Social Media Censoring Anti-progs

[Wazzzup]

Got a lot of links --please discuss any that interest you





https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/30/mark-zuckerberg-calls-for-tighter-internet-regulations-we-need-a-more-active-role-for-governments.html">https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/30/mark-zu ... ments.html">https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/30/mark-zuckerberg-calls-for-tighter-internet-regulations-we-need-a-more-active-role-for-governments.html

Moar censorship plz.  Much like the need for power once you start censoring the appetite for more censor grows.



Twitter may begin labeling tweets that violate its rules from public figures, including Trump

https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/nation-world/twitter-may-begin-labeling-tweets-that-violate-its-rules-from-public-figures-including-trump/277-e0cc1c5b-c2b5-41c6-a6cb-c99250e440db">https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/natio ... 9250e440db">https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/nation-world/twitter-may-begin-labeling-tweets-that-violate-its-rules-from-public-figures-including-trump/277-e0cc1c5b-c2b5-41c6-a6cb-c99250e440db

Just in time to gear up for the 2020 election.  How convenient.



Nunes says $250M lawsuit against Twitter is 'the first of many,' accuses company of 'gaslighting'

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nunes-says-250m-lawsuit-against-twitter-is-the-first-of-many-accuses-company-of-gaslighting-for-all-of-the-news">https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nunes- ... f-the-news">https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nunes-says-250m-lawsuit-against-twitter-is-the-first-of-many-accuses-company-of-gaslighting-for-all-of-the-news

Good we need more of these lawsuits.  Its time for the courts to decide whether these are monopolitic entities needing regulation or private companies who can do what they want.  Congress should have passed legislation about this a long time ago, but republicans are cowards.



[size=150]Government fires warning shot at social media with Facebook discrimination case

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/business/government-fires-warning-shot-at-social-media-with-facebook-discrimination-case">https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/busi ... ation-case">https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/business/government-fires-warning-shot-at-social-media-with-facebook-discrimination-case

Its about time.  Better late then never though.

[Anonymous]

Progtards own social media. Progtards don't believe in a marketplace of ideas.

[Anonymous]

I don't use Twitter, but I would probably be censored.

[Anonymous]

Got a lot of links --please discuss any that interest you





https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/30/mark-zuckerberg-calls-for-tighter-internet-regulations-we-need-a-more-active-role-for-governments.html">https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/30/mark-zu ... ments.html">https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/30/mark-zuckerberg-calls-for-tighter-internet-regulations-we-need-a-more-active-role-for-governments.html

Moar censorship plz.  Much like the need for power once you start censoring the appetite for more censor grows.



Twitter may begin labeling tweets that violate its rules from public figures, including Trump

https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/nation-world/twitter-may-begin-labeling-tweets-that-violate-its-rules-from-public-figures-including-trump/277-e0cc1c5b-c2b5-41c6-a6cb-c99250e440db">https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/natio ... 9250e440db">https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/nation-world/twitter-may-begin-labeling-tweets-that-violate-its-rules-from-public-figures-including-trump/277-e0cc1c5b-c2b5-41c6-a6cb-c99250e440db

Just in time to gear up for the 2020 election.  How convenient.



Nunes says $250M lawsuit against Twitter is 'the first of many,' accuses company of 'gaslighting'

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nunes-says-250m-lawsuit-against-twitter-is-the-first-of-many-accuses-company-of-gaslighting-for-all-of-the-news">https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nunes- ... f-the-news">https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nunes-says-250m-lawsuit-against-twitter-is-the-first-of-many-accuses-company-of-gaslighting-for-all-of-the-news

Good we need more of these lawsuits.  Its time for the courts to decide whether these are monopolitic entities needing regulation or private companies who can do what they want.  Congress should have passed legislation about this a long time ago, but republicans are cowards.




I see nothing there about censoring antifa. Isn't that strange.

[Gaon]

Got a lot of links --please discuss any that interest you





https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/30/mark-zuckerberg-calls-for-tighter-internet-regulations-we-need-a-more-active-role-for-governments.html">https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/30/mark-zu ... ments.html">https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/30/mark-zuckerberg-calls-for-tighter-internet-regulations-we-need-a-more-active-role-for-governments.html

Moar censorship plz.  Much like the need for power once you start censoring the appetite for more censor grows.



Twitter may begin labeling tweets that violate its rules from public figures, including Trump

https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/nation-world/twitter-may-begin-labeling-tweets-that-violate-its-rules-from-public-figures-including-trump/277-e0cc1c5b-c2b5-41c6-a6cb-c99250e440db">https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/natio ... 9250e440db">https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/nation-world/twitter-may-begin-labeling-tweets-that-violate-its-rules-from-public-figures-including-trump/277-e0cc1c5b-c2b5-41c6-a6cb-c99250e440db

Just in time to gear up for the 2020 election.  How convenient.



Nunes says $250M lawsuit against Twitter is 'the first of many,' accuses company of 'gaslighting'

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nunes-says-250m-lawsuit-against-twitter-is-the-first-of-many-accuses-company-of-gaslighting-for-all-of-the-news">https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nunes- ... f-the-news">https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nunes-says-250m-lawsuit-against-twitter-is-the-first-of-many-accuses-company-of-gaslighting-for-all-of-the-news

Good we need more of these lawsuits.  Its time for the courts to decide whether these are monopolitic entities needing regulation or private companies who can do what they want.  Congress should have passed legislation about this a long time ago, but republicans are cowards.




Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey have no right to dictate what is hate speech. They are essentially monopolies. I would like to see a free speech alternative to leftist social media.

[Bricktop]

Try Gab.

[Gaon]

Try Gab.

If Twitter keeps censoring speech it may become a serious rival.

[Anonymous]

Facebook CEO calls for more outside regulation



Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg called for new global regulations governing the internet, recommending overarching rules on hateful and violent content, election integrity, privacy and data portability.



in a statement that was also published as an op-ed in The Washington post, Zuckerberg said the company is seeking regulations that would set baselines for prohibited content and require companies to build systems for keeping harmful content to a minimum.



"We have a responsibility to keep people safe on our services," he said. "That means deciding what counts as terrorist propaganda, hate speech and more. We continually review our policies with experts, but at our scale we'll always make mistakes and decisions that people disagree with."



Zuckerberg's comments mark his most visible effort so far to shape the discourse around the way the company collects information, uses and disperses it around the world.



Facebook has been the target of probes by various governments after news broke about a year ago that it allowed the personal data of tens of millions of users to be shared with political consultancy Cambridge analytica.



Earlier this month, Facebook came under fire for how long the company took remove a live video of a shooting in new Zealand and allowing it to be circulated across the internet. Millions of users also had personal information accessed via a recent breach.



over the past year, lawmakers have focused greater scrutiny on the company and its immense influence, asking its executives — including Zuckerberg— to testify in front of Congress to explain the proliferation of misinformation, hate speech and election manipulation on the platform. in his op-ed, Zuckerberg proposes that "regulation could set baselines for what's prohibited and require companies to build systems for keeping harmful content to a bare minimum."



The tech industry has long said that Section 230 of the Communications decency act is vital to its ability to operate open platforms. The provision exempts companies from being liable for user-generated content.



Facebook built a contentscanning system that over the years has added rules based on reactions to changes in user behaviour or public uproar after an occurrence such as the new Zealand mass shooting. last week, the company moved to ban from its platform content that references white nationalism or white separatism.



When the website's users or computer systems report posts as problematic, they're sent to one of the company's 15,000 content moderators around the world, who are allowed to take content down only if it violates a rule.



But that process is not always precise. "lawmakers often tell me we have too much power over speech, and frankly i agree," Zuckerberg wrote in Saturday's post. "i've come to believe that we shouldn't make so many important decisions about speech on our own."



Zuckerberg said Facebook would welcome common standards for verifying political actors, citing practices deployed by advertisers in many countries of verifying identities before buying political ads. He also suggested updating laws to include "divisive political issues" in addition to candidates and elections. "Every day we make decisions about what speech is harmful, what constitutes political advertising, and how to prevent sophisticated cyberattacks," he said. "But if we were starting from scratch, we wouldn't ask companies to make these judgments alone.

[Anonymous]

Facebook CEO calls for more outside regulation



Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg called for new global regulations governing the internet, recommending overarching rules on hateful and violent content, election integrity, privacy and data portability.



in a statement that was also published as an op-ed in The Washington post, Zuckerberg said the company is seeking regulations that would set baselines for prohibited content and require companies to build systems for keeping harmful content to a minimum.



"We have a responsibility to keep people safe on our services," he said. "That means deciding what counts as terrorist propaganda, hate speech and more. We continually review our policies with experts, but at our scale we'll always make mistakes and decisions that people disagree with."



Zuckerberg's comments mark his most visible effort so far to shape the discourse around the way the company collects information, uses and disperses it around the world.



Facebook has been the target of probes by various governments after news broke about a year ago that it allowed the personal data of tens of millions of users to be shared with political consultancy Cambridge analytica.



Earlier this month, Facebook came under fire for how long the company took remove a live video of a shooting in new Zealand and allowing it to be circulated across the internet. Millions of users also had personal information accessed via a recent breach.



over the past year, lawmakers have focused greater scrutiny on the company and its immense influence, asking its executives — including Zuckerberg— to testify in front of Congress to explain the proliferation of misinformation, hate speech and election manipulation on the platform. in his op-ed, Zuckerberg proposes that "regulation could set baselines for what's prohibited and require companies to build systems for keeping harmful content to a bare minimum."



The tech industry has long said that Section 230 of the Communications decency act is vital to its ability to operate open platforms. The provision exempts companies from being liable for user-generated content.



Facebook built a contentscanning system that over the years has added rules based on reactions to changes in user behaviour or public uproar after an occurrence such as the new Zealand mass shooting. last week, the company moved to ban from its platform content that references white nationalism or white separatism.



When the website's users or computer systems report posts as problematic, they're sent to one of the company's 15,000 content moderators around the world, who are allowed to take content down only if it violates a rule.



But that process is not always precise. "lawmakers often tell me we have too much power over speech, and frankly i agree," Zuckerberg wrote in Saturday's post. "i've come to believe that we shouldn't make so many important decisions about speech on our own."



Zuckerberg said Facebook would welcome common standards for verifying political actors, citing practices deployed by advertisers in many countries of verifying identities before buying political ads. He also suggested updating laws to include "divisive political issues" in addition to candidates and elections. "Every day we make decisions about what speech is harmful, what constitutes political advertising, and how to prevent sophisticated cyberattacks," he said. "But if we were starting from scratch, we wouldn't ask companies to make these judgments alone.

I can't stand that little prick Zuckerberg.

[Bricktop]

What he is, in effect, saying is that he wants Governments to act as censors on the web to alleviate the responsibility from organisations like Facebook.



This will, of course, open up a whole new can of worms. We're already seeing freedom of speech eroded in many countries.



Zuckerberg's tactic is all too obvious, however. He is saying "if you governments want censorship on the web, YOU do it", full in the knowledge that procuring global consistency on controlling freedom of speech is impossible.



What is a more likely outcome is that social media operators will require a licence in the countries it wishes to conduct its business. Licences will be issued by governments, and they will be subject to monitoring and controls to ensure they comply with the laws of the the respective countries.

[Thiel]

What he is, in effect, saying is that he wants Governments to act as censors on the web to alleviate the responsibility from organisations like Facebook.



This will, of course, open up a whole new can of worms. We're already seeing freedom of speech eroded in many countries.



Zuckerberg's tactic is all too obvious, however. He is saying "if you governments want censorship on the web, YOU do it", full in the knowledge that procuring global consistency on controlling freedom of speech is impossible.



What is a more likely outcome is that social media operators will require a licence in the countries it wishes to conduct its business. Licences will be issued by governments, and they will be subject to monitoring and controls to ensure they comply with the laws of the the respective countries.

He wants the government to do his dirty work for him. And it's inevitable that licenses will be a requirement for social media. It will be under the guise of protecting people from hate speech and fake news. Nothing fancy, but just enough to ensure compliance.

[Anonymous]

Any changes to facebook won't affect me that much..



I only use it to stay in touch with family and friends around the world.

[Anonymous]

Progtard social media billionaire tycoons have no tolerance for anti progs. And they don't care if they are black women.

 

https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/02/google-conservatives-heritage-president/?utm_medium=email">https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/02/goog ... dium=email">https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/02/google-conservatives-heritage-president/?utm_medium=email

GOOGLE EMPLOYEES PROTEST COMPANY'S PRO-BORDER WALL BOARD MEMBER. EXECS STAND PAT



Google employees are circulating a petition protesting the Silicon Valley company's decision to appoint a conservative woman who supports President Donald Trump's border wall to its advisory board on artificial intelligence.



Employees want Google to rescind its decision to include Heritage Foundation President Kay Coles James on the Advanced Technology External Advisory Council (ATEAC). More than 1,000 "Googlers" signed the Monday petition, which claims that James's supposedly anti-immigrant positions run contrary to Google's ethics.

[Bricktop]

Google has "ethics"?



Since when?



At least it's not hiding the fact that it is a socialist organisation.

[Wazzzup]

A bit off topic since its not social media, but rather the Canadian government, but I didn't know where else this could go.  



[size=150]Anti-gay activist ordered to pay $55,000 to B.C. trans candidate in fight over hateful flyer[/size]

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has ordered Christian activist William Whatcott to pay $55,000 to trans activist Morgane Oger.



Tribunal member Devyn Cousineau said $35,000 was compensation for a hate-filled flyer that Whatcott published when Oger was running for provincial office in 2017, and $20,000 was to punish Whatcott for improper conduct during the five-day hearing in December.



According to the tribunal ruling, Whatcott printed 1,500 of the flyers and distributed them in the Vancouver-False Creek riding that Oger was contesting as an NDP candidate. The flyer had a photo of Oger, described her as a "biological male" and claimed she was promoting "homosexuality and transvestism." It went on to state transsexuals were prone to sexually transmitted diseases and at risk of domestic violence, alcohol abuse and suicide.



The flyer concluded, "Thankfully Jesus Christ paid the price for your sin. You can turn to the merciful Christ and ask for forgiveness and when the NDP come knocking at your door you can tell them, you wont vote for them because you believe in God's definition of gender and marriage."

Dissent ist verboten.  Free speech RIP.