to let you perform – you have not been aggrieved in any way shape or form. You get that, right?

          2. What you’re forgetting is: They don’t really have to follow their own rules. And, much as we might not like it, they’re kind of allowed to harass conservatives.

            Ya, and that’s the whole issue Gomer! Any other company CAN NOT get away with this, but they can because of the special rights they get from federal government via reg. 302! So apparently, you are perfectly ok with big tech getting some special exception to get away with this bias and harassment!

          1. They are going to remove all my data from Google and get it back from companies they sold it then?
            I dont think so.

  19. It is truly astonishing to see self-identified conservatives cheering the Hawley bill (S.1914), which would seek to impose “politically neutral” content moderation requirements on the nation’s Social Media companies.

    Whereas in the past conservatives would have taken the position that such federal intrusion would be unnecessary and unwelcome in the private sector (on free speech and property rights grounds), today’s conservatives cheer State-imposed outcomes. Of course, the embrace of State power by today’s conservatives extends far beyond Social Media. The embrace of protectionism and tariffs to dictate supply chain and consumer choices is another example where contemporary conservatives have put State power ahead of free markets. What it means to be a conservative today is radically different from what it once meant to be a conservative.

    Based on their criticism of Social Media companies, the conservatives’ goal behind the Hawley legislation is to alter the balance of Social Media content in a fashion that serves their views. This is their “Fairness Doctrine.” Moreover, it would be enacted via legislation rather than regulatory policy.

    Success of such legislation would create a precedent by which others could pursue similar mechanisms to further their own interests, which may well be incompatible with those currently espoused by conservatives. Later, for example, should the Democrats win control of the White House, one could envision a Democratic-led FCC responding in kind to restore some variant of the Fairness Doctrine on radio.

    Almost certainly, today’s conservatives would revile such an outcome. “This is different!” they would argue. In fact, it would be different only in terms of winners and losers. The broad notion of imposing “fair access” via State power would be exactly the same.

    Moreover, should litigation be pursued, there is Supreme Court precedent in which the Fairness Doctrine was upheld. In Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in part:

    It does not violate the First Amendment to treat licensees given the privilege of using scarce radio frequencies as proxies for the entire community, obligated to give suitable time and attention to matters of great public concern. To condition the granting or renewal of licenses on a willingness to present representative community views on controversial issues is consistent with the ends and purposes of those constitutional provisions forbidding the abridgment of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Congress need not stand idly by and permit those with licenses to ignore the problems which beset the people or to exclude from the airways anything but their own views of fundamental questions.

    The Fairness Doctrine was bad policy. The Hawley bill would be bad law.

    1. @don-sutherland
      “The embrace of protectionism and tariffs to dictate supply chain and consumer choices is another example where contemporary conservatives have put State power ahead of free markets.

      What it means to be a conservative today is radically different from what it once meant to be a conservative.”

      Completely agree. It’s astounding that conservatives can’t/won’t/don’t recognize what they have become.

      1. The erosion of a strong free market constituency raises potential risks going forward. The balance of policy risks may now be tilted toward an increased State role more than would have been the case had there been a stronger and larger free market constituency. Considering the role markets play in employment, wages, products/services, and living standards this erosion in the free market constituency could have long-term adverse implications.

        1. Where is the “erosion of a strong free market” except where there is unfair trade and unfair censorship? You are making my arguments. Thank you!

          1. Liberals can make exactly the same argument for content rules to be imposed on Talk Radio. They can argue that the viewpoints expressed exclude the diversity of viewpoints nationwide, limit public access to the liberal perspective, would promote the public interest, etc. And, of course, if content rules are to be imposed, enterprising Democratic Socialists such as Rep. Ocasio-Cortez can use the same practice to pursue guaranteed outcomes that fit her agenda e.g., guaranteed incomes (a “basic income” guarantee was part of her “Green New Deal” proposal). After all, if the State can guarantee one outcome, it most definitely can seek to guarantee another. Neither Senator Hawley nor the new statist conservatives appreciate the consequences of the precedent they advocate.

            The reality is that the opportunity available to people of all perspectives to express their thoughts is greater than it has ever been. The argument that special regulations are needed to impose viewpoint diversity on the targets of those regulations is meaningless in the larger context in which opportunities for free expression are greater than ever due to the advance of technology.

            As for marketplace competition, such competition does not provide guarantees. Many companies have risen and then died, industries have been born and given way to new ones, countries have gained and lost comparative advantages. All of this has happened within the context of expanding freedom (including, but not limited to trade) and innovation-driven creative destruction within the marketplace.

            Equal opportunity is not the same thing as equal outcomes. Marketplace opportunity is not the same thing as guaranteed marketplace outcomes. Consumers and businesses should be free to make the consumption and supply chain choices that best serve their needs without the State’s dictating those choices to them.

            1. Liberals can make exactly the same argument for content rules to be imposed on Talk Radio. They can argue that the viewpoints expressed exclude the diversity of viewpoints nationwide, limit public access to the liberal perspective, would promote the public interest, etc.

              But there is neutrality in AM radio. Do you realize equality is not the same as neutrality? This isn’t calling for “equal time” is it? It’s merely saying that the decision makers must be neutral and not biased in who they put on their platform. Years ago I was a big AM listener in several states and I begrudgingly found the liberals always dominating the prime time on AM radio while Rush/Hannity were in the middle of the day. And that’s when most listeners were Conservatives! So I don’t know if the station owners were mostly left-leaning or what, but I don’t see any bias other than leftist bias in AM radio!

              And, of course, if content rules are to be imposed

              Where do you get that from? This isn’t in this bill. Are you saying this bill will open the door to that? How so? I don’t think the Democrats need an invitation to open the doors to anything–they will do what they want no matter what Republicans say/do. You don’t have to worry about that.

              The reality is that the opportunity available to people of all perspectives to express their thoughts is greater than it has ever been.

              Maybe you aren’t watching the YouTube content providers like Crowder, Jimmy Dore, Time Pool, Joe Rogan, etc…. Most of these I listed aren’t even right-wing, but all of these oppose the censorship by big media. And it’s happening–you see it from watching and how they complain they are getting demonetized and have to walk on egg shells so they don’t upset the censor gods.

              Consumers and businesses should be free to make the consumption and supply chain choices that best serve their needs without the State’s dictating those choices to them.

              Big thumbs up! We both agree there! Therefore, Monopolies like YT/Twitter/PT, etc… should not be dictating who to live and who to die. Let the free market dictate! They are abusing the free market; therefore, the advantages they have over utilities should be taken away gradually until they straight up their act!

              1. Access to diverse viewpoints is one avenue by which content can be rendered “neutral” in substantive terms. The Fairness Doctrine sought to address issues such as “ideological bias” by requiring that broadcasters “make… facilities available for the expression of contrasting viewpoints.” Borrowing from your own language, it would be appropriate for the FCC to require the Talk Radio stations to be “neutral and not biased in who they put on their platform.” In other words, liberal shows would need to be aired in addition to those hosted by Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, etc., because the existing shows are anything but neutral.

                IMO, that would be patently absurd. It would deny broadcasters their freedom to offer programming that fits tastes of their audiences.

                Finally, Hawley’s bill is about content. Its requirement that the Social Media companies be certified by the FCC related to their moderation of information would have the force of law. Moderation of content determines what content exists. Moderation of content is a means to an end. Its requirement would impair the Social Media companies’ freedom to deal with content based on their own rules, policies, and terms. Its “political neutrality” requirement would open a Pandora’s Box where government (the FCC) could micromanage content to determine whether that condition is satisfied.

                1. Borrowing from your own language, it would be appropriate for the FCC to require the Talk Radio stations to be “neutral and not biased in who they put on their platform.

                  If we are going to compare apples to apples, let’s define what we are talking about. I am talking about platforms not content creators. Stations are 1) tiny tiny tiny platforms, but also content creators. They dictate what the market calls for in that region and in that time slot. There really is no comparison to the giant media platforms that are global in size. To even come close to being a comparison, I would say the FCC that issues licenses to stations is the equivalent of YouTube issuing channels to content creators. In both cases, they need to be neutral and not discriminate on who they issue to. The Content Creators like Crowder is exactly like a radio station as both dictate the content and at what time. So again, there is no comparison, but if my representations are not jiving with the legal terms, I would say this discussion needs to be hashed out in Congress, FCC and the courts to catch up to common sense 2020 technology reality.

                  Finally, Hawley’s bill is about content.

                  Where are you getting that from? If that was the case, I would be opposed to it, but my understanding is that it regulates platforms not content.

      2. Red herring. No one is embracing protectionism. If you can’t see by now that tariffs used by Trump are for negotiation purposes on trade deals then you simply aren’t paying attention.

        You RINOs need to stop calling yourself Conservatives because there is nothing Conservative about the Bush years (if that’s your gold standard)

        1. This has nothing to do with the Bush years…zero, zip

          When has Government interference ever resulted in what is good for the American people?

          1. You have tunnel vision. You look at “government interference” as bad and I completely agree with you for the most part, but then you don’t consider fairness in intervention. Let me explain it to you this way. You have two children. The older one you raised with stringent restrictions and grown to be pretty responsible in his behavior and dealing with others. You later have a younger child who you chose to give much more freedom and leeway. In essence, you are treating both children differently at this point, but as long things are going well, you don’t look to make any changes. But later on, you find out that the younger one who essentially has free reign is wreaking havoc of your place, kicking the dog and uprooting your vegetable garden. What do you do? You have three options

            1) Treat both children equally (my position)
            2) Put slightly more restrictions on the younger child, but still has more freedom than older one (this law)
            3) Restrict the freedoms of the younger child even more than older child as punishment.

        2. The retaliation on tariffs is tariffs.
          Maybe cut off Foreign Aid, there is no retaliation for that.

          Or, with all the Foreign Aid we give, why not set up “safe zones” in THEIR country in order to keep their citizens there, rather than have them invade our country at OUR expense. After all, we occupy most foreign countries.

          1. I would agree with you if it was simply just “retaliation on tariffs”. But it’s not. There is a proposal they give and if they don’t agree to it or fail to negotiate, the tariffs are slapped. In the case with Mexico, the proposal is stop the illegal migration–and it worked! The case with China is stop the illegal tariffs and thefts of our products. The Chinese won’t give in too easily, but their economy is suffering because of it and because they hope to destroy us with their theft of IP and dismantling of our manufacturing infrastructure.

            1. And you think tariffs aren’t hurting Americans??

              How many more industries do American taxpayers have to subsidize? What are we at $30-40B. Why didn’t that money go for the WALL? We can find it to subsidize, but we can’t find it otherwise. Lol, ok

              How do you know the migration worked? It was implemented June 9 or 10. We haven’t had an official BP report yet & I’m almost positive with temperatures at this time of year, there will be a slow down.

              Our manufacturing went to China & other countries BECAUSE of OUR govt policies, regulations, ridiculous union demands, etc. Again govt interference.

              Theft of intellectual property… as I understand it, this is what Companies agreed to in order to set up their businesses in China. If companies “agreed” to it, I wouldn’t exactly call it theft. Should they have done it, No. But that was the price of doing business in China.

              1. And you think tariffs aren’t hurting Americans??

                Ofcourse they hurt Americans, but it’s mild compared to the long-term hurt of the theft China is engaging in! This is a war just like conventional wars–there will be casualties, but it’s better to deal with the hurt now then to deal with them for the next 100 years!

                How do you know the migration worked?

                Are you not watching the news? Mexico deployed 6,000 troops to their borders. It will take time before we know how effective this is because it takes weeks for these migrants to travel across Mexico!

                Our manufacturing went to China & other countries BECAUSE of OUR govt policies, regulations, ridiculous union demands, etc. Again govt interference.

                Yes, but don’t you see that our horrible govt./reg policies NEVER changed because China became a permanent band-aid? So you think a solution to bad government is to import cheap crap from governments that are engage in slave labor and steal our IP? Not all IP theft is from companies that manufacture in China. China is making knock-offs of almost everything we make and they do NOTHING about it. That’s theft!

            1. You are a progressive. On at least four different subjects that I can remember in recent times, you’ve taken the hard progressive position.

              1. lol. You are a joke! I’ll debate you anytime on Conservatism and you agree more with RINOs than you do with Conservatives like Cruz.

                1. Entitlement to Youtube – Progressive.
                  Entitlement to Harvard – Progressive.
                  Abuse the NEA to ignore Legislature – Progressive.
                  Rationalize Racism – Progressive.

                  And don’t posture. Your “debates” go like this:

                  1) Frank says something patently progressive and stupid.
                  2) AT explains how and why it’s stupid, and mocks Frank for it.
                  3) Frank goes full snowflake and screams that AT is a liar over and over and over.

                  Son, I’m so far out of your league that I can’t even see you from up here. Go back to your group therapy sessions with Doc and Des. Maybe hunt around for some random posts to downvote. Punk.

                2. lie
                  lie
                  lie
                  lie
                  lie
                  lie

                  @atomicsentinel every now and then you make some good arguments, but the biggest issue with you is if you disagree with something, you go into full-blown exaggeration and using hyperbole in your arguments that it makes you look like an outright liar! You keep reducing the argument into one-liners and you project your outrage on me. I’m very calm–you are the one that’s throwing a temper tantrum or are you just surprised anyone is even taking your seriously enough to argue with you? Things aren’t as simple as you make them out to be. By the way, to extend your silly argument, do you think you are entitled to utilities!? What if all the phone companies refuse to give you service because you are labeled as “alt-right” in 2022? What are you gonna do? You better not whine about it and start using message bottles and birds to communicate!

                3. See? Thanks for illustrating Frank. Your idiocy can always be counted on to make my points for me.

                  I’m very calm

                  lol, you’re the single-most easiest snowflake to trigger ON this site.

                  Things aren’t as simple as you make them out to be.

                  Of course they are. You just have to get them down to the simplicity of True vs False, Right vs Wrong, Good vs Evil, Black vs White.

                  People who insist on things being “complicated” are simply trying to create gray area and rationalizations to hide in when their positions make no sense.

                4. So you completely ignore me pointing out your lies!

                  and you project your leftist snowflake triggering on me. lol

                  I know you think simplistically because that’s all you’re capable of, but life is complex–laws are complex! This isn’t an episode of “naked man” where anything goes! Your utopian society doesn’t exist! I would love to have limited government and completely free trade, but that’s not how things are and the more you learn about the real world, the better informed you will be on knowing the solutions aren’t one-liners.

                5. There are no lies to point out. Nor do you. You just shriek the word over and over. And then you make a tired sandbox screech of I AM RUBBER YOU ARE GLUE.

                  NOM. NOM. NOM. YOUR. LUNCH.

                  PUNK.

                  know you think simplistically because that’s all you’re capable of, but life is complex–laws are complex!

                  Principles aren’t. But… you’re a progressive, so you don’t deal in those, do you.

      3. If conservatism is so much in favor of big business at the expense of the common man, then yes I guess I am not a conservative. Utterly ridiculous.

          1. Tell it to Robert Stacy McCain. Oh wait, you probably have no freaking clue who that is.

                1. Hey, since you don’t think your personal data is of any value at all, why don’t you give it all to me then?

                2. You seem to think like a dumba$$ that giving your personal data to Twitter/Facebook/YouTube isn’t giving them anything of value in exchange for a service. So give it to me then, if you think it has no value.

                3. Ahh, so you think that when you post a cat video, youtube is agreeing to host that video in exchange for some data you don’t even appreciate that you’re giving them, and that you’re therefore now business partners? And that you now have the contractual right to post whatever videos you want because they already accepted your data?

                  This is a weird little position you’ve carved out for yourself.

                4. You’re the one that doesn’t understand why Big Media has been gathering as much personal data about everyone as they possibly can. Do you think it’s just a hobby of theirs?

                5. I understand it just fine. That’s why I don’t give mine out.

                  But what this has to do with your non-existent right to youtube… you still haven’t connected that dot.

                6. Oh, I connected them. You’re furiously trying to deny that the lines connecting all the dots say in big block letters AT IS COMPLETELY CLUELESS ABOUT TECH.

                  If it wasn’t so pathetic it would be vaguely cute, like a 6-year-old trying to rationalize being caught out of bed in the middle of the night.

                7. @atomicsentinel you seriously need to take a beginner’s business law class. Do you have a right to your internet service? I’m sick and tired of your mind-numbing BS and I happen to be the same guy responsible for your internet service. lights out!!

                8. No, I don’t have a right to my internet service. Someone has to provide that to me. If someone has to provide it to you, by definition it cannot be a right.

                  I keep trying to explain this to you, but it keeps going way over your progressive little head.

                9. You keep evading my question when I eat your lunch! ANSWER MY DAMN QUESTION FOR A CHANGE!

                10. I answered it directly. What part did you not get?

                  “Do you have a right to your internet service?”
                  “No, I don’t have a right to my internet service.”

                  What more do you want? Start breathing in the paper bag again dude!

        1. @tracy these people AT, Don, et al. aren’t Conservative–they are big government/big business RINOs. These are the same people who supported Bush/BO’s bailout of big banks and big insurance! If it’s between the freedom and big business, they ALWAYS side with BIG BUSINESS!

          1. I never supported bailouts. I dare you to find a single post I’ve ever written in favor of it. You’re poisoning the well, Frank. Because you know you don’t have a leg to stand on here.

            Hey by the way, where do you stand on Trump’s tariffs that have the direct result of him doing a farm bailout? Let me guess…. “My life for him!”

            1. You’re not a big thinker. I don’t blame you. Most RINOs are and that’s why we’ve been stuck with so many Bush years getting raped by China! You think “tariffs” and immediately shut the door to trying to right the wrong of what China is doing. That’s stupid! Tell me, Gomer, what would you do if China is stealing IP, illegal tariffs, etc… What you gonna do??? Go ahead, answer!

              1. Yes, I can see what you mean when you said you’re very calm.

                So, was that a yes or a no on the farm bailout, proggy?

                1. You aren’t answering my question. The farm bailout is just a small part of the money collected via tariffs. I don’t agree with any bailouts or tariffs, but I look at the big picture. I don’t like to kill anyone, but there’s a burglar in the house and it’s either I risk getting hurt and my stuff stolen or I shoot to kill. Life isn’t all rosy, Dorthey.

                  Now answer my question. What will you do with Chinese theft? Are you a pacifist?

                2. I don’t agree with any bailouts or tariffs, but

                  So then you’re for the farm bailouts.

                  Even though you just said you’re against bailouts/tariffs.

                  You seem to be a very confused person.

                  I don’t like to kill anyone, but there’s a burglar in the house and it’s either I risk getting hurt and my stuff stolen or I shoot to kill.

                  What does that have to do with liking it?

                  What will you do with Chinese theft?

                  Nuke China. I don’t know. Is that an option for me?

                3. obviously you aren’t a serious person with serious ideas to even bother communicating with. You are really just a TROLL

            1. @sam Trump changed his position on a few things, but true Conservatives were against these stupid bailouts that doubled our national debt and we got NOTHING out of them.

              1. If you check Trumps history, he has changed his mind on most things.

                I agree, bailouts are NOT the answer, but answer me this…. what is the difference between a bailout & subsidies, other than we are supposed to recoup on bailouts.

                1. I already said I don’t like bailouts, subsidies, tariffs, etc… But Trump is using the tools available to him to fix a broken trade policy. The only tool available to him is tariffs and to lessen the effect of tariffs, he has to use subsidies. Again, these are all short-term band-aids to fix long-term problems, so I’m not so rigid that I don’t allow those kinds of exceptions. If, on the other hand, Trump decides to continue to tariff and subsidize well after reaching a trade agreement, then I would be wholeheartedly against that.

      4. I see it. I see it clear as day. And it sickens me.

        I refuse to even call them conservatives anymore. They’re progressive right. That’s the only term that reasonably applies.

    2. Again lots of falsities, false comparisons not to mention presumptions on your part.

      You are using tunnel vision to look at this with the false premise that you are siding with “limited government”. When all said and done, a FEW GIANT CORPORATIONS exercise power with the help of the federal government to wreak havoc on the freedoms of thousands of entrepreneurs across the world. Discussion and actions are long overdue on this–I welcome this debate to be had if not via this bill or some other or that SCOTUS settle this matter once and for all. I can maybe understand your stance if there wasn’t outward bias uncovered by James O’Keefe and others, but it’s as clear as night and day that we have bad actors that need to dealt with. No government entity would put up with this if such actions were taken by a small mom and pop shop let alone a gigantic global corporation like Google/FB/Twitter, etc..

      Contrary to your claim, Conservatives want action to do what’s right not to just advance an agenda like leftists do. I would be having same position if any corporation was doing this from the right as well. As an example, when the bailouts were getting handed out to the big businesses and banks, I didn’t care or know what the political leanings of these institutions were. I just knew it was WRONG! I am wondering where you stood on those big government bailouts, Mr. Limited Government?

    3. It’s nothing like the Fairness doctrine that put a burden on radio stations to give up air time to the other side.

      All Hawley is saying in this legislation is be neutral – dont remove people from a platform because you dont like what they are saying. As long as its lawful, it should be left alone.

      You are making bad comparisons.

  20. While leftist big tech is single-handily destroying Conservative entrepreneurs and speech, the debate on how to handle their special exceptions rages on.

  21. While leftist big tech is single-handily destroying Conservative entrepreneurs and speech, the debate on how to handle their special exceptions rages on.

  22. The loss of Section 230 protection for these companies would cause a dramatic drop of their stocks overnight and a litany of lawsuits that would shutter each one of them within 12 months. These companies know this, which is why most are wanting to be placed under government regulation—regulations they themselves will ultimately author. This bill is nothing more than a legal pressure tactic to get these companies to pick a side of 230 on which to stand; and on that basis alone I support this act.

  23. Who cares? The more they stifle speech, and actually embrace being a platform, the faster they move into irrelevancy. Don’t tie your financial survival to a 3rd party service, or become addicted to sharing your opinions with people you’ll never have any influence over, if you value liberty and independence. There’s nothing preventing individuals on the right from taking over TrumpTown, or Gab, if this seems like a terrifying reality.

  24. Bill Whittle lays out three simple and basic reasons why and how these oligopolistic corporations like Google or Facebook can be broken up under antitrust laws. They are monopolies, and they are violating their “protections” that the government can grant to a monopoly to “ignore” them. Other such monopolistic products, like Q-tips, don’t differentiate or punish people based on their politics. Google, despite being a monopoly, does. It would be like if the electric or water company charged far more for their services than those on the left.

    No need for a new law. Hawley’s loot box ban is fine, as it’s just extending gambling restrictions to something that is blatant new-age gambling being peddled at minors. This, however, doesn’t need a new. We just need to exercise the laws we already have.

      1. Not really, in this case. In the case of Silicon Valley tech giants, each of them is a monopoly in their own field. There is no real “competition” to Google, YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter. Especially since they work together to ban/shutdown anyone who doesn’t tow their political line. They all work together to maintain their superiority in their chosen fields, whether it’s having sites like Gab shutdown or demonetized through some other SJW allied company, or working together to deplatform or shut up conservatives like Steven Crowder or James O’Keefe.

        1. The Sherman Act and other laws dealing with competitive practices are sufficient to deal with anti-competitive issues.

  25. They need to decide if they are platforms or publishers. If they decide what goes up on their site, they are publishers and must be held liable for the things that are posted

  26. I think that social media companies need to decide if they are platforms or publishers not some hybrid of both

  27. How about we just charge them with breaking anti-trust laws and break them up like we would any other monopoly.

  28. Key summary from above.

    Hawley introduced the Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act, which dramatically amends a law providing internet companies broad immunity from being sued for content others post on their websites. His bill, if it becomes law, would provide big tech companies such immunity only if they can show they are politically neutral.

    This is a very mild change and puts enforcement in hands of courts not politicians

    1. They’d need to make the proof to the FTC. So it’d be in the executive. Presumably there’d be some limited judicial review of these determinations, but it’d be deferential.

  29. Government censorship is a troubling thought. Their good intentions offer have disastrous consequences.

  30. I’m not a big fan of government certifications on political fairness. You can bet your life that once Democrats are in charge of determining fairness that the whole system will be corrupted and abused.

    1. This isn’t something Congress would control, but something the courts would determine like any discrimination lawsuit.

      1. If that’s the case, then why worry about “certification” as a statute? Just find the right time when some person on Facebook says something demonstrably factually incorrect about another person. Help the aggrieve party sue Facebook for libel and argue to the court that FB does not meet the safe harbor provisions of the CDA.

      2. Yeah let’s trust the courts – good idea. The people advocating big government expansion don’t realize their guy isn’t going to president forever.

        We need a pro freedom small government political party.

        1. When there’s injustice, I trust the courts more than big leftist business. Apparently, you trust big leftist business at all costs! This is narrow-minded thinking that won’t get you to a free society. Anything controlled by the left (weather government or business) will lead to tyranny. Better to get this hashed out now in Congress/courts before it’s too late! That’s all us Conservatives are saying, let’s hash it out! Everyone agrees there’s something wrong with what they’re doing. Doing nothing about it isn’t an option!

  31. If you haven’t seen it, watch one of Tim Pool’s videos of where tech giants might be going and how commercial speech could be next:

    Do you want your buying options determined by your political leanings?

    “Something” does need to done and requires government intervention before a tipping point is reached. Whether this bill qualifies is an open question. Like Hawley, it’s hyper-legalistic.

    1. Tim Pool is doing a great job covering and exposing this topic and he’s not even on the right! Just a classical anti-censorship liberal.

    2. Tim Pool is more of a real journalist than anybody on the networks. Liberal or not, he admits his leanings, but reports straight down the line. Plus he made Jack from Twitter and his affirmative action legal representation look like a bunch of amateurs on Rogan’s podcast. I watched his video on this yesterday and he really covered it well why this might actually be a good idea.
      https://youtu.be/-jlqYJg96kk

      Saw this on YT comments and laughed.
      Tech CEOs: This will ruin us. Please don’t do this!
      Everyone: Thank you for your feedback

  32. I remember making the exact same argument about the effects of getting rid of CDA immunity (i.e. more censorship) months and being roundly criticized…

    1. How so? This Hawley thing is an actual certification of neutrality; but Conservative sites (including this one) have been talking about suing the big platforms as “publishers” and arguing that they had no safe harbor because of their political biases in limiting the speech of some of their users.

      Ben Shapiro talked about it on his show even before Ted Cruz asked his questions of Zuckerberg regarding this issue. That was over a year ago:

      1. Right, the thing is that if they lose immunity, then they’re going to be extremely vigilant about what appears on their platform. Keep in mind that you can’t sue them for removing opinions, you’d need to sue them for something for which a publisher could actually be liable (i.e. defamation). And they’ll take every precaution to ensure that objectionable content doesn’t appear on their platforms.

        1. Nah, I highly doubt that’ll be their calculus. Their choices will be:
          1. Maintain safe harbor provisions by reducing their detailed oversight of content and the creators of that content. Do everything they can to remain a “platform”.
          2. Police all content to be absolutely sure that good “journalistic” practices are followed by each and every member of their site. Without a newspaper’s level of editing, they will be constantly subject to lawsuits… all in the name of promoting their political biases.

          The first one would be technically possible and fit in their existing profitable business models. The second one is not possible to achieve and would wreck their business models.

          Which do you think they’ll pursue?

          1. They’ll try to pursue the former, for sure, so that they can maintain CDA immunity. Well, they’ll try and challenge the entire system as unconstitutional, but assuming they lose, they’ll try to work within it. I was referring to the effects of getting rid of CDA immunity, though, which is what this site, Shapiro, etc. have argued for at times, and which Devin Nunes has tried to do (and he’s going to lose that suit badly).

            1. I’ve heard Shapiro explain the CDA safe harbor provision multiple times. I don’t think I’ve heard him advocate just eliminating it. I don’t see how that would work since there are very legitimate platforms out there that need the protection.

              I’m not sure what Nunes is hoping to accomplish. From what I’ve read, he’s going after twitter for stuff that a newspaper could publish without a problem. It’s just parody stuff.

              I think that the real challenge will come along when legitimately libelous mob action occurs as a result of the echo chambers being created on the social media platforms.

              Once a plaintiff can legitimately argue that a Twitter mob fed libelous information to the public, Twitter did nothing about it, and real harms were caused – Twitter’s makeup of biased voices and its influence on that bias will be the chink in the armor that will be attacked to remove their safe harbor protections.

              Personally, I think the safe harbor provisions need to be revised in light of the way that social media platforms work. There needs to be a third option besides “platform” and “content producer”.

        2. Right, the thing is that if they lose immunity, then they’re going to be extremely vigilant about what appears on their platform.

          Yeppers. That was the exact same prediction I had.

          Which is a blow to the marketplace of ideas, not a boon.

  33. Overall, I want the government to stay out of our business. But if these liberal companies enjoy some sort of immunity or tax breaks or whatever and are allowed to block, censor, demonetize, etc. at will, then there’s something wrong. This should be remedied somehow.

  34. The loss of Section 230 protection for these companies would cause a dramatic drop of their stocks overnight and a litany of lawsuits that would shutter each one of them within 12 months. These companies know this, which is why most are wanting to be placed under government regulation—regulations they themselves will ultimately author. This bill is nothing more than a legal pressure tactic to get these companies to pick a side of 230 on which to stand; and on that basis alone I support this act.

  35. Who cares? The more they stifle speech, and actually embrace being a platform, the faster they move into irrelevancy. Don’t tie your financial survival to a 3rd party service, or become addicted to sharing your opinions with people you’ll never have any influence over, if you value liberty and independence. There’s nothing preventing individuals on the right from taking over TrumpTown, or Gab, if this seems like a terrifying reality.

  36. I don’t believe this legislation is necessary. Just revoke their platform protections…no new law needed.

  37. About freaking time.

    Cue up the anti individual freedom and pro corporate facisism crowd.

    1. Nah. I’m tired. And I’ve already eaten your lunch on this subject.

      Whine away, proggy snowflake! Tell us all about your entitlements and your rights to have other people provide you something.

      1. Eaten my lunch? ROFL All you’ve shown is the liar you are! And you think that insulting others means “winning” the argument! Haha

        1. Great points, they are tired of trying to convince us that to be principled is to allow these monopolies to censor lawful speech.

          1. What is the principle you’re espousing? The right to speak and have someone else provide you a platform in which to do it?

            1. Well if my principles were to roll over and let monopolies control speech in the public square I would find new principles.

          2. Thanks @tracy It’s really interesting how they act “principled” when Conservatives are getting the raw deal.

            1. Holy Hell, that’s terrifying. Facebook will, essentially, consume the government. They will control our speech, and our money.

        2. You have to love those that claim to have won some sort of argument, when they know it was their lunch that was eaten, but practice projection. The left is famous for that.

          1. Projection is strong with AT and the insults increase when I back it up into a corner.

      2. You spent so much time excoriating @tracy over “privatized tyranny” and yet, here’s a really good explanation how it might look by Tim Pool:

    2. Will you have a similar response if, let’s say, AOC introduces a substantial income redistribution bill to “level the playing field?” The current case essentially amounts to limiting private companies’ control over platforms they worked to create. The latter would involve taking a share of income people generated from their work efforts. The statist Hawley bill is incompatible with limited government and a dilution of property rights.

        1. Yes, I understand that for some such as Hawley, reducing others’ property rights is ok if it benefits his tribe so to speak. For him and others like him, support for limited government comes with a giant asterisk in which the heavy hand of the state can be deployed to produce outcomes that reward his tribe. The principle of limited government for some, only, is not one for limited government in general.

          1. “Limited government” isnt an all-purpose tool you can apply randomly. So I guess, you are for drastically reducing our military? I’m for limited government, but also for equal application of government not so that it benefits the Big monopolies like Google, yet hurts the small Cake shop.

            1. National defense is a core responsibility. Federal micromanagement of private companies aimed purely at advancing partisan interests as opposed the the public welfare is not.

              1. So you are saying it’s perfectly acceptable to have big government for the most essential aspect of our government? That makes no sense if you are against big government! You can have an agile military that uses private contractors. And especially in today’s modern warfare, there is no need for such a large number of ground troops.

                Making it a fair playing field for small entrepreneurs isn’t against the “public welfare”!

                1. You do understand that the Founders had, and articulated, a proper purpose of government, right?

                  Eh, never mind.

                  NOM NOM NOM YOUR LUNCH.

                2. If the large Social Media companies were engaged in unfair practices against their competitors, there are ample legal remedies available to address that issue.

              2. But we need the micromanagement Don. We need it from the government. They need to control these people. It’s the only way we’ll get fairness. And other leftist positions.

          2. It’s okay to increase the size of the federal government as long as their guy is President. He joins the long list of phony limited government “conservatives”.

            1. So stopping special exceptions for big tech in order to promote free speech is increasing size of government!?

      1. This is about freedom of speech. These platforms have protections when users make terrible speech that is still lawful. Why censor?

          1. Doesnt change the fact that they band together to censor speech of those who threaten the status quo that they paid handsomely for.

            It’s an attack on our political system when more and more people get their news and views from social media.

          2. Big monopolies controlling our speech is just as bad as Big government controlling our speech. This is why we outlawed monopolies in the first place. Any centralization of power always leads to loss of freedom.

            1. Protection of free speech does not require others to give us a platform. It requires that the State not thwart us from its exercise.

              1. US Supreme Court, majority decision, Munn v. Illinois, 1876:

                Property does become clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make it of public consequence and affect the community at large. When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing the use, but, so long as he maintains the use, he must submit to the control.

                1. I don’t dispute that the federal government has the authority to regulate Social Media under the Constitution. My argument is that there is no compelling need that warrants its choosing to do so under the Hawley bill or some similar instrument.

      2. How is this statist? These companies enjoy unique liability protections created by the government.

        The government created these protections in the interest of encouraging open debate and the growth of neutral platforms where a broad spectrum of voices can be heard. Instead, a small group of tech giants have monopolized the space and begun exercising editorial control over the content.

        The laissez-faire approach is to remove their unique protections and see how they do without the state protecting them.

        I am not sure the Hawley bill is the right one, maybe the government should just completely get out of the business and not offer protections to anyone.

        1. If the goal is to turn them into publishers, they will be far more restrictive in terms of the content they accept. Not all content is equal in terms of revenue generation. And if they restrict a broad range of content to maximize profits (and minimize potential litigation), that would be entirely within their purview as publishers to do that. Publishers enjoy broad First Amendment protection for their editorial discretion.

          1. As publishers they could be more restrictive and the result would be a much smaller audience. If their content skewed toward revenue generation, firearms videos would be back on and panel discussions on proper trans pronouns would be off. I’m fine with letting the market decide.

            What I am not fine with is the government artificially shielding them while they edit content.

    1. To quote above, maybe comparing apples to rabbits is not the best approach.

      These companies enjoy unique liability protections created by the government.

      The government created these protections in the interest of encouraging open debate and the growth of neutral platforms where a broad spectrum of voices can be heard. Instead, a small group of tech giants have monopolized the space and begun exercising editorial control over the content.

      Remove their unique protections is the laissez-faire approach. The Hawley bill might not be right. Maybe the government should just completely get out of the business and not offer protections to anyone.

  38. Bill Whittle lays out three simple and basic reasons why and how these oligopolistic corporations like Google or Facebook can be broken up under antitrust laws. They are monopolies, and they are violating their “protections” that the government can grant to a monopoly to “ignore” them. Other such monopolistic products, like Q-tips, don’t differentiate or punish people based on their politics. Google, despite being a monopoly, does. It would be like if the electric or water company charged far more for their services than those on the left.

    No need for a new law. Hawley’s loot box ban is fine, as it’s just extending gambling restrictions to something that is blatant new-age gambling being peddled at minors. This, however, doesn’t need a new. We just need to exercise the laws we already have.

  39. They need to decide if they are platforms or publishers. If they decide what goes up on their site, they are publishers and must be held liable for the things that are posted

  40. DO NOTHING! I don’t care if these private companies choose to censor. It’s their choice to do this. Leave this fake ass fedgov out of it!
    Of course you so called conservatives “must have equality and by golly fedgov come help us.” Be damned small gov’t, right? Ha!

    Ohhh my does this country and the world need a real Thanos!

      1. Yep. They do not get to act as a publisher and receive the protection of a platform. Some dolts here don’t understand the difference between a platform vs a publisher.

    1. What would you say if AT&T decided that someone with the wrong views could no longer talk on the phone?

      Muh private company tho amiright?

      1. Then I switch to verizon or some other.
        You are smart tracy and know exactly my point so silly scenarios don’t work. The point is that fedgov should stay out of as much as possible. Stick with increased innovation and new outlets. That is the only answer in a free market society. More regulation is never the answer.

          1. So you want the same fedgov that allows and in most cases supports the gaymafia to force cake bakers to make cakes for homo weddings? I’m going out on a limb here and will guess no you don’t. How is this different?
            You’re stuck on the S word dear.
            No…not that one because I believe you are not but rather the other one…Semantics.

            1. Having a baker bake a cake for your weddings isnt the same as engaging in the public square.

              There are thousands of bakers who would be happy for your business.

              There is one Facebook.

              There is one Twitter.

              Ask Gab how the monopolies work to deplatform startup competitors.

              1. Please see my answer to TXrunner….. pretty much the same response to you.
                I get it Tracy. I really do. But wtf can be done?
                And btw…I see what you did there. 😉 Funny dig. 🙂

        1. …but Verizon and Sprint only exist because the Fed Gov’t stepped in and broke up AT&T.

          I’m all for a free market solution. Let’s break up the tech giants as the monopolies they are.

          1. TX….that is something I would be in favor for if they are violating established anti-trust laws.
            Look….I f’ing hate the largess corporations. I personally choose to do business with as many small mom n pops as I can here in the Houston area but I also run my own business for my living wage and definitely don’t want fedgov infringing upon my ability to make as many benjamins as I possibly can.

            Btw…I watched the tim cook video and yes…for sure he has good points. I would especially highlight the absolute fact of an unholy alliance between fedgov and those tech companies. So …. the breaking up of these companies could be some sort of solution but I doubt it. The pieces parts will likely be “owned” by fedgov enabling a continuation of this bs.

            Also….this cook dude was very hard to watch. He might as well rename himself… Rachel Hayes. 🙂

            1. Tim Cook is the CEO of Apple. The video is from Tim Pool, and I’m not particularly fond of the format either.

              Nobody is talking about federal takeover. I certainly don’t want the fed involved in managing or owning the companies. This is more like the break-up of AT&T becoming the baby bells and some other new companies coming online because a fragmented market allows for some market penetration.

              Bottom line: When too much power is in too few hands — unelected, unaccountable hands not beholden to a constitution and not constrained by a bill of rights — we’re on a very dark path and need to change course.

    2. But but but…. it says right there in the constitution. “Thou shalt have the absolute right to youtube.” We fought a war over this, remember? We dressed up like elizabeth warren and snuck aboard Silicon Valley’s ships and threw all their peripherals into Boston Harbor. And then we were like “Four score and twenty upvotes ago, our googles brought forth on this internet a new website, conceived in cat videos and dedicated to the proposition that you have to host them.”

      History Channel bro. Watch it more.

      1. Hey AT-AT…. Instead of walking the snow on Hoth and blowing up stuff, how about trying to remain consistent in your arguments. Do you become schizophrenic when someone who you don’t like makes the same arguments as you incessantly do?
        Calm down “bro!” This crap isn’t even that serious.

          1. Copy that! And I apologize for my snark thrown your way as I misunderstood your stance in your retort. But my snark was kinda funny though?? Ha! Star Wars fans would get it. I’d bet you are one.
            I’ve enjoyed reading your comments over the last several months as you and I do share very similar views and enjoy stirring up the pot. Keep them coming.

      2. The History Channel hasn’t been about history in many, many years.

        I wish you could enjoy the dystopia you’re advocating, unfortunately, the rest of us would have to suffer with you and your strawman arguments.

    3. So you’re voting for dystopia…here’s what your world could look like in a video by Tim Pool:

  41. If the big tech companies go all in on censorship on all sides then the small startups like Gab that do not censor lawful rhetoric will rise up.

    It’s a good start to the problem

  42. I suspect that such a move will flip the dynamic on how stuff ends up on the internet. No longer will it be a free for all for people to post whatever they want, where review is triggered upon reporting/flagging. Instead, people will likely have to submit it to an approvals board who will decide whether it’s post-worthy after the review it. I mean, they’d have to right? Which will indeed make them publishers, but be a massive blow to the open internet.

    And then you’ve got the other side of the argument which, suppose after these folks approve something to be published, someone – anyone – takes offense to it. How exactly does one “prove their neutrality?”

    Sacrificing the platform nature of the internet is going down a real dark road. It’s not worth whatever “win” the snowflakes think it’s going to net them “for conservatism” (lol).

  43. The problem, as I see it, with those like Facebook, Twitter, Google etc. is every time a smaller start up trying to compete, who starts gaining some membership, the above much larger and wealthier companies named above make the start ups an offer they cannot refuse, and turn the new company into the same biased company they already own.

    I’m not thrilled with Hawley’s bill. Antitrust legislation is what I think would be better. There are some that have argued-if you don’t like those platforms start your own. Again, every time a new start up gets going, the bigger more wealthy company makes them an offer they can’t refuse.

    1. an offer they cannot refuse

      They could refuse it if they wanted. The question is whether they’re after a brass ring, or if they’re working for some greater benefit than their own personal enrichment.

      I don’t begrudge them taking the brass ring, of course – but for all the folks (myself included) who talk about building conservative alternatives to these social media giants, well… at the end of the day, most of us are capitalists.

      It’s a business, not a charity for conservatives who want to post their content.

      1. It’s not just any business, but one with special rights. No other national/global business can do what they do. Can the sole cable company in your area refuse service to you because they don’t like your politics?

          1. You give these companies your data in exchange for their service. These companies think your data is more valuable than your money. If you don’t understand how that works, go get educated.

    1. I agree. I’m absolutely entitled to something you have to provide me. Fairness is a human right. If they’re not going to do as I say, I’m just going to have to make them. By control, force, and coercion. Insert other patent stupidity.

  44. IDK….it’s a tough one. Both sides have legitimate points.

    I’m not so sure that being kicked off the deal would lead to more biased bans because they know what they have to do to get back in good graces. If this bill were to pass I think they need to lay down guidelines that don’t follow PC law. Right now the guidelines are PC all the way, which means the left determines what gets banned.

  45. He might as well have reintroduced the “Fairness Doctrine” given his zeal to expand government’s role. In reality, the creators of content should be accountable for their content and the “Fairness Doctrine” should not be introduced. Then again, yesterday’s conservatives believed in personal responsibility. Today’s believe in holding others accountable e.g., Hawley’s wanting to hold Social Media companies—private firms—for others’ content. Can the notion of collective guilt be far behind?

    1. And by “holding accountable” we’re really just talking about spiking footballs in their faces because winning.

    2. Lots of mistruth there. First of all, this isnt even close to fairness doctrine since fairness doctrine applied to content creators not platforms. This applies to platform not content creators.

      1. The common point concerns state intrusion in the private sphere. Such intrusion should be opposed if one believes in limited government.

        1. That intrusion is already present in the market except in big media tech. Why do you think big media tech should have that exception!?

          1. I would rather reduce the state’s role where feasible than expand it where it’s unnecessary.

            1. I agree. Here it’s necessary to insure free speech. Forcing a Baker to bake a cake when dozens of options locally and its not a national issue is NOT necessary.

    3. What? The fairness doctrine was applied to radio/TV with limited hours in a day to broadcast.

      Not the same with social media.

  46. If they remove any content not already covered…lose platform status.

    Content already covered by law

    Threats

    Pedophilia

    Etc.

  47. I think that social media companies need to decide if they are platforms or publishers not some hybrid of both

  48. How about we just charge them with breaking anti-trust laws and break them up like we would any other monopoly.

  49. Key summary from above.

    Hawley introduced the Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act, which dramatically amends a law providing internet companies broad immunity from being sued for content others post on their websites. His bill, if it becomes law, would provide big tech companies such immunity only if they can show they are politically neutral.

    This is a very mild change and puts enforcement in hands of courts not politicians

    1. They’d need to make the proof to the FTC. So it’d be in the executive. Presumably there’d be some limited judicial review of these determinations, but it’d be deferential.

  50. IDK….it’s a tough one. Both sides have legitimate points.

    I’m not so sure that being kicked off the deal would lead to more biased bans because they know what they have to do to get back in good graces. If this bill were to pass I think they need to lay down guidelines that don’t follow PC law. Right now the guidelines are PC all the way, which means the left determines what gets banned.

Comments are closed.