White House Sets Up Echo Chamber For Complaints About Social Media Bias Against Conservatives

from the complainer-in-chief dept

After months of fact-free complaints about bias against conservatives on social media, the White House has finally decided to engage in a fact-finding mission. And by “fact-finding mission,” I mean “knock together a shitty webform to collect complaints.” Or build a mailing list for the 2020 election run. Who knows. But here it is in all of its “will this do” glory.

It opens with this statement before it starts harvesting personal info.

SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS should advance FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Yet too many Americans have seen their accounts suspended, banned, or fraudulently reported for unclear “violations” of user policies.

No matter your views, if you suspect political bias caused such an action to be taken against you, share your story with President Trump.

From there, the form asks for first name, last name, citizenship, zip code, phone number (optional), and email address. If you’re not a US citizen or resident, the White House’s form says it can’t help you. That’s pretty weird considering this form does nothing more than harvest information, most of it personal. If non-US citizens want to share their personal information — and their stories of social media bias — with the administration, they should be able to. But that’s how the White House set this up: Americans only.

After that, it’s time to start detailing the bias. Pick a platform and start bitching. Start by giving the government the link to your social media account, describe the incident, and upload screenshots of the tweet/post removed for violating terms of use being conservative.

You also have the option of being added to the White House’s newsletter email list. Then you have prove you’re not a robot by typing in the year the Declaration of Independence was signed. Fortunately for the bots, the question and answer never change, so not much a bulwark against exploitation.

Finally, you have to agree to the White House’s “user agreement,” conveniently located at another site and hidden behind a shortened link.

At the White House’s site, you’ll learn that complaining about bias via this webform gives the government permission to:

…use, edit, display, publish, broadcast, transmit, post, or otherwise distribute all or part of the Content (including edited, composite, or derivative works made therefrom).

Forever.

The license you grant is irrevocable and valid in perpetuity, throughout the world, and in all forms of media.

And there’s nothing you can do if the government decides to alter your tweet and turn it into the centerpiece of its next Congressional hearing.

You waive any right to inspect or approve any Content or edited, composite or derivative works made from Content (including those which may contain your Information) before use. You are not entitled to any prior notice before the U.S. Government uses Content or Information. You are not entitled to any compensation for Content.

And even though the government has taken irrevocable possession of your content, it’s still your content where it matters most.

You solely bear all responsibility for all Content.

This isn’t about political bias. This is about confirmation bias. The White House has asked people to complain about being blocked or banned. Only those with negative experiences are invited to participate and that slant guarantees a bunch of unreliable narratives. Everything fed into this ad hoc complaint box will be vetted by an administration already convinced the social media deck is stacked against conservatives.

This will allow the administration to cherry-pick what it needs to back up the claims it’s been making for months and ignore everything else. It will give the President a stack of printed-out tweets to wave at social media company execs during the next closed door meeting. What it won’t produce is much reliable evidence of bias. The lack of reliability won’t matter to the administration or the man at the top.

The real question, though, is what the administration plans to do with this info. It seems the ultimate goal is to talk itself into believing the bias problem is bad enough the First Amendment and Section 230 immunity will need to be damaged to make it right.

But, for now, at least the government has given the public a platform to complain about beverage companies threatening to send their urine to journalists.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,
Companies: facebook, twitter, youtube

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “White House Sets Up Echo Chamber For Complaints About Social Media Bias Against Conservatives”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
228 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

If hosting companies refused to rent you a server, and/or ISPs reused to give you a connection, you would have a point, but freedom of speech means you will not be stopped from publishing at your own expense. It is very socialist of you to demand that others pay to publish your words.

crade (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

The only time you have a real conflict are when these resources are controlled by the government so you don’t have a fair change to make your own competing platform.

"I’m not [competent, motivated, whatever] enough to create a platform to broadcast what I want to say to a large enough audience and I can’t convince anyone who is to help me do it" is not a freedom of speech problem.

Paul Brinker (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I think AC’s problem is that at some point conservative ideas are blocked from the Internet. Any platform the size of facebook requires the ability to do business with a wide range of internet companies to manage hosting, billing, CDN services etc.

Each of those firms are starting to tell conservative sites to go away, yet when a cake shop tells a gay person to go away it must be the same as when the CDN says they won’t do business with you.

If somehow all internet firms told conservatives as a group they won’t do business with them then there could be a freedom of speech issue, but even here the most you would perhaps win is ICANN asking domain registers to be content neutral as ICANN is a quasi government agent.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I am not of the opinion that society owes any extreme point of view the time of day, much less the key to the city. Possibly it is time for Conservatives to acknowledge they are an extreme radical bunch, but that will not happen.

Dear Conservatives, Society does not have to listen to your bullshit.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

at some point conservative ideas are blocked from the Internet

Last time I checked, conservatives were more than free to write for major newspapers and magazines with websites, or start their own website, or post on social media so long as their posts do not violate the TOS. Also: If someone wants to complain about “conservative ideas” being “blocked from the Internet”, they should look into the exact “ideas” that are being “blocked”.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

"So you are against free speech?"

Free speech include the concept of free association, which means that a group cannot be forced to put up with you unless they are agents of the government. It’s more of a violation of Facebook’s free speech rights to force them to host people who break their ToCs than it is of the rights of assholes to be told to GTFO.

restless94110 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

You are missing it entirely. It’s about the Civil Commons. You are stumbling over the false idea that a monopoly, duopoly or monopsony is now the Civil Commons.

It matters not if it is a private company or not. And the phone company can’t prevent you from getting a phone line. That is the exact analogy for social media. You get an account and it can’t be censored or controlled, just like you get a phone line with no restrictions.

Can people say bad things on their phone lines? Sure. So what? There need to be no restrictions on access or speech on social media.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

More to the point – imagine your local mall. It might be a popular gathering place, maybe even the place most people choose to hang out in your town, but it’s not the public square. If you go in there and start throwing racial epithets at other customers, the mall is free to kick you off their property. No rights have been abridged.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

"You are stumbling over the false idea that a monopoly, duopoly or monopsony is now the Civil Commons."

Mostly because that’s shit that people like you make up to make you feel like you have a point.

There are a huge number of social networks. There are hundreds of millions of other sites where you can gather to discuss whatever you want, and you have the ability to make you own on top of that. You just don’t get to demand the use of other peoples’ property without restriction. They invited you on their property, they’re free to kick you off. End of story.

restless94110 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Get Your Fuck Your Feeling MasterCard Today

I ain’t about feelings, dopey. It’s about a monopoly/duopoloy crushing speech and thought.

The point of view that you can just go "start up" a "platform" because the gigantic platform that everyone uses doesn’t allow you on it is infantile.

It’s like saying I had a phone line with the phone company but they listened to my conversations and they kicked me off "their" phone line. So now idiots tell me: just start a phone company and get your own phone line.

It’s the same thing. See how that works? I didn’t think so. I guess Ron White was right: you just can’t fix stupid.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Get Your Fuck Your Feeling MasterCard Today

The point of view that you can just go "start up" a "platform" because the gigantic platform that everyone uses doesn’t allow you on it is infantile.

http://www.wordpress.com – Go there and start your own blog. They will also give you great exposure if you spend a bit of money, but if your site is popular, it will get even more exposure, giving it an even bigger audience.

Just because you can’t tweet, if what you’re saying is good enough, people will listen to you no matter where you are.

If you keep getting kicked off of the platforms you are using, maybe, just maybe, you should reflect on what you are saying to see if the reason you are getting the boot is because of the horrible things you are saying.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Patent, copyright, trade secret. You don’t think these are government controlled resources? You don’t think Twitter and Facebook and YouTube utilize those to prevent alternative competing sites? Also, when you create a public forum for the exchange of ideas and require, for instance, politicians to allow people access to their feeds, you sort of have to allow people to participate in the conversation. Can’t have it both ways.

restless94110 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Thanks for playing.

Au contraire, mon frere. They are public forums.

And there goes your argument whatever it was.

The social media monopolies are the phone company of the 21st century.

You get a phone line without question. You don’t get your calls monitored to make sure you aren’t "triggering" some idiot in his mother’s basement.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Thanks for playing.

Did you think that whether I pay for social media or not mattered at all to anything or anyone?

If you’re not paying for the product, then you don’t have much ground to stand on when you beat your chest and expect them to bow to your terms. You know, if you read the ToS, they basically state that they can, as a social media platform, do whatever the fuck they want within the terms of current law.

The social media monopolies are the phone company of the 21st century.

How so? I communicate just fine with friends, family, and work colleges all over the world and very little is done on social media. In fact, I rarely use social media at all, so how is it the phone company again?

restless94110 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Thanks for playing.

How the product is paid for has nary a thing to do with ground to stand on. The TOS is also meaningless. How the phone company gets their money doesn’t matter at all. If a business gets its money via monthly fees or selling your data it matters not.

Just like the phone company which is a monopoly, everybody has standing on social media as it is the modern phone company.

Just because you don’t personally do anything on social media doesn’t matter either. You are free to not have a phone also. And all your friends and uncles and aunts don’t have to have phones.

But if you do have a phone the phone company isn’t allowed to prevent you from getting a phone line and they are not permitted to censor your calls nor are they allowed to cancel your phone line because some dipshit in the phone company doesn’t like what you say on your phone line.

restless94110 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Thanks for playing.

I will try to help you out…….
There is no jack in your house.
Does that help you out?
A jack has not a thing to do with standing.

Did you really need me to tell you that there is no jack in your house? Wow. You are sounding more and more retarded with every post.

I recommend you go back about 20 comment replies to the part where analogies are explained. Good luck!

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Unless and until Facebok is brought under the control of the U.S. federal government, your ability to use Facebook is a privilege that can be revoked if you violate its TOS. You cannot force Facebook to give you an account, host your speech, and deliver you an audience. Facebook is neither a public utility nor owned by the U.S. government — it is a privately owned open-to-the-public forum, and it can set whatever rules it likes to keep assholes out of said forum.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Thanks for playing.

The social media monopolies are the phone company of the 21st century.

Oh shit, somebody is breaking into my car, I better go tweet the police and see if they might respond to me. Maybe I can look up their facebook page and post something there…

Oh right… I can just fucking call them over the phone…. Please tell me how social media is a phone company?

Ernie Norbert Argay says:

Re: The Section 230 shield separates HOST from USERS.

It doesn’t COMPEL hosting, but sets up the needed immunity from liability. (Too much.) That’s the DEAL.

Section 230 must be interpreted in accord with common law and Constitution. No statute can set up "private" censorship that effectively removes Rights from "natural" persons.

ALL access to the Internet is through corporations. You are directly advocating soft fascism of corporate control, then. As I wrote below, you no doubt believe it’s just "conservatives" and you’re willing for them to be suppressed because think they’re run by people with the Correct View who are good and pure. But corporations are amoral, only seek power and money — as indeed their owners The Rich do. Corporations and mere statute are the means that Nazis used to do an end run around the Rights of persons. When They come for you, won’t be anyone to speak up, they won’t even a "platform" to do so.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: The Section 230 shield separates HOST from USERS.

"It doesn’t COMPEL hosting"
But you want it to.

"Section 230 must be interpreted in accord with common law and Constitution."
In a court of law maybe, however you are not in a court if law now are you?

What is private censorship … is that like what rich folk do when they are covering up stuff? You know, SLAP law suits, copyright infringement claims, patent claims … you know the drill.

"All access to the Internet is not thru corporations."
No it’s not

What is soft fascism … is that like being half pregnant?

What is a natural person … is that like the opposite of a test tube baby?

You’ve got an angle … what is it?

Ernie Norbert Argay says:

Techdirt echo chamber long downplays conservative complaints,

and defends the anti-American globalist corporations which are de facto censors, propaganda outlets, and controllers of "news", particularly claiming that they’re still "private" even though authorized by statute, and so have no need to uphold the most American principle of all: FAIRNESS.

Oh, they’re subtle about it, ’cause if get too blatant for still quite a while, there’ll be a backlash.

But the "lunch counter principle" still applies. You wouldn’t accept "conservatives" wielding the same power, but when believe vast amoral corporations are on "your" side, are willing to over the saying about "when they came for me, was no one left".

You should keep in mind that the average Democrat (and even most D-after-name politicians) still strongly believes in FAIRNESS. Silly-con Valley and you kids are VERY few in number, just inflate yourselves and then believe your own boasting.

Readers will see the effect right here: Techdirt can’t stand ANY opposing views, but uses the lie of "the community" to disadvantage dissent: the actual "hiding" is of Techdirt’s BIAS.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Techdirt echo chamber long downplays conservative compla

Conservatism isn’t dying at all. It’s being silenced and shouted down a lot but since it’s more connected to reality, it will resurface again. Look at all the walls #metoo has crashed into, like when liberals began being accused.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

It’s being silenced and shouted down a lot but since it’s more connected to reality

You mean like in Alabama, where a new anti-abortion law crafted and signed into law by conservatives now ensures that a doctor who performs an abortion on a rape victim will now get more time in prison than the rapist?

AnonyOps says:

Re: Re: Techdirt echo chamber long downplays conservative compla

Bad faith speech by a private entity is not protected speech. The only free speech one gets is that which is sanctioned by the federal or state constitution of which does not run private entities like incorporated bodies. The only laws which the Federal constitution can enforce is to fictional strawmen or persons designated as citizen in an actual court of law in any jurisdiction.

cattress (profile) says:

Re: Techdirt echo chamber long downplays conservative complaints

Fairness is not exactly an American principle, let alone most American. Freedom is. Freedom to do, say, be, believe, live and pursue happiness without government interference (so long as you do not aggress upon another’s natural rights). Freedom does not guarantee fair opportunities nor outcomes. As a female I have lived with the fundamental unfairness in American life. And while I cannot and will not pretend to understand and represent the realities of minority Americans, I feel the word unfair is an understatement at best.

Anonymous Coward says:

I find it hilarious that conservatives have their feels hurt by "easily triggered libs" and "snowflakes."

They can fuck off and create their own platform if they don’t like the service.

(Similar in how an LGBTQ couple can fuck off and get a cake from somewhere else if the baker doesn’t agree with their lifestyle.)

You reap what you sow, assholes.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

"They can fuck off and create their own platform if they don’t like the service."

Being deplatformed from the financial services required to fuck off and create their own platform means that no, actually, they can’t.

Visa, Mastercard, Patreon, GoFundMe, Venmo, Uber, Lyft, First National Bank of Omaha, Citigroup, Chase Bank, First Data, Square, Stripe, and Youtube/Google (note that this list is non-exhaustive) have all participated in FINANCIAL deplatforming, as well as pressuring other businesses to deplatform groups.

In conclusion, you’re not only extremely incorrect, but I suspect disingenuous.

A handy source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deplatforming#Financial_deplatforming

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Being deplatformed from the financial services required to fuck off and create their own platform means that no, actually, they can’t.

Well perhaps conservatives should be pushing for more science, technology, and engineering in school instead of religious bullshit.

Then you wouldn’t be so technology-ignorant that you can’t fuck off and create your own.

God doesn’t seem to be too useful on that front, is it?

restless94110 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Many conservatives are scientist, engineers, and in tech as freelancers, so your post is bullshit.

Maybe you should enlighten yourself so that you could stop religiously spouting the discredited idea of a private corp being able to get a monopoly and if you don’t like it you can go start something of our own. It’s a totally discredited idea that no one except the religious SJW and libertarians still spout.

Wake up.

cattress (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Crypto currency. Unregulated, not centrally controlled, and a growing number of entities accept it as payment. So there is no excuse why anyone feeling that their viewpoint is being unfairly suppressed can’t go start their own platform.q
Financial deplatforming is a real thing, and worthy of concern when it’s done at the demand of government. But even huge companies like Google and Facebook don’t have the power to tell Visa not to do business with a competitor or disfavored group. And even though Amazon might be better able to influence Visa or MasterCard, cutting off their business ties to push those companies to not do business with a competitor would do far more damage to their own customers and affiliated businesses than it’s worth.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

In the grand scheme of things, he no longer has the ‘Witch Hunt’ narrative to keep the base energized… the next best thing is to claim how UnAmerican it is for a platform to suspend or ban you, just because you told those "darkies" to go back to Africa & take those ‘Wetbacks’ with you too!

This also ignores their favorite game of screaming others should be banned for offending them but allow them to be just as offensive without consequence.

Add to this Ted Cruz threatening @Jack b/c the moments were just people mocking him and not his good sound bites about fighting the alien menace… I don’t think its a good look to demand that a CEO take you by the hand & explain how user curated content works when you’re supposed to be a big boy able to read & understand.

We’re going to see edited tweets rolled out before Congress demanding changes, with no one paying attention to how they were edited & modified to fit the narrative. But considering how much POTUS & his circle lie to everyone about everything from the mundane to the lets start a war to appease my Capt. Kangaroo looking appointee… perhaps Congress should put on their big boy pants & stop feeding the ‘they hate conservatives’ theme, and put more effort into ‘Making America Great Again’ by making sure POTUS gets a lesson in civics, economics, & the rule of law.

Anonymous Coward says:

Kickstarter has banned whole genres of perfectly legal projects in a manner most would consider left-leaning. Should they be allowed to? Why should PayPal care who uses its service?

There are lines that need to be drawn where, yes, if one provides infrastructure to the public, it has to let the public use that infrastructure. What’s next: banning anyone from crossing a bridge in a foreign car?

Anonymous Coward says:

There is a whole lot of disdain in that write-up.

In the last two years the accounts I followed that have been banned have been moderate views. The common thread has been an especially influential account, often one that engages in independent journalism filming live from the ground or building out insightful commentary. Private citizens creating content that competes with digital media.

The digital media loves painting accounts as racist, Nazi, sexist, homophobe, extremist.

And too often the public parrot the digital media depiction unexamined.

There is documented experience that when the press covers a topic you are an expert in you can spot numerous inaccuracies. What does that say about the accuracy of other content? Then you go on and read other news as informative shortly thereafter, forgetting all about it.

We have an inversion.

Digital media today are extremist.

Tech giants revealing themselves fascist corporations in support of establishment politicians who have no intent of relinquishing power by democratic process.

And too many who blissfully support that arrangement unexamined, unquestioned.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

There is a whole lot of disdain in that write-up.

Do something disdainful, and you deserve a disdainful writeup. The White House’s efforts here are disdainful and anti-free speech.

In the last two years the accounts I followed that have been banned have been moderate views.

Which ones. As someone who has followed this space closely, I’ve yet to see a case where accounts have been banned for moderate views. I’ve seen accounts banned for dumb reasons (which often get reversed). I’ve seen accounts banned for trolling. I’ve seen accounts banned for harassment. I’ve seen accounts banned for infringement (whether legit or not). I have seen accounts banned by moderators not understanding context.

But I have never heard of a single case of someone being banned for moderate views.

So, please, let us know.

The common thread has been an especially influential account, often one that engages in independent journalism filming live from the ground or building out insightful commentary. Private citizens creating content that competes with digital media.

Please let us know who you’re talking about. I don’t know of any such cases who weren’t also engaged in trollish or racist behavior.

The digital media loves painting accounts as racist, Nazi, sexist, homophobe, extremist.

Who are you talking about, both on the "media" side and the "accounts" side?

There is documented experience that when the press covers a topic you are an expert in you can spot numerous inaccuracies. What does that say about the accuracy of other content? Then you go on and read other news as informative shortly thereafter, forgetting all about it.

Yes, it’s called the the Murray-Gell-man Amnesia Effect. But it’s not at play here. Nothing Tim wrote is inaccurate.

Digital media today are extremist.

LOL

Tech giants revealing themselves fascist corporations in support of establishment politicians who have no intent of relinquishing power by democratic process.

Um. What?

And too many who blissfully support that arrangement unexamined, unquestioned.

Lemme guess. You got "red pilled" on Reddit?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

And too many who blissfully support that arrangement unexamined, unquestioned.
Lemme guess. You got "red pilled" on Reddit?

Is this the part where pussy-whipped men "defend women" and think they’re attractive women who value "financial security" and think short men are inferior?

Any woman who’d ***k Masnick is one sorry piece of shit.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

There is a whole lot of disdain in that write-up.
Do something disdainful, and you deserve a disdainful writeup. The White House’s efforts here are disdainful and anti-free speech.

What do you deserve if you allow a posting which said two congressmen e-mailed one of your commenters and insulted others who post here?

You think members of the United States Congress appreciate having their names thrown around like that?

You’re whacking off under floodlights and don’t even realize it. Might want to consider what others think YOU deserve.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

What do you deserve if you allow a posting which said two congressmen e-mailed one of your commenters and insulted others who post here?

What the hell is this word salad supposed to convey?

And if you asking what two congressmen would think about the comments here, why don’t you go find out and come back here and tell us how many fucks they decided to give.

ECA (profile) says:

Anyone found a sitte that IS...

Conservative..
Ummm,,,,
Please define..
Please tell me how they have not created their own site.

And with the BS flying around, make the rules for ALL SIDES..

  1. you cant Advert/bombard everyone with BS…you sit and wait for them to find you.
  2. Prove your logic if you make a statement..Bigfoot did it, is NOT proof or an explanation.
  3. remember we all have computers, Many of us can SHOW anything we want, we can augment anything…and we have specialists that can TEAR that picture/video apart and show if it has any validity..
David says:

Wait, what?

SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS should advance FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Uh, says who? "Freedom of Speech" means that the government has no business meddling with speech. Like prescribing to social media platforms a stance towards Freedom of Speech.

We are talking about the First Amendment of the Constitution. That’s the Bill of Rights, namely rights of the governed that the government explicitly is not allowed to meddle with (even though it already is supposed to only meddle in those points spelled out in the first part of the Constitution).

So what does the government think it should be doing? Meddle.

Really, the kind of failures currently occupying the White House is appalling, and it’s not like this has started only with the current administration.

PaulT (profile) says:

What amazes me is that snitching on your neighbours for having different opinions was literally a Soviet and Nazi tactic. Now, the people who claim to be against socialism and communism are unironically adopting the same tactics.

It’s not exactly surprising given the ways those words seem to be misunderstood by certain factions, but these are the very things that I remember in the cold war that made people the "bad guys" without question.

David says:

Re: Re:

What amazes me is that snitching on your neighbours for having different opinions was literally a Soviet and Nazi tactic.

The Nazis were even more interested in the outside of your head: the main snitching target were the victims of their handwavy race ideology.

Now if you wind forward a bit, you get the Stasi to compare with, and there snitching on purported ideologically misaligned people was all the rage.

Anonymous Coward says:

The relative popularity or longevity of a political belief is wholly irrelevant to its right to equal access to the airwaves.

Internet censorship has been self-correcting since censorship destroyed AOL, literally preventing it from becoming the internet itself for all intents and purposes.

The internet was built to survive a nuclear war. Censors are nothing by comparison.

Anonymous Coward says:

I am pretty sure that there will not be any fake submittals by people trying to be funny. The use of funny satirical names will not be allowed and neither will disrespectful comments disrespecting our great and honorable leaders in the whitehouse, congress and the scotus. These anti-american socialist commie basturds should be put in jail along side of Hillary.

Anonymous Coward says:

I have lost far too much time reporting republican troll/propaganda accounts to even find this funny. Its fucking uphill as places like facebook already take far too long to ban accounts constantly posting hateful, bigoted or even outright racist propaganda from obviously fake profiles. They mostly remove individual messages than ban the suspicious accounts. I’m not amused with the orange dictator having such a cheap persecution complex.

restless94110 (profile) says:

Willful Blindness

Wow.At this late date, I had no idea that ANYONE on EARTH would try to put forth the idea that the blanket censorship against conservatives was not happening.

A new level of insanity by this writer at Tech Dirt?

Yes, indeed. Tim? Are you stupid or just evil? Which?

Tim? Ever hear of Milo? Alex Jones? All the others? Me?

We all have been banned by social media, Tim.

If I can possibly help you get your illogical head out of your ass, please contact me. I will be happy to help you come back to the reality of censorship of the tech lunatics against free speech.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

“Anti-conservative bias” in moderation on social media platforms is a myth. To claim it as a fact, you must prove two things:

  1. Any punishment of a conservative user — and only a conservative user — on a given platform is done only because of their expressed political beliefs.
  2. The platform has a distinct and provable pattern of politically motivated punishments that target conservatives/Republicans/right-wingers but leave liberals/Democrats/left-wingers alone.

I wish you the best of luck; you will certainly need it.

Bamboo Harvester (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

The platforms don’t. The bulk of the users do.

The sites in question have an indisputable left/liberal majority of users.

So if you’re not (or even if you ARE) left/liberal, and you post something the choir is conditioned to knee-jerk against, you’ll get a slew of replies telling you you’re an idiot.

Bust your ass for thirty years to make ends meet while putting something aside for old age then post on facebook that you’re being taxed too much and see what kind of replies you get.

Make mention of the millions of able-bodied welfare drones there and see what the replies look like.

So, YES, the lack of "conservatives" on facebook makes it appear there’s an organized "plot" to keep them off.

You don’t see many conservatives on those sites for the same reason you don’t see Catholic Priests walking into Mosques and performing Mass.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

the lack of "conservatives" on facebook makes it appear there’s an organized "plot" to keep them off

I doubt there is an actual “lack of conservatives on Facebook”. What you likely meant to say is “the lack of bigoted, famous, vocal conservatives on Facebook”. Even if there is some sort of “lack” there, Facebook has no legal obligation to give a shit, and it certainly has no obligation to “recruit” new conservative users so the site can “even out” any supposed “liberal bias”.

Bamboo Harvester (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Fair points.

I’d change the "bigoted, famous…" to simply "loudmouth idiots", as they’re quickly shouted down.

And I really wasn’t referring to the attention seeking types, just that you don’t see many people post so-called "conservative views", like actually working for a living, pointing out a fallacy in a populist "movement", that a Dem presidential candidate’s only "plus side" is that they’re not a white male. Hell, just disagreeing with something a liberal "icon" says will get you such a raft of shouting replies you’ll think you’re in an AC thread on TechDirt…

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

In my experience, that depends purely on how you disagree with them. There are positive ways to go around it, but when you’ve had to deal with ridiculous attacks on people (for example, cries of "socialism" surrounding the most centrist Democrats, utter nonsense directed at Obama throughout his tenure ranging from where he was born to the type of mustard he chooses), you can hopefully understand how you get treated if it doesn’t look like you’re bringing anything of substance.

Different communities also have different standards and I very much doubt that every "liberal" community would treat you the same, even if it makes you feel better to pretend they’re a hive mind.

Bamboo Harvester (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Post something logical about how raising the wage without an increase in productivity is a net loss and you’ll get shouted down.

Point out that Warren going around saying we need to send more money to central american oppressive regimes to help the people there being oppressed shows she hasn’t got a clue where international aid money goes (the oppressive government) and you’ll get shouted down.

Ask "have you tried getting a job?" in reply to someone whining at full volume that they’re not getting enough welfare money and… yup, you get shouted down.

Have that "hive mind" you mention find out that you’re an old white guy who busted his ass for decades at three careers to make something of his life, provide for his kids, and you get shouted down as a "nazi", "racist", and "that’s because of white privilege".

How much of that do you put up with before you simply drop your account?

THAT is the main reason you don’t see "conservatives" on "social media" in any great quantity. For the most part, those that do have FB accounts keep them private and only family members are "friended".

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

I won’t go through all of them, but I’ll go for the obvious one:

"Ask "have you tried getting a job?" in reply to someone whining at full volume that they’re not getting enough welfare money and… yup, you get shouted down."

Did you ask if they had a job first, or were you attacking someone who is working full/part time and still needing to claim to get by (as many Americans do)? Were you aware that it is possible for someone to be working their ass off trying to find a job, yet be refused employment. What about disabilities – was the person you were talking to able bodied? Lots of people work hard but come up short.

You see, this may be the problem. If you’re basing everything on a right-wing parody of a welfare seeker, you’re going to insult people even if your intentions are good.

"you’re an old white guy who busted his ass for decades… you get shouted down as a "nazi", "racist", and "that’s because of white privilege"."

Lots of racists have worked hard for their kids, but that’s irrelevant to that discussion. What else were you saying that got people to call you racist? Was it perhaps because you were assuming something about those welfare seekers based on their race?

"THAT is the main reason you don’t see "conservatives" on "social media" in any great quantity. "

As I’ve said above – social media is full of people of all ages, genders, religions, political views, etc. The bigger sites have populations of more than almost every nation on Earth. If you’re unable to have any discussions without being called a racist or finding common ground with any group, perhaps it’s not the social media that’s the problem.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

actually working for a living

Funny, then, how top conservatives tend to avoid taxing generational wealth — another form of rich people’s welfare — and the ultra-wealthy. Most of the wealth in the U.S. is held by a handful of people who technically do not have to work another day in their life, while the vast majority of poor people work at least two jobs to pay for life essentials such as food, water, clothing, and shelter because said handful of wealthy people want to make $1.547 billion this year instead of $1.447 billion.

pointing out a fallacy in a populist "movement"

Conservatives did a lot of that with Trump…up until he won the presidency, after which only a handful of conservatives have done that. The rest were “smart” enough to kiss the ring of their new godking.

that a Dem presidential candidate’s only "plus side" is that they’re not a white male

…ain’t that enough?

Set aside the inherent bigoty within the notion that a candidate not being a straight White able-bodied cisgender Christian male somehow disqualies them from, or makes them less suited for, public office. Whatever part of their identity makes that candidate different from a straight White male, regardless of political party, makes them better situated to express the concerns of that particular demographic. A gay candidate would have more of a personal experience with discussing and fighting for LGBT civil rights — their own civil rights — than any straight candidate ever will. A Muslim candidate could bring a perspective of what it means to be a religious minority within a country dominated by Christianity. People of color, disabled people, transgender people, women — all bring a different perspective than that of the “default”. If the candidate has intersecting identities (e.g., a gay woman; a Black transgender man), that makes their experiences even more distinct. Their perspectives matter just as much as those of people who, by virtue of being part of a given demographic majority, will never face any kind of substantive bigotry within their lifetimes. Hearing those perspectives can help people who never deal with that kind of bullshit understand it and become more empathetic — and thus more willing to support laws and measures that help create equal opportunity (not equal results, equal opportunity) for marginalized people.

disagreeing with something a liberal "icon" says will get you … a raft of shouting replies

I would say that depends less on disagreeing with what they say, and more on whether your disagreement is simply outright dismissal of their argument based only on their political party. Pointing out how drug companies overcharge people for medication in the U.S. is a non-partisan position — but when a Democrat does it, do you dismiss their argument because they then suggest solutions such as “universal healthcare” or “negotiating prices with the drug companies” or something else that happens to go against your personal political dogma? By a similar token, if a “liberal icon” were to suggest today that “conversion ‘therapy’ ” should be “an option” for young gay people to explore, I would dismiss their bullshit immediately — not because of their political party or my political dogma as the sole reason, but because “conversion ‘therapy’ ” is a form of psychological (and often physical) torture rooted in primarily-religious homophobia, and anyone who endorses it, regardless of political affiliation, is a bastard-coated asshole with dipshit filling¹.

¹ — All due respect to Scrubs.

restless94110 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Have you tried not being a badge bunny?

There are drones that are able-bodied? What is a drone? What is able bodied about a drone? Who is a boot licker? He or she liked to lick boots? And there are bootlickers who are racists? And there are boot lickers that are authoritarian? What is an authoritarian?

Do you understand how stupid and insane you sound?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"The sites in question have an indisputable left/liberal majority of users."

The sites in question have hundreds of millions, sometime billions, of users across the world. It seems weird that so many from one extreme of the political spectrum rather than being largely centrist. Especially on sites that are largely non-political (no, most Facebook users aren’t on there primarily for political discussion), and allow anyone from any accepted country to sign up (unless they break the TOCs, like the guys who get banned are doing).

The real issue is simply that the American conservative skews far more right than most of the rest of the planet. Actual centrists look left-leaning to you, because you’re pushed yourselves so far right.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Willful Blindness indeed

Just a tip, but if you’re going to try to argue that ‘conservatives’ are being unfairly treated by companies maybe avoid using Alex ‘a school shooting that resulted in multiple dead kids was faked’ Jones as one of your examples. Kinda undercuts the whole ‘the people who don’t believe me are stupid/crazy/evil’ narrative you’re going for.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Willful Blindness

Wow.At this late date, I had no idea that ANYONE on EARTH would try to put forth the idea that the blanket censorship against conservatives was not happening.

We put it forth and we’ve discussed it at length and in detail. Because it’s not happening.

A new level of insanity by this writer at Tech Dirt?

No, just accuracy in reporting.

Yes, indeed. Tim? Are you stupid or just evil? Which?

He’s being accurate and not reporting propaganda from idiots.

Tim? Ever hear of Milo? Alex Jones? All the others? Me?

So, the first two are known trolls who trafficked in bullshit, lies and harassment. Not "conservatives," just play actors online. No idea who you are. But if you consider both of them to be representative of conservative thought, well, then you’re clueless.

We all have been banned by social media, Tim.

Some trolls were banned for trollish/abusive behavior. Not for being conservative.

If I can possibly help you get your illogical head out of your ass, please contact me. I will be happy to help you come back to the reality of censorship of the tech lunatics against free speech.

It always helps to spew bullshit and insults and then ask us to contact you. Sorry, but you’re not credible. No one’s censoring conservatives. They’re kicking off trolls and racists.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Willful Blindness

Mike’s a pussy-whipped loser who can’t attract a decent-looking woman.

The conservatives should hire some super-hot models to hit on him while he’s on the road at one of those conferences just for Lulz. Have you seen Mike’s ugly wife? He can’t even trade her in as she ages. Ken’s wife looks like a total doofus too. No wonder these guys sit around putting down men who aren’t pussy-whipped and don’t need to insult other men to get noticed.

TDR says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

The child is an innocent. It has done no wrong, so why should it be punished for what someone else did? And that scenario happens far less than you think. Nearly all abortions are done by healthy women on healthy babies because they don’t want to be inconvenienced by parenthood or in some cases were forced into it by family/husband/boyfriend whatever. And before you bring it up, an unborn isn’t simply a part of the woman’s body. The DNA pattern is distinct and unique and neither hers nor the father’s. That makes him or her a separate person, a unique individual. And the heartbeat can be measured within mere weeks, so it’s not a mere collection of cells for very long either. There are plenty of other options for dealing with an unexpected pregnancy than going this route, so the focus should be I think on providing more resources for adoption and pregnant women who don’t have the means to take of their child on their own such that abortion need not even be considered in the first place. It should be made unnecessary (save for the extremely rare incidents of health issues of the mother), not illegal, as prohibition doesn’t work all that well and I think can sometimes have the opposite effect and cause more harm than good since those who really want what’s forbidden badly enough will find a way to get it regardless.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

The child is an innocent. It has done no wrong, so why should it be punished for what someone else did?

It has nothing to do with ‘punishing’ the unborn, rather it’s about not forcing someone who’s already been raped to spend nine months(plus the fun of childbirth) being reminded of that fact any time they look down, and/or having the violation of bodily autonomy they’ve already suffered compounded with even more of the same.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

"That makes him or her a separate person, a unique individual"

Also something wholly dependent on the woman’s body, with the woman still being an individual who should not be subjected to the difficulties of a pregnancy and the resultant child rearing if they cannot do it for whatever reason.

"It should be made unnecessary"

I agree, which is why I support, among other things, comprehensive sex education, free contraception, robust child care, counselling, adoption and other such services.

Yet, most "pro-life" people oppose those things. Why is that?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Willful Blindness

Tim? Ever hear of Milo? Alex Jones? All the others? Me?

Wow, I don’t think I would ever want to be mentioned in the same company as Milo and Alex, so you must have been a real bigoted / racist / nazi / misogynist asshole to have been kicked off of Twitter.

Or did you get kicked off because you were trying to promote conservative values like lowering taxes and smaller government?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Willful Blindness

Wow, I don’t think I would ever want to be mentioned in the same company as Milo and Alex, so you must have been a real bigoted / racist / nazi / misogynist asshole to have been kicked off of Twitter.

It is impossible to give accurate advice to men about women without being called a misogynist.

Why is it that rich men get laid so easily? Oh yeah, pretty women are bought.It’s even misogynist to point out that women who despite short men are bigots.

You’re a pussy-whipped loser who can’t get women to notice him any other way. Inevitably, you’ll consider the lack of sexual reward a betrayal.

Women use violent men to commit violent acts on their behalf.

That you defend women so blindly makes you a tool they will use and discard.

Men who marry are accepting a system where a woman can ruin them at will, all out of extreme desperation to get laid.

Is Masnick married? He thinks personal lives are fair game for discussion and he IS a public figure.

cattress (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Willful Blindness

When that’s how you talk about women and the dynamics of relationships, you sound like a misogynist. And an incel. And terribly lonely, suffering from social awkwardness that makes you not only awful to be around, but also unaware as to how awful you come across to females. There is no nuance which is being confused or misinterpreted. You’re not a victim of anyone or anything but yourself.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Willful Blindness

When that’s how you talk about women and the dynamics of relationships, you sound like a misogynist. And an incel. And terribly lonely, suffering from social awkwardness that makes you not only awful to be around, but also unaware as to how awful you come across to females. There is no nuance which is being confused or misinterpreted. You’re not a victim of anyone or anything but yourself.

Hahaha someone’s "triggered" because he likes the wimenzzz!!!

Ah yes, the "defender of women" judging men based on the hope the men he doesn’t like can’t get laid. So many men like this had to use money to attract them (women who like money are whores), so they take it out on the men who can speak their minds freely and not have to settle for the shitstains they have to beg into marriage. With so many women choosing men who beat the shit out of them, kill them, or harm other men when they go to shoot up their workplaces (all men who aren’t "incel"), that says how pathetically stupid they are.

Men who ACTUALLY get laid don’t have this man’s fear of the truth about them.

Pssst: women elected Trump. They like men who see them as they are, not some doofus like you who tries to "defend their honor." Oh yeah Trump’s an "incel" who can’t marry supermodels who’d never give losers like Mike or Ken the time of day. Ken’s wife is one of the ugliest women on earth, Mike’s isn’t far behind. Mikey’s kids sure got a raw deal in the masculinity department.

I’m sure it’s very therapeutic to let your anger out. Must suck to have to insult other men to even get noticed by those women who dream about men like Trump.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Willful Blindness

Luckily, a few hundred bucks is all a "misogynist" male needs to fuck a desperate hottie in need of tuition money. Don’t fuck prostitutes, turn "decent" women INTO prostitutes with $500. Make them French-kiss for the money too since pros don’t do that. It’s funny watching the greedy whores prove what they are.

cattress (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Willful Blindness

I thought my screen name was obviously feminine. But I will clarify that I am a woman, and in a long term heterosexual relationship with a good man who is not rich.
You have only further illustrated that you are a misogynist, that you don’t know how to interact with women yet think the reason you don’t have an intimate relationship with one is due to their moral and intellectual defects.
I know women who voted for Trump, and think he’s doing a good job. None of them is fantasizing about Trump or anyone comparable. I don’t know any women who seek relationships solely for financial reasons or because of a man’s height. Financial security is only one of many aspects, falling way below compatibility, that women consider when choosing a life partner.
Your misdirected anger is going to cement your life as an incel, and that’s sad.

restless94110 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Willful Blindness

why is it sad that the writer will be an incel?

Incels are people, too.

I don’t know where you live, but many many women marry for money, height, status. The data is crystal clear: women don’t marry men who make less than they do or have lower status than they do.

Things change in a man’s life and often things then change in their wive’s desire for them. It’s a simple fact of life. Just because you aren’t that way (you say) and you don’t know anyone who is like that (you say) doesn’t mean a thing.

Ma’am, stop arguing against evolutionary psychology: there are valid and simple reasons for female hypergamy. It’s seen in humans and in the lower primates who we are most related to (chimpanzees and bonobos).

Because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean it isn’t so. Believing in fake narratives is what is truly sad.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Willful Blindness

And an incel.

"Stop objectifying women or you won’t get laid and my big, strong, boyfriend will beat you up!"

How many "liberal" men who talk like that wound up taken down by #metoo? You know, that movement of unqualified office skanks who slept their way into their jobs biting the hand that fed them?

There is NOTHING more pathetic than a man who puts down other men in the hope that some women will reward his "nice" behavior. No wonder Trump being president causes their little brains to implode: Trump gets HOT women, while they get those feminist drama queens.

Women have NO sexual respect for men who buy into their b/s that they aren’t anything but greedy, lying whores, but these men make great FRIENDS, or meal tickets after they’re done fucking REAL men in their twenties and need someone to raise their genetically superior children.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Willful Blindness

Gee we should call fat women "lovecels" or whatever, pointing out that no man will ever want them. Then we should wave money and food in front of the homeless just for kicks like these "good" men do by example!

The term "incel" should lead to a banning of anyone who uses the term as much as the word "slut" or "whore" should. Same for disability slurs that would get half the world banned.

Men who have to surrender half their wealth just to get laid by some fat, ugly doofus of a woman are not anyone to be judging the love lives of men who can attract women ten times hotter than the aging POS they’re stuck with.

restless94110 (profile) says:

Wow! I don’t think I would ever want to read someone’s comment who thinks Milo and Alex is bad company.

Maybe you may want to do a re-boot on the meaning of the First Amendment, hoss.

Speech is protected especially unpopular speech. Even the assholes who judge speech their small minds have judged to be bigoted/racist/nazi/misogynist.

That is the whole entire complete point of Free Speech. Wake up. And remember: judge not lest ye be judged, exactly the same way you judge others.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Learn how this site works you fucking idiot, click the "reply to this" link when replying instead of starting a new comment… That’s like Internet 101.

Wow! I don’t think I would ever want to read someone’s comment who thinks Milo and Alex is bad company.

You didn’t answer my question:

so you must have been a real bigoted / racist / nazi / misogynist asshole to have been kicked off of Twitter.

Or did you get kicked off because you were trying to promote conservative values like lowering taxes and smaller government?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

"so you must have been a real bigoted / racist / nazi / misogynist asshole to have been kicked off of Twitter"

Now, now, he could have violated their TOCs in other ways. He’ll see their enforcing of their own community rules as some kind of conspiracy, of course, but there’s other reasons why they could have told him to go elsewhere.

Anonymous Coward says:

so you must have been a real bigoted / racist / nazi / misogynist asshole to have been kicked off of Twitter

All subjective terms with extremely left-leaning definitions which say more about Twitter than about anyone they ban.

Once upon a time, AOL used to get off on banning people. How’d that work out for them?

When twitter started its censorship, the stock was trading at 55. It plummeted to 14. It could easily go to zero.

Someone could easily say you deserve to be banned for bullying, or that someone else deserves to be banned for calling someone mentally ill. Twitter has no standing to sit in judgment of anyone. They have power, which they are accused of abusing. They can censor who they want, and congress can revoke Section 230 if IT wants.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

The only fucking idiot is Masnick’s wife, for marrying him. Not that she could attract better, but abstaining would have been better for her. Their kids are pathetic little shitstains.

As for you, you just can’t debate any better than you could run that mouth to anyone’s face.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

As for you, you just can’t debate any better than you could run that mouth to anyone’s face.

Considering you refuse to answer my question, yes, based off your comments here, I call you a fucking idiot… I mean just look at you.

Try answering my questions douchebag:

so you must have been a real bigoted / racist / nazi / misogynist asshole to have been kicked off of Twitter.

Or did you get kicked off because you were trying to promote conservative values like lowering taxes and smaller government?

Are you still beating your wife?

cattress (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

He won’t answer because he knows he traffics in hate.
I’m a libertarian and some of my views fit in the pre-Trump conservative definition. None of them have been censored, including being pro second amendment.
And I see plenty of "conservative" ideals that are never moderated out of view, in particular inflammatory and factually incorrect views against abortion, transgendered people, women in the military, and immigrants.
What’s really funny is this claim that Milo has been censored by liberals. I’m pretty sure Breitbart got rid of him for discussing pedophilia in a positive manner. If Breitbart dumped him, how could anyone claim he’s been deplatformed for being too conservative? That’s plain silly.

restless94110 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

It doesn’t matter what yoiu see or don’t see, nor does it matter that you personally never have your own views censored. Tech companies are overwhelmingly liberal and are censoring and shadow banning ideas that they don’t think are correct, mostly coming from what is known today as the right.

Because Brietbart caved to a fake smear by left-wing crazies proves nothing except that Brietbart caved.

The facts are clear: left leaning tech censors are using their monopoly powers to censor free speech, at this moment that is pirmarily right-wing free speech. All censorship of any type is wrong. Today it is the right. Tomorrow it could be you, and probably will be.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

The facts are clear: left leaning tech censors are using their monopoly powers to censor free speech, at this moment that is pirmarily right-wing free speech.

Where did their free speech go? Did they loose it? Did the gov’t take it away? Please inform me as to where you think their free speech went? Just because nobody wants to hear what you have to say on Twitter, doesn’t mean you can’t say it somewhere else, or find an audience more willing to listen.

Don’t you think a church, one of the oldest social (media) arenas on earth, has every right to kick somebody out of their chapel if said person was inside shouting praises to the devil and against other church ideologies?? They absolutely have every right to kick them out and that person can go somewhere else and shout out what they have to say. There is no right that people have to listen to them.

So I ask you again, where did there free speech go? I want to know what you think happened to their free speech.

restless94110 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

So let me understand: You are seriously asking where did free speech on Twitter go when free speech on Twitter is banned?

Um, dude. Free speech was banned on Twitter.

I mean, are you that stupid or do you just play a stupid fool on TV?

I’m godsmacked that you don’t seem to be able to understand rampant censorship of free speech on social media.

It’s what the article we are commenting upon is about!!!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

So let me understand: You are seriously asking where did free speech on Twitter go when free speech on Twitter is banned?

Um, dude. Free speech was banned on Twitter.

I mean, are you that stupid or do you just play a stupid fool on TV?

Ok, let me try to explain this so a child could understand.

My name is John T. Racist. I go to twitter and create my account, agreeing to their ToS, which is basically saying "we reserve the right to refuse service to anybody for any reason." Just like restaurants have posted everywhere across this country for years and years, they are not obligated in any way to accept you as a customer. To make it easier for you to grasp, think the bakery in CO that doesn’t want to make wedding cakes to LGBQT couples.

Now I start spewing off all my pent up racist hate and send out tweet after tweet of nothing but lies and hate. Well, of course, because of my moderate conservative views, twitter decides to ban my account. Fuck, now where did my free speech go. Oh shit, wait, this is the internet, let me just go sign up with Facebook to promote my conservative views there. Kind of like how the bakery didn’t want to serve the same sex couple, that didn’t mean that they couldn’t go get a cake anywhere, just at that store. So they went somewhere else to get their cake.

So answer me this Mr. Moderate, how did Twitter take away my free speech when I was able to go somewhere else and start making the same statements? And so the fuck what if I get kicked off of all the major social media sites, because I still have my free speech, and if I have to, I will go down to the local public square and stand on my soap-box and start yelling there too. Now maybe at some point I would think about why I keep getting kicked off platforms, but that’s a different conversation.

So again, where did John T. Rasict’s free speech go? Twitter took back their soap box that they allowed him to use, but his free speech rights still exits. Online and off. And hell, he could even go set up a free wordpress site and say the same things there… see more free speech.

So for the last time, where did his free speech go when twitter banned him?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

What he means is that he knows his speech is so abhorrent that no platform with a decent sized audience would want him. It’s not good enough for him to have guaranteed ability to speak, he wants a guaranteed large audience, and that won’t happen so long as others have the right to free association. Because the majority will always exercise their right to tell him to get off their property.

restless94110 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

Free Speech is not for nice speech or popular speech. It is for unpopular speech even hate speech, as the Supreme Court has ruled over and over again.

Saying something is abhorrent is emotional and subjective. Your abhorrent speech is another’s kind speech.

Saying that something is so abhorrent no one would "have" you is totalitarian at its heart.

restless94110 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

Sweet child of mine, you just don’t seem to be able to understand. It’s too simple I guess for your complicated mind.

Let’s say that I am Granny GoodThink. I open up a twitter account and am forced to sign a ridiculously nonsensical ToS cooked up by fools who call themselves attorneys, but which means nothing at all except "we can do anything we want to, boy."

Then I post my cookie recipes on twitter.

All is well until some soyboy in San Francisco decides that one of my recipes is racist and bans me.

Yes, my free speech has just been abridged. Why? Because twitter is now the Public Square due to its monopoly. I have been effectively censored.

It would be exactly like this:

Hi. it’s Granny GoodThink again. This time, I call up the phone company and order a phone line. It is installed. I start making phone calls and sharing my tasty and homey recipes with people far and wide.

Some soyboy is monitoring my phone calls to make sure that none of my speech on my phone is racist. He decides that one of my recipes is racist (not the same recipe, a different one). He then disconnects my telephone.

In both cases my freedom of speech has been abridged. There is absolutely no difference. I can’t go to another phone company. But even if I could, the other phone company likely would have maybe 10 people on it.

This is apparently your point: that if i can go to some other service that means everything is happy sunny since I have the freedom to say my speech to 2 or 3 people instead of 2 billion.

You really need to think this through. Freedom of speech is coming to social media monopolies. It’s going to happen. The reason? Because social media is censoring primarily conservative speech and thought. And that is un-American, but more than that: the 1st Amendment stipulates that freedom of speech and related freedoms are not given they are a part of humanity, and not to be abridged.

The reason for this is obvious: the next ban will be you, child. You will be banned sooner or later. Just like all totalitarian regimes do. First they came for Granny Good Think and I said nothing, etc., etc., then they come for little old you.

I’m tired of explaining basic concepts of freedom to snarky children. I’ll look at the remaining comment replies in my inbox and then I’m out. This should be enough, though it should not have to be explained at all to any American. You should know better.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

"All is well until some soyboy in San Francisco decides that one of my recipes is racist and bans me."

Do you have any examples of such things happening, or are you just so desperate to justify your own hatred?

"Yes, my free speech has just been abridged. Why? Because twitter is now the Public Square due to its monopoly"

Bullshit. Twitter has many competitors.

"Some soyboy is monitoring my phone calls to make sure that none of my speech on my phone is racist."

Different laws apply to the telephone networks unless I’m mistaken. But, the threadbare nature of your strawmen is noted.

"Freedom of speech is coming to social media monopolies."

…and because freedom on the internet is still a thing (your silly opposition to the net neutrality laws the protect it notwithstanding), you can set up your own social networks to compete. As many have done. You’re just bitter because no right-thinking person want to hang around with your KKK buddies on Gab.

" First they came for Granny Good Think and I said nothing, etc., etc"

It’s always fun when Nazis quote that poem, not realising that it’s the taking action against Nazis part that he was referring to. We are doing something rather than let you fester and breed.

"I’m tired of explaining basic concepts of freedom to snarky children"

Then maybe you should start presenting the actual truth of them to adults instead of lying about it?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

Yep. To use an analogy, he’s pissed that he has to publish his own newsletter because the NYT refused to publish him, that he has to use a local AM radio station for his rants because no major national would broadcast him, that he has to use a small gallery to show his work because the Met turned him down.

Nobody in their right mind would call any of those a free speech problem, and nobody in their right mind believe that being kicked off social networks for being an asshole is either. This isn’t about free speech, it’s about wanting to have all the benefits of a large audience but none of the responsibilities of being part of a society. He has all the speech he wants, he just wants the audience as well – which is not a right.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 How does it go again? Oh right. Fuck your feelings

Why don’t you get off your lazy conservative ass a build a social media company bro. Or stop whining like a bitch. Or best of all take a civics class and learn the difference between a private business and the government. They offer low cost ones at your local community college. Though since higher education is subsidised by the government you will be engaging in a form of Socialism. On the bright side you will finally find out what that word actually means.

restless94110 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 How does it go again? Oh right. Fuck your feelings

Bro. Or should I say Bruh. You should take a civics class and learn about the Commons. It doesn’t matter if it’s a monopoly or a government, bro.

The reason? Because your idiotic "recommendation" that everyone who is censored by gigantic monopolies should just dance around the Maypole and then go invent a competing service is obvious just whining like a bitch.

No one with a brain would seriously believe that I or you or anyone including your cat could just move from Twitter or Facebooks’billions of users to their own social media site?

Are you ok, bruh? You sound like a moron with every post. You surely cannot believe a word you say.

cattress (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 How does it go again? Oh right. Fuck your feelings

Well, there was Myspace before Facebook.

And why would you want to move all those millions of users over to your new platform? Many, if not most are going to end up demanding the same moderation that you call censorship, because they don’t want to be exposed to hateful and hurtful rhetoric.

I am much more in favor in creating user controls over the complicated mess of content moderation. I think people with hateful views should have a forum. I even think there may be reason to tolerate people trading child porn, as it might reduce sexual abuse of children ( it’s a complicated idea that I have mixed feelings about and I don’t want to hijack this thread). However, no one should be forced to host content that they don’t want to. I think there’s lots of lessons about the free market and cronyism that creates monopolies for everyone to learn some important lessons.

And just like you say that just because I don’t experience this supposed bias doesn’t mean it’s not happening, you claiming that it is doesn’t prove you right. There are plenty of conservative speakers to point to to support my point. You can’t name anyone that hasn’t clearly violated TOS being deplatformed.

An incel is someone who is involuntarily celibate. Being unable to develop intimate, sexual relationships, and then willfully refusing to modify ones behavior is cutting off your nose to spite your face. It’s sad because intimate, sexual relationships is one of the joys and most exciting parts of the human condition and you’re missing out. You even try to rationalize it to yourself, that women are shallow and demand more than you can possibly expect to offer. But truth is, you’re just a miserable jerk.its not us, it’s you.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 How does it go again? Oh right. Fuck your feelin

"And just like you say that just because I don’t experience this supposed bias doesn’t mean it’s not happening, you claiming that it is doesn’t prove you right"

I’ll say that in my experience there is a bias. There’s a bias against hate, misogyny, racism, homophobia and a bunch of other stuff that has no place in a decent society.

The problem is – these guys don’t wish to examine themselves and understand why their speech is unacceptable to most people. They just want the fame and fortune they perceive in others. They don’t want to fit in or integrate into polite society, they want everyone else to be forced to accept them.

They should be asking why the "right" they associate with so much is so full of all the things that the general population find abhorrent. Instead, they feel victimised because people are rightly trying to remove such people from their meeting places.

restless94110 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 How does it go again? Oh right. Fuck your fe

The problem is that you think those things you emotionally and subjectively label with a series of social justice warrior scare words are universal and thus all should be banned because we live in a decent society.

Freedom of speech allows repugnant speech because what was "repugnant" 5 years ago may not be as society grows and changes. Banning things freezes the society in amber. Society becomes fossilized and repressive.

People who can’t speak freely are not free people. All because you deem something you personally believe is repugnant.

Eventually, you realize when they come for you, too, that your idea of decent is another, more powerful entity’s idea of repugnant.

restless94110 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 How does it go again? Oh right. Fuck your feelin

Being exposed to speech you don’t happen to like is what America is about. It’s a free speech country.

If you don’t like the speech, don’t read the speech. Nothing is preventing you from turning the television off or not watching that video. You have the choice to read the or listen to the speech or not. Yet, you want to prevent others having that same choice.

And you reasoning is that the mob agrees with you?

The very definition of tyranny by the majority and exactly the thing that those who wrote the Constitution were afraid of. Why? Because they knew from history that democracies turn into mob rule, but republics protect the rights of the minority. Central to that is freedom of speech.

All these comments in this area of the thread are the same: the mob doesn’t like something or the mob feels uncomfortable with some speech and therefore the mob should have the right to prevent that "they" don’t like from being put out there.

It’s tyranny. And it boomerangs on the people in the mob. Sooner or later.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8 How does it go again? Oh right. Fuck your fe

If you don’t like the speech, don’t read the speech. Nothing is preventing you from turning the television off or not watching that video. You have the choice to read the or listen to the speech or not. Yet, you want to prevent others having that same choice.

Look, I just want to point out one thing here, let’s say you have been kicked off of Twitter? You haven’t lost your free speech because look, you are here in this very comment section talking about what you want to talk about. So how did twitter take away your free speech while at the same time you still have your free speech here?

The fact that you can still come here and say what you want kind of undermines your entire argument. Just because twitter has a bigger audience means jack shit nothing. You can still use your free speech here.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

"extremely left-leaning definitions"

So now the dictionary is a liberal conspiracy?

"Twitter has no standing to sit in judgment of anyone."

Yes it does. You sign up for an account there, you agree to its rules. It has every right to enforce them, even if you whiny little shits don’t like it. Just go to Gab instead where you won’t be bothered by people with morals.

"congress can revoke Section 230 if IT wants."

It can. Which would shut both Twitter and any alternative you wish to use down, along with millions of other unintended consequences your tiny mind hasn’t thought of yet.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Someone who can’t comprehend what I wrote is the one with the tiny mind.

The power to censor is not moral standing. Maybe your brain was frozen by having to stare at a pic of that ugly doofus Ken married. Of course he puts down men who can actually get attractive women who bear superior children to his shitstains.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"The power to censor is not moral standing"

Not on its own, but using that power to stop bullies and criminals is way more moral than being a bully or criminal (the latter being what you’re insisting is allowed). Don’t like it? Go to a platform that allows bullies and criminals.

("random nonsense")

I still pity you. The insecurities and demons you are clearly wrestling with must be horrendous to deal with. As ever, I hope you get the help you so clearly need but am happy you found an outlet for it that doesn’t risk you harming people in the real world.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I still pity you. The insecurities and demons you are clearly wrestling with must be horrendous to deal with. As ever, I hope you get the help you so clearly need but am happy you found an outlet for it that doesn’t risk you harming people in the real world.

The weak coward who has to "defend women" against….the truth about wome! by inventing what he seems to suffer from himself is no one to be giving medical advice (like "get help") to anyone. If anyone needs therapy it’s these pussy-whipped cowards who can’t even handle the simple question of why rich men get laid so easily (it’s because women are greedy whores), or why women think short men are inferior (even though height is a product of birth).

Bet their wives stand over them while they post reminding them that if they don’t insult men who "objectify" these greedy, lying whores that they won’t get laid.

As we all know, a feminist defines a man’s worth by whether or not he can get laid, as above, even if her own man (who did get laid) winds up killing innocents by coming to her workplace after her, as many men have done in just the past year.

It’s these pussy-whipped "white knights" (women call them "captain save-a-ho" who are expecting sexual rewards and who wind up detonating against women once they realize those rewards are never going to materialize.

Trump got elected BY WOMEN even AFTER his true thoughts about them were revealed. No wonder they can’t stand him: they thought "if only the women knew." The women do know, and they’re gonna REELECT him in 2020.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

For someone whose main argument against Section 230 is that it allows people to call women "hookers" without any consequence, John Smith sure seems triggered when it comes to talks about actual hookers.

You’d think that someone who boasts about wielding Hollywood-level influence and riches wouldn’t have to feel so triggered over the fact that Mike Masnick and Ken White have spouses and offspring.

It’s almost as though John Smith feels threatened. How curious!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

In the same comment where John Smith/MyNameHere brags that his detractors couldn’t possibly rebut him in real life, he literally insults the offspring of people he hates.

And he bitches about people trying to "fake post" as him. Why would anyone need to?

You cannot make this shit up, not in the way he does.

Zof (profile) says:

If there's no bias, there's nothing to worry about.

Before making calls to censor the site, it’s important to point out that if social media isn’t biased, then this site will fail utterly and quitely disappear. So really there’s nothing to worry about. We can act like adults and not care instead of panicking and proving we are very worried.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...