Trump puts social media companies ON NOTICE about banning conservatives!

El Presidente Trumpo went on a mini-rant about the private censorship of his supporters on social media.

He began with retweeting this earlier in the day:

Then he came back to the topic just now – and he seems very incensed about it.



There are some on the right, like Tucker Carlson, who wants the government to take over the means of social media platform production in order to make sure that his friends and allies aren’t punished.

Like Diamond and Silk:

And also James Woods:

Yes, we do have freedom of speech. And those people can keep speaking, just not on Twitter, or whatever other platform. I think it’s fine for politicians to use their influence to try to make sure these platforms are applying their own rules fairly, but I stop short of pushing for the state to control public media companies. After all, we can’t be in control forever. Do you really want to give Dems more precendence to take over the private sector?

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.

285 thoughts on “Trump puts social media companies ON NOTICE about banning conservatives!

  1. We can’t just duck the issue because these are private companies. They aren’t just banning this or that individual. They’re banning the free expression of ideas. Once the ideas are banned, they’re going to deprive conservative media of advertisers such as Daily Caller, Daily Signal, American Greatness, and so forth. And don’t think for a moment that they don’t plan to eventually choke National Review, Breitbart, NRA, and Gun Owners of America.

    We let these social media companies act as if they’re platforms that can’t be held liable for any of their content, but then they act like publishers to control their content. They can’t be both. If they’re going to ban viewpoints they don’t like, then they should be held liable for the ones they implicitly endorse.

    1. Once the ideas are banned, they’re going to deprive conservative media of advertisers such as Daily Caller, Daily Signal, American Greatness, and so forth.

      Wait what?

      Seems to me that those sites should be looking for advertisers that support them.

  2. The problem with creating an opposing social media site is what it can offer that FB or Twitter can’t already do. Also, they’ve been established for so long, that it’s going to be hard for any competitor to popup and for users to use it.

  3. Government interference that would guarantee the freedoms of its citizens? I’ll take it.

  4. Off topic, but really funny I thought. I texted my hub today to ask him to check the local store where we get our Purina canned dog food as they are usually out of stock. My phone auto-corrected Purina to Putin’s chow. I laughed so hard I had tears in my eyes. 🙂

  5. I feel there is a strong libertarian strain here that sees corps can be trusted to do what is right because “muh free market” but they are being motivated by power – not profit.

    Oh they will make money with the government and sweet tax deals and subsidies, but that isnt free markets.

  6. The issue is that they LIE about their business model, LIE about the rules, LIE about their “community standards,” and apply them unevenly to SILENCE reasonable voices, simply because those voices tell the truth.

    1. Reading that made me wince. As much as I appreciate their being conservatives and support the president, Diamond and Silk are essentially a comedy team.

    2. I love the entrepreneurship of these two ladies. I don’t know what they were doing before they started their gig but I bet they’re worth a lot more money now than they were then. I say Bravo – way to go ladies!

  7. At this point. youre wrong . It’s time to see govt bust these platforms up and speech to be protected.

  8. There is not a day that goes by on Gab where I don’t see a post from a newbie saying they’ve been banned from Twitter/FB because of their political views – multiple times some days from new users. It’s infuriating.
    Shcmuckerberg needs to be punished. He’s no different from the nazi’s in Germany burning books before WW2.

  9. After all, we can’t be in control forever. Do you really want to give Dems more precendence to take over the private sector?

    Damn it Soop, we have to win! Today! Win! WIN! TODAY! Never mind tomorrow! I’m not thinking that far ahead. The leftists don’t think that far ahead, and if we want to win we can’t either! We have to be just like them! To WIN! WIN!!. MAGA!!!!1!1!!!

  10. I am even less comfortable with government censorship than I am with private censorship.

    I agree that those platforms are like the public square and should not be able to censor, but… it is a deep and slippery slope once the government steps into it. Let private shaming work on them, and if not, well it’s not a right to have a Facebook page and twitter, that is actually a privilege, granted by a private company.

    They actually still speak just not on those platforms.

    Being silenced by the government… that is taboo. Not willing to go there.

    1. @cookiebob The government already is involved by granting them immunity from prosecution. They should be regarded as publishers and be liable to lawsuit.

      1. That is a point I actually didn’t know, they are can’t be sued, why in the world would that be true? And that is a job for Congress not the President. Congress makes laws.

  11. Twitter and Facebook are not ‘Platforms”, they are Authors and should have to abide by those laws. By treating them like a Platform and giving them protection from lawsuits, they are being allowed to run hog wild and hand pick who they ban and THAT is not right. There is zero need for government regulations. There needs to be the determination that Zuckerberg lied to Congress. He and Jack are both authors.

    1. Either or, they clearly promote content but I am pissed with conservative site like this pushing their speech.

  12. We don’t need to treat SocMed platforms like 1970s Telcos. But they can and ought to be sued for fraud.

    Especially when online bullying gets tied to suicides. It’s a pretty obvious direction to go.

    1. @K-Bob Yes, their non-publisher status should be revoked. It should be done through proper channels, I get nervous when Tromp starts acting dictatorial.

  13. When corporations are now actively & punitively choosing what speech is okay and what speech is not on the internet & is also targeting uniformly one side of the political discourse in America, I think we’re at the point where the gov’t has to get involved. I don’t like it as I’m sure many of you, but corporations controlling the flow of information & speech on the internet scares me more, ESPECIALLY with an election coming up where the left is ready for war.

    1. @airforcevet98 The government is already involved by granting them immunity from prosecution. The best thing is for them to step away and allow people to sue.

  14. Everytime Alex Jones gets de-platformed from another service, I listen to his radio show for a few days to see how he’s taking it. He generally brags that he makes more money and gets more subscribers the more that the major platforms ban him.

    Today he had Laura Loomer on, and she sounded suicidal. Said that her income is down 90% because of de-platforming, and that on top of it she’s facing constant death threats.

    Now, neither Laura nor Alex are what I would personally term “conservatives”, and they probably do more harm than good sometimes. But hearing Laura today did make me stop and think that this probably does have very real consequences for some people. Laura may well have been putting on an act on the radio today, but her overall point was still valid. People like her really don’t have a shot. Alex and guys like Milo have their own platforms and revel in being the banned bad boys, and make money off of it. But some people like Laura and Gavin McInnes really do just get silenced, creating a dark space for the enraged leftists to pass judgment on whether they live or die.

  15. I think Trump should start his own social platform. Gov’t taking over is not the answer. Private enterprise. Remember that?

    1. I’d love nothing more than for Trump to use his position as the president to utilize the Federal Gov. to post his ideas/positions on the issues. It wouldn’t be social media, but it would be the president’s positions.

    2. @renny FB is worth $45 billion, so it will take a while before anyone can compete with that. I agree that a conservative platform needs to be created, but as long as PC poisons everything social I’m not sure it will be a whole lot different down the road. Conservatives cave to the PC agenda. God forbid we offend anyone, and the left is offended by anything conservative.

    3. Exactly. The right used to believe we could win with ideas. What happened to that? Are we afraid of Bernie, AOC, and Ohmar? Really?

      1. @ronbo not afraid of them but when your argument is never seen, you can’t make a difference. When a few “platforms” control 99% of the social media and are censoring freedom of speech, that’s a problem.

        Make them Publishers and free to censor but liable for lawsuits, then it’s a level playing field.

        They shouldn’t have the government protections of a Platform when they act as Publishers.

    1. You mean basically repeal the CDA? You realize that this would dramatically inhibit free speech on the internet, right? And they’d still be free to ban conservatives.

      1. @slantry Their status should be changed from platform to publisher, removing their immunity to lawsuits.

        1. @dr-strangelove all that would do is make them 8,000,000,000 times more neurotic about what is said on their platform, and thus drastically increase, not decrease, censorship. Moreover, it wouldn’t affect the sites’ ability to ban people for stating a viewpoint, since that wouldn’t be affected and probably couldn’t be legislated for without running afoul of the first amendment.

          By way of example, right now, if I were to accuse you of having leprosy on here (which I’m not doing, and I’m picking leprosy since it falls into the category of defamation per se), you could sue me for defamation, assuming that you could find me. If what you’re pressing for becomes law (and for the sake of example assuming this goes across the board and not just to Facebook and Twitter), you could sue Scoop for defamation too. In that circumstance, do you think Scoop would be more or less inclined to monitor and moderate what gets said on this site?

          You can support that change for any number of reasons, but it does nothing to address the problem to which you offer it as a solution.

    2. @sjmom Exactly! Platforms are protected, publishers are not! When you censor people on your platform, you are no longer a platform. You’re a publisher and subject to lawsuits. This is where things need to change.

  16. They’re behaving like publishers, strip their special status. They can’t have it both ways. They’re a platform or a publisher, not both.

  17. “There are some on the right, like Tucker Carlson, who wants the government to take over the means of social media platform production in order to make sure that his friends and allies aren’t punished.”

    I don’t understand this sentence. Can someone explain it to me? Is it because Carlson would want the government to put a stop to the censorship by changing the rules Congress already put in place? Tucker’s show last night started off with this issue. I like near the end when he was asked if he wanted people like Diane Feinstein in charge of FB and he answered no but that he “would like FB stripped of the protections that the US Congress granted it like immunity from lawsuits on the promise that it was a platform not a news organization. Here they are editing content…I don’t know why they have an exemption…..I don’t have an exemption. If I libel you on this show you can sue me, you can sue Fox News, you can’t sue FB because they have a special exemption. Why do they have that.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15WBKgu6NY4

    The bottom line is that both he and the guest agreed that since FB (as well as the others) have plenty of money that they’ve used to lobby Congress to get what they wanted, then Congress should be the one to speak out – hold them accountable – and if they don’t stop the harassment and blocking of people like Dennis Prager, Franklin Graham, Diamond and Silk, etc., then their special immunity should be stripped away. And as Greg Gutfeld would say: PERIOD!

  18. I don’t want the government putting its heavy hand into these “platforms.” Isn’t that what Zuckerberg wants – the gov’t to be the speech monitor (that would be a 1st amendment infringement)? I want them to have their platform status taken away. That’s the only involvement I want them to have. Does anyone know if that would have repercussions for the users? I’m not familiar with what all that entails besides making these companies liable.

    1. Yeah, the platforms would disappear and the ones that would reappear would be heavily heavily moderated.

    2. @squirrelly It’s platform vs Publisher. Platforms have to allow all speech except for violent threats, but the minute they start censoring, they should lose platform status and become a publisher, thus liable for lawsuits.

      1. That’s right, so who does it hurt? It hurts their business model for sure then all of the people who HAVE to be on social media will have to detox and go through withdrawals, I guess. 😀

  19. It’s what the left does. It is alright to be vile and perverse, but not patriotic and Constitutional.

  20. Silicon Valley social media is being allowed to have their cake and eat it too. They claim to be platforms but by censoring speech, they are playing the role of editor and that is fine if they want to do that but if that is the case they should be regulated as publishers and have the same legal liabilities as publishers.

    1. @tmfb Ding ding ding! Exactly. We don’t need more government intervention, we need them to get out of the way and stop protecting these oligopies.

    2. @tmfb That’s exactly it. Platform vs Publisher. They are acting as publishers but getting the protections of a Platform. If they are censoring anyone because of their own biases then they are a Publisher and thus liable for the content and able to be sued.

      If they’re a true platform, they may not block anyone except for “actual” threats of violence. Platforms are protected from lawsuits.

      This is where the government comes in.

      These supposed “Platforms” don’t deserve protection from lawsuits when they are obviously banning people they don’t agree with politically. This is a danger to our Republic because freedom of speech is being censored and banned.

      I’m very concerned for how this could play out for 2020 if conservative voices are stifled.

  21. The government isn’t doing anything wrong here, its just American companies crapping all over the first amendment. Privatized tyranny is just fine!

  22. Nothing wrong with a handful of mega-corporations telling us what we can say on the internet.

    1. @tracy
      Thank you for the link.
      I read the article and although compelling, I don’t accept the apparently disparaging term “establishment conservative” for calling out the absolute fact of the danger of “slippery slopes”
      I’ve been consistent on this site for some time about government intervention to solve bias against conservatives (and the right in general).
      I believe we are winning with ideas and Trump (despite himself) won the election after a rather charismatic and eloquent eight years of Obama should have handed the election to Clinton. We control the majority of state legislatures, Governorships, The US Senate, the Supreme Court, and the Executive Branch.
      I see “winning” everywhere. The left is loosing when it has to ban people to win and everyone knows they are losing when they do this. They are losing support when they do this except with those already on their side. These are self-defeating decisions and I do not want big brother to fix anything for me. I certainly don’t want big brother there when power shifts hands and they use those very rules against me.
      No thank you. The left is bereft of ideas now like it has been since the French Revolution. We have nothing to fear except fear itself.

      1. I would agree, but we have very powerful monopolies, and its not a free market where other companies can compete when they hold so much power.

  23. The state can’t (or shouldn’t) take them over, but maybe there need to be new laws governing the behavior of social media sites. The guidelines being used are clearly PC and anti-conservative, and even though they are private entities I do view it as an attack on free speech. It’s one thing to ban someone for true hate speech (and I don’t want to give an example), and quite another to ban people because they disagree with the left.

    1. In the old days the government forced monopolies to break apart into smaller entities. That may not be such a bad idea for these modern tech tycoons. They weld enormous power and influence though their endless mergers, take-overs, and consolidations. I’ve read Google could alter their search algorithms and sway elections without anyone knowing it. And Amazon is putting brick and mortar stores out of business. It’s getting to the point where they can control whole supply chains in a given sector. Not to mention all the personal information that Facebook and Google can data mine on us. That is a lot of power in the hands of a few.

      1. No doubt that THIS may be reasonable due to their prominence. I may be able to swallow this as a solution but I don’t like it because of the reason. If they were a monopoly and everyone was getting charged too much money, that would be legitimate. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, et al… are all free to use. I’m not sure a monopoly argument can be made.

      2. @watchman Not sure if it would help breaking up Facebook because the controlling factor is PC and that envelopes everything right now. I think Facebook has the right idea that some speech needs to be oppressed. I mean, I don’t think it would be a good idea to allow people to get on and preach genocide or things like that. It could become a platform for the likes of ISIS. At the same time, when they hire no one but leftists and PC is the governing guideline, conservatism is labeled as hate speech which is a bunch of horse sh**.

        Plus there’s that other site…which I forget the name of….that brags of allowing anything to be said with no suppression of what people say. No one goes there because the (real) hate is so off the charts and there’s no controlling it with no governing rules.

        I do think there needs to be governing rules on what constitutes hate speech, but it can’t be determined by the left and FB, and it most certainly should not be enforced by the left with exclusion of everyone else.

        1. @kong1967 You’re probably thinking of GAB. I tried it and it didn’t work for me. It’s difficult to navigate, I never could get a conversation going, and couldn’t block the white supremacists that try to dominate every section.

      3. @watchman I don’t think that most people realize how big Amazon is getting. They are building distribution centers all over the country, they now have their own fleet of trailers and they are starting their own local delivery service in many areas. I’m certain that their next step will be to buy out a large trucking company and they will establish a monopoly from the dock (or port) of the manufacturer to the front door of the consumer.

        1. @dr-strangelove A lot of good comes from that, but it eliminates choice and when the bad creeps in there’s nowhere else to go. Not to mention what happens when they go belly up. They probably are reaching the point that they need to be broken up to make leeway for more competition.

  24. Even though I hate those companies (Twitter, Facebook, etc.), they are private companies. However, SOMETHING has to be done (I think?). What those on The Left are doing is so wrong on so many levels. I hope a reasonable solution materializes, which doesn’t include government takeover. We all know how that goes. Bad.

    1. @muckjumper I agree but it’s the difference of being protected from lawsuits because they are considered to be a a platform vs a Publisher where you can control the content but then lose the protections from lawsuits.

      If they want to censor and ban people, they are now actually a publisher and liable for lawsuits.

  25. I agree. These are private companies and they can do what they want. If the right wants it’s own platform, just create it and you’ll have 40 million people or so sign up immediately.
    There is nothing stopping a second “Facediary” from starting up.

    1. Here is the problem with that thought. Every smaller company that tried to start up as an alternative to Facebook, or any other social media outlet were bought up by Facebook, for more money than they could ever have imagined, so Facebook owned the social media. Facebook insured they had the monopoly on social media.

      As we have often seen, greed is the motivator.

    2. They may be private but they have the protections of the government from lawsuits because they purport to be a platform where all are supposed to be welcome.

      If they want to censor anyone, they become a publisher which is fine, but then you can’t have the protections from lawsuits because you’re controlling the content.

      This is where the problem lies.

  26. So what are you saying? That private American companies don’t have to respect the 1’st amendment?

    1. No. They do not. As long as your rights are not being infringed upon constitutionally, they can do what they want. You can still stand on a street corner and scream “I love Trump” as loudly as you want and THAT is what is protected. What is not protected is for you to say that on a private company’s website if they don’t want you to.

      1. @ronbo True but if these companies advertise that all are welcome and are describing themselves as a platform with special protections from the government to be sued, then they cannot censor.

        If they act as a publisher, they’re a private company and can censor who they want but are then liable for lawsuits.

        That’s where the problem lies.

        1. The case against the cake maker was based on a state anti discrimination law, he was using the constitution as a defense.

          As another example, fact that segregation is illegal in private businesses isn’t because of the constitution, it’s because of the civil rights act of 1964.

    2. “Congress shall make no law…..”. The first ammendment and almost all of the Bill of Rights are limitations on Goverment…not private citizens or companies.
      NFL owners are well within their right to require players to stand for the anthem if they wanted to because that would be a condition of employment. They would not be infringing on the player’s rights. Similarly, you don’t have a right to keep and bear arms on private property. Your/my rights end where someone else’s begins. That is one of the beauties of private property and private contracts.

  27. First They Came For..

    There’s a reason why this iconic Martin Niemöller Truism rings true today as much as it did during the 1930s.

    Make no mistake about it – We are in living dangerous times.

    Leftism is an ideology “ism” so deviant, intolerant, inherently seditious, evil, and violent, a virulent strain that is the very essence of fascism, a cancer on truth, civil society, freedom and liberty, when indoctrinated – blinds people to reality truth.

    There’s a difference between govt interference to suppress silence voices.. from govt interference to ensure Freedom of Speech is not trampled on, to protect sovereign individual rights-Civil and Constitutional, from being discriminated against, ie; protect, defend, and uphold the U.S. Constitution.

    When a civilian mob group of individuals, organizations, private businesses, conjoin to silence and socially marginalize a whole group of people, then it’s no longer about free market choice, it’s about mobacracy tyranny and terror, which btw has been seen throughout history, eg; the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch trials, nazi neo-brownshirt anti-Semitic street thuggery, etc

    Time has come for action, as the breaking point of radical leftwing fascist intolerant political censorship discrimination is here, and it must end !

    25 April 2018
    Sen Ted Cruz: Use Antitrust Laws to Break ‘Massive Power’ of Tech Lords who ‘Subvert Our Democratic Process’
    https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2018/04/25/exclusive-ted-cruz-use-antitrust-laws-to-break-massive-power-of-tech-lords-to-subvert-our-democratic-process/

    10 April 2019
    Ted Cruz Proposes Remedies for Tech Censorship: Regulate, Antitrust, Anti-Fraud
    https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/04/10/ted-cruz-proposes-remedies-for-tech-censorship-regulate-antitrust-anti-fraud/

    quote
    Sen. Cruz held a hearing on big tech censorship and proposed three dynamic solutions to the Silicon Valley’s censorship practices, contending that the big tech companies have more power than Standard Oil or the old AT&T telephone monopoly.

    Cruz three solutions include:

    1. Amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
    2. Antitrust measures to address big tech’s dominant status on the Internet.
    3. Addressing potential cases of fraud and deception.

    “No one wants to see the federal government regulating what is allowed to be said, but there are at least three potential remedies that can be considered by Congress or the Executive branch Administration, or both.”
    unquote

    These Radical Leftist Silicon Valley of the Democrats Big Tech Masters of the Universe Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc, Shadow Bans-Code Censors Conservatives, Republicans – Patriotic Americans of all ethnicity, races, creeds, color.. Manipulates and Alters Political Content, Collects (steals) Private Data of billions of people around the world to use against us, let alone aiding Communist China in their dictatorship control of their own people, aiding China to steal, giving them US Intellectual Property which is used to benefit China’s Military effort to surpass America’s Military technological superiority and might, have literally become monopolistic fascistic tyrants, but grave threat to the US Constitution, and US National Security.

  28. @JohnBladeClark here, followed on Twitter by @RealJamesWoods. If you guys, like this article seems to suggest, believe in the freedon of expression, then you should not ban people like you did in 2016 because we knew Trump was the only Republican that could defeat Hillary. Ted Cruz would not have won 12 states. Admit you are wrong, beg forgiveness from the REAL CONSERVATIVE world, and move on. Or stay in your little, insignificant bubble. Actually, we don’t care as you didn’t matter in 2016 and you don’t matter now!

    Or be a ‘principled conservative’ like Joe Scarborough. That is how this site is looked upon!

    1. I was banned on Breitbart in 2016 so they should just sit down on this issue too.

      Is that what you are saying?

  29. This article IS interesting because it seems to want equal and freedom of speech. That was not always the case here.

    I rarely comment although I read several sites. I had to register to comment here although I have been periodically reading this site since 2016 when I read this was the place where Republican NeverTrump people hung out.

    I know for a fact that this place did not tolerate differing opinions during the 2016 primaries. I find it actually comical that people that were here and expressed their hatred towards our great president now want say they supported him from the start. YOU DID NOT! This place here at the right scoop was one of the most anti-Trump sites that I know of. Say what you will, but that is the truth.

    So when you attack others for saying this truth, as in comments below, you are not fooling ANYONE! So own it! Say you were wrong! Don’t attack the people that were wiser than you.

  30. @JohnBladeClark here, followed on Twitter by @RealJamesWoods. If you guys, like this article seems to suggest, believe in the freedon of expression, then you should not ban people like you did in 2016 because we knew Trump was the only Republican that could defeat Hillary. Ted Cruz would not have won 12 states. Admit you are wrong, beg forgiveness from the REAL CONSERVATIVE world, and move on. Or stay in your little, insignificant bubble. Actually, we don’t care as you didn’t matter in 2016 and you don’t matter now!

    Or be a ‘principled conservative’ like Joe Scarborough. That is how this site is looked upon!

    1. I was banned on Breitbart in 2016 so they should just sit down on this issue too.

      Is that what you are saying?

  31. This article IS interesting because it seems to want equal and freedom of speech. That was not always the case here.

    I rarely comment although I read several sites. I had to register to comment here although I have been periodically reading this site since 2016 when I read this was the place where Republican NeverTrump people hung out.

    I know for a fact that this place did not tolerate differing opinions during the 2016 primaries. I find it actually comical that people that were here and expressed their hatred towards our great president now want say they supported him from the start. YOU DID NOT! This place here at the right scoop was one of the most anti-Trump sites that I know of. Say what you will, but that is the truth.

    So when you attack others for saying this truth, as in comments below, you are not fooling ANYONE! So own it! Say you were wrong! Don’t attack the people that were wiser than you.

  32. Government interference that would guarantee the freedoms of its citizens? I’ll take it.

  33. First They Came For..

    There’s a reason why this iconic Martin Niemöller Truism rings true today as much as it did during the 1930s.

    Make no mistake about it – We are in living dangerous times.

    Leftism is an ideology “ism” so deviant, intolerant, inherently seditious, evil, and violent, a virulent strain that is the very essence of fascism, a cancer on truth, civil society, freedom and liberty, when indoctrinated – blinds people to reality truth.

    There’s a difference between govt interference to suppress silence voices.. from govt interference to ensure Freedom of Speech is not trampled on, to protect sovereign individual rights-Civil and Constitutional, from being discriminated against, ie; protect, defend, and uphold the U.S. Constitution.

    When a civilian mob group of individuals, organizations, private businesses, conjoin to silence and socially marginalize a whole group of people, then it’s no longer about free market choice, it’s about mobacracy tyranny and terror, which btw has been seen throughout history, eg; the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch trials, nazi neo-brownshirt anti-Semitic street thuggery, etc

    Time has come for action, as the breaking point of radical leftwing fascist intolerant political censorship discrimination is here, and it must end !

    25 April 2018
    Sen Ted Cruz: Use Antitrust Laws to Break ‘Massive Power’ of Tech Lords who ‘Subvert Our Democratic Process’
    https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2018/04/25/exclusive-ted-cruz-use-antitrust-laws-to-break-massive-power-of-tech-lords-to-subvert-our-democratic-process/

    10 April 2019
    Ted Cruz Proposes Remedies for Tech Censorship: Regulate, Antitrust, Anti-Fraud
    https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/04/10/ted-cruz-proposes-remedies-for-tech-censorship-regulate-antitrust-anti-fraud/

    quote
    Sen. Cruz held a hearing on big tech censorship and proposed three dynamic solutions to the Silicon Valley’s censorship practices, contending that the big tech companies have more power than Standard Oil or the old AT&T telephone monopoly.

    Cruz three solutions include:

    1. Amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
    2. Antitrust measures to address big tech’s dominant status on the Internet.
    3. Addressing potential cases of fraud and deception.

    “No one wants to see the federal government regulating what is allowed to be said, but there are at least three potential remedies that can be considered by Congress or the Executive branch Administration, or both.”
    unquote

    These Radical Leftist Silicon Valley of the Democrats Big Tech Masters of the Universe Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc, Shadow Bans-Code Censors Conservatives, Republicans – Patriotic Americans of all ethnicity, races, creeds, color.. Manipulates and Alters Political Content, Collects (steals) Private Data of billions of people around the world to use against us, let alone aiding Communist China in their dictatorship control of their own people, aiding China to steal, giving them US Intellectual Property which is used to benefit China’s Military effort to surpass America’s Military technological superiority and might, have literally become monopolistic fascistic tyrants, but grave threat to the US Constitution, and US National Security.

  34. I agree, SooperMexican. It irritates me when Facebook and Twitter ban conservatives, but we really don’t want government control.

  35. The best way to fight Facebook, Twitter and other censoring social networking sites is to terminate your account with those companies….I realize many people are addicted, but…..you cannot support evil and expect good!

    On a more monetary level that would actually FORCE these companies to allow free speech, if people would grow some cojones and write a quick letter to the SEC, filing a complaint against these companies for censoring freedom of speech, this would end quickly because it would negatively affect their price per share. Since $$$$ is more important to all who created FB, Twitter, etc., and since they are publicly traded corporations, that bottom line bottom-out would fix the problem for all.

    By the way, has anyone else begun noticing that Media Matters’ latest edict is for all of their puppets to toss evil radical hate groups, like AntiFU, Louis Farrakhan and his group, etc. into the category of “right-wing?” THAT lie cannot stand either.

  36. I read an article today saying that Trump has quietly tried to reinstitute E-Verify, but the Congressional Dems are already having fits over it. Obama gutted E-Verify and pushed the funding for that program over to his “Secure Communities” efforts, which also was useless in the end.

  37. Off topic, but really funny I thought. I texted my hub today to ask him to check the local store where we get our Purina canned dog food as they are usually out of stock. My phone auto-corrected Purina to Putin’s chow. I laughed so hard I had tears in my eyes. 🙂

  38. I feel there is a strong libertarian strain here that sees corps can be trusted to do what is right because “muh free market” but they are being motivated by power – not profit.

    Oh they will make money with the government and sweet tax deals and subsidies, but that isnt free markets.

    1. @tracy free markets require the assistance of laws, regulations and a policing force to ensure the playing field is level. It appears to me these “platforms” require that as well.

  39. I agree, SooperMexican. It irritates me when Facebook and Twitter ban conservatives, but we really don’t want government control.

  40. The best way to fight Facebook, Twitter and other censoring social networking sites is to terminate your account with those companies….I realize many people are addicted, but…..you cannot support evil and expect good!

    On a more monetary level that would actually FORCE these companies to allow free speech, if people would grow some cojones and write a quick letter to the SEC, filing a complaint against these companies for censoring freedom of speech, this would end quickly because it would negatively affect their price per share. Since $$$$ is more important to all who created FB, Twitter, etc., and since they are publicly traded corporations, that bottom line bottom-out would fix the problem for all.

    By the way, has anyone else begun noticing that Media Matters’ latest edict is for all of their puppets to toss evil radical hate groups, like AntiFU, Louis Farrakhan and his group, etc. into the category of “right-wing?” THAT lie cannot stand either.

  41. “There are some on the right, like Tucker Carlson, who wants the government to take over the means of social media platform production in order to make sure that his friends and allies aren’t punished.”

    I don’t understand this sentence. Can someone explain it to me? Is it because Carlson would want the government to put a stop to the censorship by changing the rules Congress already put in place? Tucker’s show last night started off with this issue. I like near the end when he was asked if he wanted people like Diane Feinstein in charge of FB and he answered no but that he “would like FB stripped of the protections that the US Congress granted it like immunity from lawsuits on the promise that it was a platform not a news organization. Here they are editing content…I don’t know why they have an exemption…..I don’t have an exemption. If I libel you on this show you can sue me, you can sue Fox News, you can’t sue FB because they have a special exemption. Why do they have that.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15WBKgu6NY4

    The bottom line is that both he and the guest agreed that since FB (as well as the others) have plenty of money that they’ve used to lobby Congress to get what they wanted, then Congress should be the one to speak out – hold them accountable – and if they don’t stop the harassment and blocking of people like Dennis Prager, Franklin Graham, Diamond and Silk, etc., then their special immunity should be stripped away. And as Greg Gutfeld would say: PERIOD!

  42. They’re behaving like publishers, strip their special status. They can’t have it both ways. They’re a platform or a publisher, not both.

  43. Putting them on notice is not enough. They need to be stopped immediately. It’s been said that Facebook caused the Dem takeover of the House in the midterms. It’s got to stop.

  44. I read an article today saying that Trump has quietly tried to reinstitute E-Verify, but the Congressional Dems are already having fits over it. Obama gutted E-Verify and pushed the funding for that program over to his “Secure Communities” efforts, which also was useless in the end.

  45. We can’t just duck the issue because these are private companies. They aren’t just banning this or that individual. They’re banning the free expression of ideas. Once the ideas are banned, they’re going to deprive conservative media of advertisers such as Daily Caller, Daily Signal, American Greatness, and so forth. And don’t think for a moment that they don’t plan to eventually choke National Review, Breitbart, NRA, and Gun Owners of America.

    We let these social media companies act as if they’re platforms that can’t be held liable for any of their content, but then they act like publishers to control their content. They can’t be both. If they’re going to ban viewpoints they don’t like, then they should be held liable for the ones they implicitly endorse.

    1. Once the ideas are banned, they’re going to deprive conservative media of advertisers such as Daily Caller, Daily Signal, American Greatness, and so forth.

      Wait what?

      Seems to me that those sites should be looking for advertisers that support them.

      1. Social media is where these sites get their message out. And they also have a monopoly on that as well.

        1. What I’m saying is that, if they can attract advertisers, then they should create their own platform with independent funding. Why insist on sucking at Facebook/Twitter/Youtube’s teat?

  46. The problem with creating an opposing social media site is what it can offer that FB or Twitter can’t already do. Also, they’ve been established for so long, that it’s going to be hard for any competitor to popup and for users to use it.

  47. I don’t want any government takeovers of private companies.

    There are options, such as declaring them a publisher rather than a platform.

  48. There are some on the right, like Tucker Carlson, who wants the government to take over the means of social media platform production in order to make sure that his friends and allies aren’t punished.

    Ummm…no.

    There are very few things the government should be in control of. This is not one of them.

    1. Tucker Carlson does not advocate having the government take social media over. I have asked for a clarification of the sentence in this article because out of Tucker’s mouth all he is asking for is that the special privilege they hold given to them by Congress, be taken away.

      I do not like that this spin was put on Tucker Carlson. I like coming to RightScoop and have since I found it years ago and I trust it to be newsworthy. But spins like this are not acceptable. Listen to the segment on Carlson’s show last night. It comes at the beginning of the show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15WBKgu6NY4&t=764s

  49. I don’t understand why they don’t just switch to Gab. I left FB and twitter a long time ago.

  50. I am in no way normally in favor of government intervention for social media but I think we have a very unique and dangerous situation here. Twitter & Facebook/Instagram are de-facto public squares in our current society. If you are banned from them you basically can not engage in the marketplace of ideas with the public at large. I know for a fact as I have been banned from Twitter for a long time for telling a journalist that he was a f*ing liar for saying that President Obama didn’t do something he actually did. To be honest I don’t miss the cesspool.
    And before you say that you can just start a “competing platform” you have to understand the barrier to entry in the market place is so high and the Tech Oligarchs will do anything in their power to keep you out, buy you out or simply destroy you.
    So maybe treating social media as a public utility is an answer.

    1. Or deregulate and lower the barriers to entry.. the path to marketplace of ideas and free expression. I know.. the tech giants will lobby, but where there’s a political will, there’s a way. The examples are mounting up. The leftists are showing themselves to be frauds.

      1. There is basically no barrier to entry as it is, and these companies are not particularly regulated beyond basic data privacy laws that I’m pretty sure nobody wants rolled back.

        The only thing that could theoretically threaten a competitor’s ability to enter the marketplace would be traffic deprioritization. This, thankfully, hasn’t happened yet, but the only way to counter it in our current internet infrastructure would be net neutrality (i.e. more regulation, not less).

  51. Putting them on notice is not enough. They need to be stopped immediately. It’s been said that Facebook caused the Dem takeover of the House in the midterms. It’s got to stop.

  52. This article from RS is quite grand considering this site banned everyone in 2016 that supported Trump and not Ted Cruz. And don’t deny it, at Breitbart we were laughing our tails off. Dozens if not hundreds were banned here in 2016.

    1. I remember that, BB posters coming here and posting idiotic stuff trying to get banned

      1. No one at Breitbart said they were voting for Hillary as they could not vote Trump as they were ‘principled conservatives.’ That wisdom came from ‘principled conservatives’ here at RS. I’ll never forget or forgive #NeverTrumpers. This place makes me ill, back to Breitbart.

          1. People were banned here for not being Ted Cruzbots. This place was a Ted Cruz cult site. You can’t change history, you can’t now say you support Trump and expect to be forgiven for being #NeverTrump, and that K-Bob guy was one of the most vocal #NeverTrumpers on this site.

            I was for Trump as soon as I saw Rand Paul had no shot in 2016. Actually, in the debate that Trump ripped Rosie O’Donnell, that was when I knew Trump would win the nomination. Some of us tried to come here and persuade Cruz people to jump on board (EVEN AFTER THE REPUBLICAN CONVENTION) and we were banned. I can only now post here because I changed ISP’s.

            Now has anything I posted today been from a troll? No! I am speaking fact! Don’t try to make excuses by calling us trolls, this place banned Republicans for not being Cruz supporters! Now this same site wants to promote free speech? Please, don’t be hypocrites!

        1. This guy thinks there are NeverTrumpers all over. Look, look, there’s one over there!

          Boo!

          I actually thought most of the Trump cult were fakes. Trolls, robo posters, etc. Plus a few cranks. The real cultists were a tiny group, and they were broomed out of the way handily in Spring/Summer 2017.

          Most conservatives think Trump is doing a fine job.

          1. Yeah most of the Anti Trumpers are gone, this guy would know that if he was actually reading responses here instead of nursing 2016 butthurt.

            1. @tracy It’s hilarious how these unforgiving, “true conservative” types were the ones coming here to call Cruz a snake and a non-natural-born citizen.

              The good news is that they were always a tiny, loudmouthed population among general Trump supporters. Most have crawled back into their holes.

    2. Funny how so many of you laughing trolls “at Breitbart” (Seriously? You had little club there?) ended up being banned from Breitbart.

      Only trolls like trolls. And of course, they don’t like each other. Just trolls, in general.

      Oh yeah: LOL, etc.

  53. TRUMP IS RE-TWEETING Info Wars, Paul Joseph Watson this morning and the Libs are losing their collective **** …. BRILLIANT TROLLING!!!

      1. Don, Jr. has personally been suspended at Facebook once, so he has gotten pretty serious, recently, about tackling the problem.

  54. Government should quit its meddling.

    Apparently Conservatives aren’t smart enough to start their own posting sight. They would rather have “Government” fix everything. That’s how far “conservative” thinking has changed. Sad.

    1. You need to consider how difficult that is when they run EVERYTHING!

      ‘True competitors to the Masters of the Universe often face serious anti-competitive obstacles from established players. Free speech social media Gab has faced many obstacles, including Google and Apple denying their apps, payment processors shutting them down, and even web registrars attempting to erase their website from the Internet altogether.’

      https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/05/03/conservatives-express-support-for-facebook-censorship/

      1. I hear what you’re saying Weasal, but Government intervention ISN’T the answer to anything.

        1. Neither is mega corps telling society what they can or can’t say.

          Government is supposed to protect our civil rights.

          1. @tracy
            With Mega Corps/any media WE still have a choice.

            NOT ONE entity “forces” us to use their platform, watch their broadcast, etc.

            1. No one forces us to watch anything, these mega corps need to allow everyone a place as long as they aren’t publishing anything illegal.

    2. Nice broad brush. Anyone paying attention notices that conservatives *always* add on a qualifier that they expressly do not want government control over these platforms.

      Try reading past the headlines.

      1. @k-bob
        No, no broader brush than you use occasionally. Guess I should have used “some” conservatives.
        “SOME” on the site do think Govt should step in, after all it was Govt that allowed this in the first place. But as far as Govt correcting anything, well that’s just a laugh.

        Try reading the posts.

  55. Just take away the exemption from liable lawsuits. The rest may take care of itself.

  56. Not sure of the answer, but some form of regulating needs to start for these defacto oligarchies/monopolies. Something along the line of the FEC. Our speech is being controlled to some point already. The thing that’s even scarier is banks are starting to take sides on who can get loans based on their political leanings, and companies are starting decide to stop doing business based on political leanings. This has got to be stopped.

    1. Not more regulating. Just punish the ones committing fraud.

      It’s fraud to represent your business as one concerned with contributing to the community if you’re simultaneously treating conservatives as a danger.

      1. @k-bob Um that’s exactly what I am saying. Holding them accountable for fraud would be a form of regulating. Right now they’re not held accountable or regulated because they get away with claiming they’re just a platform. Control and regulation, like what happens with the stock markets are two different things.

  57. I am adamantly against having the government take over social media. Government intervention and take over of any private businesses never benefits we the people. I still can’t believe that the government was duped into granting the social media giants immunity from prosecution.

    The only way to get the social media giants to sit up and notice is to stop using their product. However, far too many people are addicted to social media and getting them to stop using it would be the same as trying to quit any other serious addiction.

    1. Is this a government takeover?

      “Social Media platforms may not ban users for political speech”

      It’s protecting the first amendment, even from mega corps.

        1. Corporations continue to have the right of free speech.

          Right now, the issue is that they’re stifling the speech of others while pretending to be neutral.

        2. Protecting the first amendment does apply to goverenment, and social media is denying service based on political speech.

      1. All we need from them is consistency in enforcement of guidelines. If one solid guideline is “only communists allowed” then as long as only communists are allowed, that’s fine.

        If their guidelines allow political speech, then it’s fraud to shut people out for disagreement.

        Hit them hard for fraud.

    2. @conserve-58
      1000 upvotes for your 2nd paragraph.

      People seem to forget WE control how successful these sights become by using them.

  58. Trump just loves his bot people, especially those who troll the Sandy Hook families by insisting the killings were hoax.
    Trump’s kind of facebook posters.

        1. @tracy Not clueless, hate-filled to the point of being willing to distort facts and lie to push a false narrative, because hate “Trumps” everything else.

          1. @paladin Exactly right, shows up here to spew such ignorance that only an ignorant fool can do.

    1. @lee_jan Grow up, your stupid remarks are there to hurt the families of a massacre by a mad man at Sandy Hook ,murdering their innocent children.
      You’re sick and a jackass. :exclamation:

    2. Yeah, that perfectly explains why James Woods was banned from Twitter.

      Quit blaming Trump for everything.

      1. @K-Bob Proof? Who needs proof, the seriousness of the accusations obviously outweigh any available evidence.

  59. Services utilized by the federal govt. are placed on social media to keep people updated, such as the National Weather Service. They are denying citizens these services.
    Styxhexenhammer explains it much better than I could.
    https://youtu.be/4k63XIrKDT0

    1. Huh, that’s something I didn’t think of… so either it should be a public forum, or it shouldn’t, right how it’s inbetween… interesting argument.

    2. I realized that a while back, then forgot about it. There are all kinds of ways the federal government aids SJWs in their abuse of pro-liberty Americans.

  60. I don’t want any government takeovers of private companies.

    There are options, such as declaring them a publisher rather than a platform.

  61. There are some on the right, like Tucker Carlson, who wants the government to take over the means of social media platform production in order to make sure that his friends and allies aren’t punished.

    Ummm…no.

    There are very few things the government should be in control of. This is not one of them.

    1. Tucker Carlson does not advocate having the government take social media over. I have asked for a clarification of the sentence in this article because out of Tucker’s mouth all he is asking for is that the special privilege they hold given to them by Congress, be taken away.

      I do not like that this spin was put on Tucker Carlson. I like coming to RightScoop and have since I found it years ago and I trust it to be newsworthy. But spins like this are not acceptable. Listen to the segment on Carlson’s show last night. It comes at the beginning of the show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15WBKgu6NY4&t=764s

  62. I don’t understand why they don’t just switch to Gab. I left FB and twitter a long time ago.

  63. “Social Media platforms may not ban users for political speech”

    These corps benefit from our nations laws and freedoms, they can allow users to freely express themselves.

  64. I am in no way normally in favor of government intervention for social media but I think we have a very unique and dangerous situation here. Twitter & Facebook/Instagram are de-facto public squares in our current society. If you are banned from them you basically can not engage in the marketplace of ideas with the public at large. I know for a fact as I have been banned from Twitter for a long time for telling a journalist that he was a f*ing liar for saying that President Obama didn’t do something he actually did. To be honest I don’t miss the cesspool.
    And before you say that you can just start a “competing platform” you have to understand the barrier to entry in the market place is so high and the Tech Oligarchs will do anything in their power to keep you out, buy you out or simply destroy you.
    So maybe treating social media as a public utility is an answer.

  65. This article from RS is quite grand considering this site banned everyone in 2016 that supported Trump and not Ted Cruz. And don’t deny it, at Breitbart we were laughing our tails off. Dozens if not hundreds were banned here in 2016.

  66. TRUMP IS RE-TWEETING Info Wars, Paul Joseph Watson this morning and the Libs are losing their collective **** …. BRILLIANT TROLLING!!!

  67. Government should quit its meddling.

    Apparently Conservatives aren’t smart enough to start their own posting sight. They would rather have “Government” fix everything. That’s how far “conservative” thinking has changed. Sad.

  68. Not sure of the answer, but some form of regulating needs to start for these defacto oligarchies/monopolies. Something along the line of the FEC. Our speech is being controlled to some point already. The thing that’s even scarier is banks are starting to take sides on who can get loans based on their political leanings, and companies are starting decide to stop doing business based on political leanings. This has got to be stopped.

  69. I am adamantly against having the government take over social media. Government intervention and take over of any private businesses never benefits we the people. I still can’t believe that the government was duped into granting the social media giants immunity from prosecution.

    The only way to get the social media giants to sit up and notice is to stop using their product. However, far too many people are addicted to social media and getting them to stop using it would be the same as trying to quit any other serious addiction.

  70. Tough issue, but let’s boil it down. Twitter, Amazon, Facebook, and YouTube all receive special treatment from the U.S. Government relating to tax laws, protections built in to guarantee that new entries into their fields will not be easy, and not treating them as “publishers”. Well then, if they want to shadow ban conservatives, delete them from their platforms, and engage in other sneaky practices such as the liberal Google search engine bias, then the offending company automatically reverts to a different status where these benefits and protections go away. Suddenly, they pay more taxes, are regulated heavily, and open to free up and coming competition. They won’t like the look of that status and will suddenly get rid of their censorship of conservative speech. It is really that simple.

  71. Trump just loves his bot people, especially those who troll the Sandy Hook families by insisting the killings were hoax.
    Trump’s kind of facebook posters.

    1. @lee_jan Grow up, your stupid remarks are there to hurt the families of a massacre by a mad man at Sandy Hook ,murdering their innocent children.
      You’re sick and a jackass. :exclamation:

      1. @K-Bob Proof? Who needs proof, the seriousness of the accusations obviously outweigh any available evidence.

    2. Yeah, that perfectly explains why James Woods was banned from Twitter.

      Quit blaming Trump for everything.

  72. Services utilized by the federal govt. are placed on social media to keep people updated, such as the National Weather Service. They are denying citizens these services.
    Styxhexenhammer explains it much better than I could.
    https://youtu.be/4k63XIrKDT0

    1. I realized that a while back, then forgot about it. There are all kinds of ways the federal government aids SJWs in their abuse of pro-liberty Americans.

    2. Huh, that’s something I didn’t think of… so either it should be a public forum, or it shouldn’t, right how it’s inbetween… interesting argument.

  73. “Social Media platforms may not ban users for political speech”

    These corps benefit from our nations laws and freedoms, they can allow users to freely express themselves.

  74. We don’t need to treat SocMed platforms like 1970s Telcos. But they can and ought to be sued for fraud.

    Especially when online bullying gets tied to suicides. It’s a pretty obvious direction to go.

    1. @K-Bob Yes, their non-publisher status should be revoked. It should be done through proper channels, I get nervous when Tromp starts acting dictatorial.

  75. I am even less comfortable with government censorship than I am with private censorship.

    I agree that those platforms are like the public square and should not be able to censor, but… it is a deep and slippery slope once the government steps into it. Let private shaming work on them, and if not, well it’s not a right to have a Facebook page and twitter, that is actually a privilege, granted by a private company.

    They actually still speak just not on those platforms.

    Being silenced by the government… that is taboo. Not willing to go there.

    1. @cookiebob The government already is involved by granting them immunity from prosecution. They should be regarded as publishers and be liable to lawsuit.

      1. That is a point I actually didn’t know, they are can’t be sued, why in the world would that be true? And that is a job for Congress not the President. Congress makes laws.

  76. There’s really nothing he can do. All we can hope for is a more fail and balanced social media platform to emerge.

  77. After all, we can’t be in control forever. Do you really want to give Dems more precendence to take over the private sector?

    Damn it Soop, we have to win! Today! Win! WIN! TODAY! Never mind tomorrow! I’m not thinking that far ahead. The leftists don’t think that far ahead, and if we want to win we can’t either! We have to be just like them! To WIN! WIN!!. MAGA!!!!1!1!!!

  78. Tough issue, but let’s boil it down. Twitter, Amazon, Facebook, and YouTube all receive special treatment from the U.S. Government relating to tax laws, protections built in to guarantee that new entries into their fields will not be easy, and not treating them as “publishers”. Well then, if they want to shadow ban conservatives, delete them from their platforms, and engage in other sneaky practices such as the liberal Google search engine bias, then the offending company automatically reverts to a different status where these benefits and protections go away. Suddenly, they pay more taxes, are regulated heavily, and open to free up and coming competition. They won’t like the look of that status and will suddenly get rid of their censorship of conservative speech. It is really that simple.

  79. There is not a day that goes by on Gab where I don’t see a post from a newbie saying they’ve been banned from Twitter/FB because of their political views – multiple times some days from new users. It’s infuriating.
    Shcmuckerberg needs to be punished. He’s no different from the nazi’s in Germany burning books before WW2.

  80. Problem is, What’s his face FB, said he wants regulation… we don’t want government to step into private companies. Once they do, our free speech is completely gone. Especially if loons get in and in fact there are Progressives in the R party that want us shut up also

  81. At this point. youre wrong . It’s time to see govt bust these platforms up and speech to be protected.

  82. Everytime Alex Jones gets de-platformed from another service, I listen to his radio show for a few days to see how he’s taking it. He generally brags that he makes more money and gets more subscribers the more that the major platforms ban him.

    Today he had Laura Loomer on, and she sounded suicidal. Said that her income is down 90% because of de-platforming, and that on top of it she’s facing constant death threats.

    Now, neither Laura nor Alex are what I would personally term “conservatives”, and they probably do more harm than good sometimes. But hearing Laura today did make me stop and think that this probably does have very real consequences for some people. Laura may well have been putting on an act on the radio today, but her overall point was still valid. People like her really don’t have a shot. Alex and guys like Milo have their own platforms and revel in being the banned bad boys, and make money off of it. But some people like Laura and Gavin McInnes really do just get silenced, creating a dark space for the enraged leftists to pass judgment on whether they live or die.

  83. Twitter and Facebook are not ‘Platforms”, they are Authors and should have to abide by those laws. By treating them like a Platform and giving them protection from lawsuits, they are being allowed to run hog wild and hand pick who they ban and THAT is not right. There is zero need for government regulations. There needs to be the determination that Zuckerberg lied to Congress. He and Jack are both authors.

    1. Either or, they clearly promote content but I am pissed with conservative site like this pushing their speech.

  84. When corporations are now actively & punitively choosing what speech is okay and what speech is not on the internet & is also targeting uniformly one side of the political discourse in America, I think we’re at the point where the gov’t has to get involved. I don’t like it as I’m sure many of you, but corporations controlling the flow of information & speech on the internet scares me more, ESPECIALLY with an election coming up where the left is ready for war.

    1. @airforcevet98 The government is already involved by granting them immunity from prosecution. The best thing is for them to step away and allow people to sue.

  85. There needs to be a billion dollar class action suit and this won’t happen so much. This is no different from what the Germans did to the Jewish people in the 30s. Don’t give up your weapons folks.

  86. The issue is that they LIE about their business model, LIE about the rules, LIE about their “community standards,” and apply them unevenly to SILENCE reasonable voices, simply because those voices tell the truth.

    1. @kab Me, too. It’s really hard to take them seriously no what how valid their point. That’s right honey, uh huh!

      1. @dr-strangelove Perhaps but we need to remember they speak to an audience that isn’t us, and who understand their message. It’s like Hannity, Rush, Levin. The values are basically the same but the level of the audience is like high school, college, doctoral with those three. Each of them draws a different group of people. I want the conservative message to be spread every way possible, so while I don’t listen to Silk and Diamond, all I can say is “You go girls, uh huh!” 😉

    2. Reading that made me wince. As much as I appreciate their being conservatives and support the president, Diamond and Silk are essentially a comedy team.

      1. I think you are right – they are essentially a comedy team. Why is facebook so concerned about restricting and shadow-banning a comedy team? It’s simply because of wrong think – Diamond and Silk don’t agree with the leftist agenda and they are black… their voice must be silenced. Leftist cannot tolerate a free-thinking black person – they scare them. If too much free-thinking enters that community Democrats lose every election. Therefore, we must silence this silly comedy team as much as possible — despite their innocuous content that does not warrant this response.

        1. @one4life For several decades the left has basked in the knowledge that they have owned 95% of the minority vote in this country. Since Trump was elected hundreds of thousands of blacks and latinos have turned their backs on the democrat party. There are the ‘walkaway’ and ‘blexit’ movements that have been growing exponentially the past two years. That mass exodus of minority voters is causing the democrats to freak out. In a feeble attempt to stem their losses they’re using their control over the social media platforms to silence minority conservative voices.

          Diamond & Silk are examples of black Americans that have shunned the democrat party and the subsequent plantation mentality. D & S have become high profile black conservatives, thanks to Trump. The left wants to silence their voices because they fear them and their anti democrat pro Trump message.

          1. Except, these Diamond and Almond Silk Milk individuals are as (non) helpful to Donny and conservatives as that “walk away” hairdresser/unemployed actor dude from a year ago. And as we all saw six months ago, nobody “walked away”. In fact Donny’s disapproval among African-American voters rose. It’s now at 82 per cent.

            But they’ll be fine. Donny at least has their back as he will be “continuing to monitor the censorship of AMERICAN CITIZENS on social media platforms.”

            Well, whoopie-cakes for that!

            Except, Lauren Southern, banned from Facebook, and whom Donny has been re-tweeting all this morning, is actually Canadian.

            And Paul Joseph Watson – he’s British.

            So, yeah, not “American Citizens” at all as Donny announced over his Tweety toy.

            Shhh….nobody tell him.

    3. I love the entrepreneurship of these two ladies. I don’t know what they were doing before they started their gig but I bet they’re worth a lot more money now than they were then. I say Bravo – way to go ladies!

  87. Nothing wrong with a handful of mega-corporations telling us what we can say on the internet.

  88. Silicon Valley social media is being allowed to have their cake and eat it too. They claim to be platforms but by censoring speech, they are playing the role of editor and that is fine if they want to do that but if that is the case they should be regulated as publishers and have the same legal liabilities as publishers.

    1. @tmfb That’s exactly it. Platform vs Publisher. They are acting as publishers but getting the protections of a Platform. If they are censoring anyone because of their own biases then they are a Publisher and thus liable for the content and able to be sued.

      If they’re a true platform, they may not block anyone except for “actual” threats of violence. Platforms are protected from lawsuits.

      This is where the government comes in.

      These supposed “Platforms” don’t deserve protection from lawsuits when they are obviously banning people they don’t agree with politically. This is a danger to our Republic because freedom of speech is being censored and banned.

      I’m very concerned for how this could play out for 2020 if conservative voices are stifled.

    2. @tmfb Ding ding ding! Exactly. We don’t need more government intervention, we need them to get out of the way and stop protecting these oligopies.

  89. It’s what the left does. It is alright to be vile and perverse, but not patriotic and Constitutional.

  90. There’s really nothing he can do. All we can hope for is a more fail and balanced social media platform to emerge.

  91. The government isn’t doing anything wrong here, its just American companies crapping all over the first amendment. Privatized tyranny is just fine!

  92. I agree. These are private companies and they can do what they want. If the right wants it’s own platform, just create it and you’ll have 40 million people or so sign up immediately.
    There is nothing stopping a second “Facediary” from starting up.

    1. Here is the problem with that thought. Every smaller company that tried to start up as an alternative to Facebook, or any other social media outlet were bought up by Facebook, for more money than they could ever have imagined, so Facebook owned the social media. Facebook insured they had the monopoly on social media.

      As we have often seen, greed is the motivator.

    2. They may be private but they have the protections of the government from lawsuits because they purport to be a platform where all are supposed to be welcome.

      If they want to censor anyone, they become a publisher which is fine, but then you can’t have the protections from lawsuits because you’re controlling the content.

      This is where the problem lies.

  93. Even though I hate those companies (Twitter, Facebook, etc.), they are private companies. However, SOMETHING has to be done (I think?). What those on The Left are doing is so wrong on so many levels. I hope a reasonable solution materializes, which doesn’t include government takeover. We all know how that goes. Bad.

    1. @muckjumper I agree but it’s the difference of being protected from lawsuits because they are considered to be a a platform vs a Publisher where you can control the content but then lose the protections from lawsuits.

      If they want to censor and ban people, they are now actually a publisher and liable for lawsuits.

  94. So what are you saying? That private American companies don’t have to respect the 1’st amendment?

    1. No. They do not. As long as your rights are not being infringed upon constitutionally, they can do what they want. You can still stand on a street corner and scream “I love Trump” as loudly as you want and THAT is what is protected. What is not protected is for you to say that on a private company’s website if they don’t want you to.

        1. Cake maker has the right to refuse service and freedom of association as well. Private property is a wonderful thing.

          1. @tmfb This is how it’s supposed to be but just ask Melissa Klein from Sweet cakes by Melissa who was sued, put out of business and the state confiscated their life savings of $35K. Or Barronelle Stutzman, the Florist who was sued and lost her business and is still fighting a lawsuit that will take everything including her home and retirement. There are are many more examples but this is just two where justice has not been done.

        2. The case against the cake maker was based on a state anti discrimination law, he was using the constitution as a defense.

          As another example, fact that segregation is illegal in private businesses isn’t because of the constitution, it’s because of the civil rights act of 1964.

      1. @ronbo True but if these companies advertise that all are welcome and are describing themselves as a platform with special protections from the government to be sued, then they cannot censor.

        If they act as a publisher, they’re a private company and can censor who they want but are then liable for lawsuits.

        That’s where the problem lies.

    2. “Congress shall make no law…..”. The first ammendment and almost all of the Bill of Rights are limitations on Goverment…not private citizens or companies.
      NFL owners are well within their right to require players to stand for the anthem if they wanted to because that would be a condition of employment. They would not be infringing on the player’s rights. Similarly, you don’t have a right to keep and bear arms on private property. Your/my rights end where someone else’s begins. That is one of the beauties of private property and private contracts.

    1. You mean basically repeal the CDA? You realize that this would dramatically inhibit free speech on the internet, right? And they’d still be free to ban conservatives.

      1. @slantry Their status should be changed from platform to publisher, removing their immunity to lawsuits.

        1. @dr-strangelove all that would do is make them 8,000,000,000 times more neurotic about what is said on their platform, and thus drastically increase, not decrease, censorship. Moreover, it wouldn’t affect the sites’ ability to ban people for stating a viewpoint, since that wouldn’t be affected and probably couldn’t be legislated for without running afoul of the first amendment.

          By way of example, right now, if I were to accuse you of having leprosy on here (which I’m not doing, and I’m picking leprosy since it falls into the category of defamation per se), you could sue me for defamation, assuming that you could find me. If what you’re pressing for becomes law (and for the sake of example assuming this goes across the board and not just to Facebook and Twitter), you could sue Scoop for defamation too. In that circumstance, do you think Scoop would be more or less inclined to monitor and moderate what gets said on this site?

          You can support that change for any number of reasons, but it does nothing to address the problem to which you offer it as a solution.

          1. @slantry

            that is the point, they either stop banning speech or they give up special status and the lawsuits will ruin them.

            1. No, they’ll instantly just start moderating every single word that gets put on their site. And I’d be willing to bet that a lot of jurisdictions wouldn’t permit a finding of liability anyhow, even without CDA protections.

    2. @sjmom Exactly! Platforms are protected, publishers are not! When you censor people on your platform, you are no longer a platform. You’re a publisher and subject to lawsuits. This is where things need to change.

  95. I don’t want the government putting its heavy hand into these “platforms.” Isn’t that what Zuckerberg wants – the gov’t to be the speech monitor (that would be a 1st amendment infringement)? I want them to have their platform status taken away. That’s the only involvement I want them to have. Does anyone know if that would have repercussions for the users? I’m not familiar with what all that entails besides making these companies liable.

    1. Yeah, the platforms would disappear and the ones that would reappear would be heavily heavily moderated.

    2. @squirrelly It’s platform vs Publisher. Platforms have to allow all speech except for violent threats, but the minute they start censoring, they should lose platform status and become a publisher, thus liable for lawsuits.

      1. That’s right, so who does it hurt? It hurts their business model for sure then all of the people who HAVE to be on social media will have to detox and go through withdrawals, I guess. 😀

    1. @tracy
      Thank you for the link.
      I read the article and although compelling, I don’t accept the apparently disparaging term “establishment conservative” for calling out the absolute fact of the danger of “slippery slopes”
      I’ve been consistent on this site for some time about government intervention to solve bias against conservatives (and the right in general).
      I believe we are winning with ideas and Trump (despite himself) won the election after a rather charismatic and eloquent eight years of Obama should have handed the election to Clinton. We control the majority of state legislatures, Governorships, The US Senate, the Supreme Court, and the Executive Branch.
      I see “winning” everywhere. The left is loosing when it has to ban people to win and everyone knows they are losing when they do this. They are losing support when they do this except with those already on their side. These are self-defeating decisions and I do not want big brother to fix anything for me. I certainly don’t want big brother there when power shifts hands and they use those very rules against me.
      No thank you. The left is bereft of ideas now like it has been since the French Revolution. We have nothing to fear except fear itself.

      1. I would agree, but we have very powerful monopolies, and its not a free market where other companies can compete when they hold so much power.

  96. The state can’t (or shouldn’t) take them over, but maybe there need to be new laws governing the behavior of social media sites. The guidelines being used are clearly PC and anti-conservative, and even though they are private entities I do view it as an attack on free speech. It’s one thing to ban someone for true hate speech (and I don’t want to give an example), and quite another to ban people because they disagree with the left.

    1. In the old days the government forced monopolies to break apart into smaller entities. That may not be such a bad idea for these modern tech tycoons. They weld enormous power and influence though their endless mergers, take-overs, and consolidations. I’ve read Google could alter their search algorithms and sway elections without anyone knowing it. And Amazon is putting brick and mortar stores out of business. It’s getting to the point where they can control whole supply chains in a given sector. Not to mention all the personal information that Facebook and Google can data mine on us. That is a lot of power in the hands of a few.

      1. No doubt that THIS may be reasonable due to their prominence. I may be able to swallow this as a solution but I don’t like it because of the reason. If they were a monopoly and everyone was getting charged too much money, that would be legitimate. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, et al… are all free to use. I’m not sure a monopoly argument can be made.

      2. @watchman Not sure if it would help breaking up Facebook because the controlling factor is PC and that envelopes everything right now. I think Facebook has the right idea that some speech needs to be oppressed. I mean, I don’t think it would be a good idea to allow people to get on and preach genocide or things like that. It could become a platform for the likes of ISIS. At the same time, when they hire no one but leftists and PC is the governing guideline, conservatism is labeled as hate speech which is a bunch of horse sh**.

        Plus there’s that other site…which I forget the name of….that brags of allowing anything to be said with no suppression of what people say. No one goes there because the (real) hate is so off the charts and there’s no controlling it with no governing rules.

        I do think there needs to be governing rules on what constitutes hate speech, but it can’t be determined by the left and FB, and it most certainly should not be enforced by the left with exclusion of everyone else.

        1. @kong1967 You’re probably thinking of GAB. I tried it and it didn’t work for me. It’s difficult to navigate, I never could get a conversation going, and couldn’t block the white supremacists that try to dominate every section.

          1. @dr-strangelove That’s it…GAB. I’ve heard similar things from others. I don’t think that’s a good platform. I believe that there need to be guidelines, but when the left determines those guidelines it’s an attempt to shut down opposing opinion….not actual hate speech.

      3. @watchman I don’t think that most people realize how big Amazon is getting. They are building distribution centers all over the country, they now have their own fleet of trailers and they are starting their own local delivery service in many areas. I’m certain that their next step will be to buy out a large trucking company and they will establish a monopoly from the dock (or port) of the manufacturer to the front door of the consumer.

        1. @dr-strangelove A lot of good comes from that, but it eliminates choice and when the bad creeps in there’s nowhere else to go. Not to mention what happens when they go belly up. They probably are reaching the point that they need to be broken up to make leeway for more competition.

  97. I think Trump should start his own social platform. Gov’t taking over is not the answer. Private enterprise. Remember that?

    1. Exactly. The right used to believe we could win with ideas. What happened to that? Are we afraid of Bernie, AOC, and Ohmar? Really?

      1. @ronbo not afraid of them but when your argument is never seen, you can’t make a difference. When a few “platforms” control 99% of the social media and are censoring freedom of speech, that’s a problem.

        Make them Publishers and free to censor but liable for lawsuits, then it’s a level playing field.

        They shouldn’t have the government protections of a Platform when they act as Publishers.

    2. I’d love nothing more than for Trump to use his position as the president to utilize the Federal Gov. to post his ideas/positions on the issues. It wouldn’t be social media, but it would be the president’s positions.

    3. @renny FB is worth $45 billion, so it will take a while before anyone can compete with that. I agree that a conservative platform needs to be created, but as long as PC poisons everything social I’m not sure it will be a whole lot different down the road. Conservatives cave to the PC agenda. God forbid we offend anyone, and the left is offended by anything conservative.

  98. Problem is, What’s his face FB, said he wants regulation… we don’t want government to step into private companies. Once they do, our free speech is completely gone. Especially if loons get in and in fact there are Progressives in the R party that want us shut up also

  99. There needs to be a billion dollar class action suit and this won’t happen so much. This is no different from what the Germans did to the Jewish people in the 30s. Don’t give up your weapons folks.

Comments are closed.