Great News: Republicans to Resume Their Insufferable Whining About Social Media
Senate Republicans are undertaking renewed efforts to probe social media companies over claims of bias against conservatives ahead of the November election at the behest of the White House, according to a new report.
Politico reported that the Trump administration had urged Senate Republicans on key committees to hold public hearings on the law that shields internet companies — including social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter — from lawsuits over content posted by third party users.
Senate Judiciary Chair Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) is holding a markup of new legislation on Thursday that would address allegations of anti-conservative bias on social media, while Senate Commerce Chair Roger Wicker (R., Miss.) will hold a vote that same day on whether to issue subpoenas to the CEOs of Facebook, Twitter and Google.
You either believe government needs to stay out of speech issues or you don’t. This is another reason I cannot support the Republican party today. During the Net Neutrality fight, the party seemed to understand the importance of keeping government away from speech, but no longer.
If you’re happy with Donald Trump making rules about what you get to say, wait until those rules are made by Joe Biden, or Kamala Harris, or Bernie Sanders, or AOC, or pick your leftist demon.
On a related note, I will not be voting for Ted Lieu for Congress because he stabbed Jackie Lacey in the back, endorsing her and then taking it back. I looked into his opponent and of course that guy is a typical Republican clown and I can’t vote for him. How this entire party degenerated this badly in five short years is one for the history books.
I have to laugh at the idea that the Senate is going to hold nomination hearings on Amy Coney Barrett and start grilling Zuckerberg, Dorsey, and the rest of the crew, all while there are about a half-dozen GOP Senators fighting for their political lives this fall. I’m sure all of them will just love being trapped in Washington all of this month while their opponents are out on the campaign hustings.
JVW (ee64e4) — 10/1/2020 @ 8:38 amHow this entire party degenerated this badly in five short years is one for the history books.
The Soviet Union essentially collapsed in less time. The GOP has been hollowing itself out since Reagan left office 30-plus years ago. Buchanan, Perot… etc. Moving out the deadwood was long overdue. Expect a fresh generation to address new problems and bury the old in a decade or two.
Glorious.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/1/2020 @ 8:44 amBesides, the Biden cry of ‘I am the Democratic Party today’ should bring tears of joy and to any Republican. Because in not too many tomorrows, he surely won’t be. Harris is.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/1/2020 @ 8:46 amYou either believe government needs to stay out of speech issues or you don’t.
Thanks to a 6-3 SCOTUS majority which Trump is leaving us with, and Trump supporters made happen, the government will continue to stay out.
beer ‘n pretzels (2c878c) — 10/1/2020 @ 8:49 amted lieu doesn’t need your vote, that what harvesting is about,
bolivar de gris (7404b5) — 10/1/2020 @ 8:50 amBoth parties are in the midst of some serious metamorphoses. The GOP is no more a Reagan-Gingrich-Bush party today than the Democrats are a Clinton-Obama party. Elements of the past remain, but in both cases the center of gravity of both parties has shifted substantially.
JVW (ee64e4) — 10/1/2020 @ 9:01 amBut government is NOT going to stay out of it. The most likely outcome is that government will force social media companies to censor speech, then hide behind the “they’re private companies” rubric.
There is a big difference between saying “you must stop ____ speech” and “you must allow this marketplace of ideas that you built to function freely.”
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/1/2020 @ 9:06 amTom Elliott
@tomselliott
·
MSNBC’s @FrankFigliuzzi1 proposes creating a “bipartisan commission” to vet presidential candidates to prevent another Trump: “We got this wrong, and this can’t happen again.”
__ _
Stephen L. Miller
@redsteeze
We call those “primaries”
harkin (902cc1) — 10/1/2020 @ 9:08 am__ _
ted lieu doesn’t need your vote, that what harvesting is about
Ted Lieu is actually the poster boy for gerrymandering (and yes, I know that ostensibly it’s a nonpartisan group which draws political borders these days). When Lieu was Patterico and my state assemblyman and then senator, he projected a center-left image befitting the area in which we live because it was maybe only a +6 Democrat Cook PVI district. As he moved into Congress, with a district that includes Tom Hayden and Barbara Streisand Dems and now rates a +16 Democrat Cook PVI, he has drifted further to the left in response.
JVW (ee64e4) — 10/1/2020 @ 9:09 amBoth parties are in the midst of some serious metamorphoses.
Indeed. And until Trump passes from the scene, something I have been impatient for since early 2012, the GOP is stuck.
Trump’s personality cult is quite capable of voting for every Democrat down ballot if they feel His Nibs has been slighted by a Republican officeholder. They did it at the mid-term, and they well do it again this year. If anything they are less forgiving of imagined slights than their master.
Lindsay Graham is a perfect example of a politician who knows where the wind is blowing from.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/1/2020 @ 9:12 amHow this entire party degenerated this badly in five short years is one for the history books.
The CA GOP disintegrated when Jerry Brown beat Meg Whitman. Since then it’s been completely fractured and consumed by infighting. It’s as dysfunctional today as any other 3rd party. This won’t change until people of good will get involved. As long as people complain about “them”, nothing will happen.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/1/2020 @ 9:16 amThey are reflecting our society at large. I really believe the advent of the internet, esp. social media, has driven society to either end of the political and social spectrum. In large part because of the undue influence a small group of radicals on both side can poison everyone else thanks to the reach of social media.
I got off social media years ago. Best thing I ever did.
Hoi Polloi (2f1acd) — 10/1/2020 @ 9:18 amI have been impatient for since early 2012, the GOP is stuck.
OTOH, I have been very patient since 1964.
And it is finally paying off.
Glorious. 😉
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/1/2020 @ 9:18 amHow anybody can think the social media deck is stacked against conservatives is beyond me. Companies like Twitter have declared they do not take sides.
_
dick costolo [ex-CEO of Twitter]
@dickcistolo
Me-first capitalists who think you can separate society from business are going to be the first people lined up against the wall and shot in the revolution. I’ll happily provide video commentary.
__ _
Razor
@hale_razor
·
I, for one, welcome our social media overlords who want to video the executions of people with whom they disagree.
__ _
CPrice
@CPriceDenver
·
Believe them when they tell you who they are.
__ _
Cernovich
@Cernovich
·
This tweet is an actual violation of twitter TOS for glorifying violence. That aside, thanks for publicly endorsing the mass murder of your poltical adversaries. This is clarifying.
__ _
Neal the Real Deal
@Synergistic
·
I bet he unironically describes himself as an antifascist too
__ _
George Stanley
harkin (902cc1) — 10/1/2020 @ 9:21 am@geostan77
·
Is it ok if an employee comes to work with a MAGA hat?
_
It’s an area of bi-partisan agreement that people who build platforms shouldn’t be able to use them in a way that hurts feelings. It’s also apparently agreed that the state should get to decide.
Time123 (d1bf33) — 10/1/2020 @ 9:22 am“We got this wrong, and this can’t happen again.”
Yes, but that does not mean that we need to adopt the Iranian model.
The GOP (or at least Rince Priebus) misjudged Trump. He should have been excluded the moment he refused to say that he would not run an independent campaign, and then later when he would not abide by debate rules. Still later, the GOP needed to coalesce behind Cruz.
The Democrats learned from this mistake and settled on Biden when the alternative was Bernie.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/1/2020 @ 9:25 amHere’s the thing about social media: it can be almost entirely ignored. If someone tweet that “All hoboes should be killed” I will never see it, hoboes won’t see it, and hardly anyone follows the feed of someone who would post it.
EXCEPT that someone who trolls social media so that they have something to be offended about WILL see it, and then make sure that as many people as possible see it, so that “proper action” can be taken.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/1/2020 @ 9:30 amMatter of fact, Trump should have been excluded as beyond the pale when he made those misogynistic comments about female opponents, wives of opponents and moderators.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/1/2020 @ 9:34 amYou either believe government needs to stay out of speech issues or you don’t.
I generally sympathize with your position. But social media, and other internet platforms, enjoy a particular government perk: immunity from liability from third-party postings, contained in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. (Much of which was struck down by the Supreme Court, but not this section.)
Twitter and Facebook enjoy an immunity that the Washington Post and NY Times, and CNN and Fox News, do not. The point of that immunity was to facilitate their censoring things like porn and on-line harrassment. Not censor one side of a political debate.
If Twitter is willing to give up on the special immunity it enjoys, then the government should stay out of their business. Otherwise, the same government that gave them immunity can look into how they are using their special government-granted gift.
(For the record, I am not for abolishing Section 230 immunity, but it needs to be reformed.)
Bored Lawyer (7b72ec) — 10/1/2020 @ 9:43 amTrump’s personality cult is quite capable of voting for every Democrat down ballot if they feel His Nibs has been slighted by a Republican officeholder. They did it at the mid-term, and they well do it again this year. If anything they are less forgiving of imagined slights than their master.
I don’t know, Kevin M. I get what you are saying about Trump and Trumpetts wanting to punish GOP dissenters even if that means dropping an anvil on their own toes, but I think that rather than supporting Dems in 2018 what happened was that Trumpetts — like Obamabots before them — simply didn’t bother to vote. This is what happens when you have a cult of personality President.
JVW (ee64e4) — 10/1/2020 @ 10:02 amAnd today HRC would be up for reelection, and the Federal courts would be packed with more Kagans, Sotomayors, and Ginsburgs
Horatio (79bbf3) — 10/1/2020 @ 10:05 amBL, do the online comments from WaPo, NYT, Fox News, CNN also get this protection. Because if they didn’t I suspect they wouldn’t have them. If Pat here were held liable for comments, I suspect this blog wouldn’t exist. And this blog, and comments are welcome to have bias. Pat can ban me for being liberal, republican, Christian, Muslim, or whatever he wants without having to explain himself. Would you change that?
Nate (5efffe) — 10/1/2020 @ 10:20 amThe point of the immunity is that nothing written on Twitter and Facebook is written *by* Twitter and Facebook, while every word printed or broadcast by Big Media is either created by them ab initio, or the result of a conscious decision by somebody working for them.
Dave (1bb933) — 10/1/2020 @ 10:20 amBL, How do you mean WaPo doesn’t get the same immunity? They do for their comments section. And Facebook would have the same liability for their public statements as WaPo. The difference is that FB is all comments and Wapo is almost all public statements.
If we want to change how we do liability for speech we can. But I’d like to know what the new system looks like before i give up the old. Letting AOC decide what is and isn’t allowable doesn’t delight me any more then letting Trump.
Time123 (d1bf33) — 10/1/2020 @ 10:25 amor the result of a conscious decision by somebody working for them.
Banning or flagging an account or posting/tweet and not banning others is “a conscious decision by somebody working for them.” They’ve ceased being platforms.
beer ‘n pretzels (2baa10) — 10/1/2020 @ 10:25 amBL, How do you mean WaPo doesn’t get the same immunity? They do for their comments section. And Facebook would have the same liability for their public statements as WaPo. The difference is that FB is all comments and Wapo is almost all public statements.
You answered your own question. The traditional format of a newspaper or TV newscast do not have Section 230 immunity. Even for third-party content. If the NY Times prints a letter to the editor, it can be held liable for defamation (or other torts) from that letter.
True, on-line publications enjoy Section 230 immunity for their comments section, which they now all have. But their business model was not built on the immunity, while Facebook and Twitter’s were.
Bored Lawyer (7b72ec) — 10/1/2020 @ 10:34 am@22
Just notice your post. You are not correct. As I said in @25, if the Times publishes a letter to the editor, or an advertisement, it can be held liable for the third-party content.
Bored Lawyer (7b72ec) — 10/1/2020 @ 10:36 amTrue, on-line publications enjoy Section 230 immunity for their comments section, which they now all have. But their business model was not built on the immunity, while Facebook and Twitter’s were.
ok….but how are FB or Twitter doing something that NYT or Wapo can’t?
Time123 (d1bf33) — 10/1/2020 @ 10:40 amMeanwhile, FB permits pro-Antifa content and an Antifa account.
https://www.mercurynews.com/facebook-sees-uptick-in-proud-boys-content-after-presidential-debate
Most of the content Facebook identified on Wednesday condemned the Proud Boys and Trump’s comments about them, but the company was removing any posts it found that praised the group, Fishman said.
In 2018, Facebook banned the Proud Boys, which the Southern Poverty Law Center classifies as a hate group, and it has removed three networks of related accounts and content this year.
FB is not a platform. It should not get 230 protection.
beer ‘n pretzels (a30715) — 10/1/2020 @ 10:43 amAnd today HRC would be up for reelection, and the Federal courts would be packed with more Kagans, Sotomayors, and Ginsburgs
The “only Trump could beat Hillary” argument is one of the stupider, cultish things that there has ever been. Hillary beat herself. Trump was just there. Just like Trump is beating himself this time, and Joe Biden wins by default.
The ONLY thing that would have had Hillary winning is the vindictiveness of Trump and his supporters, always willing to kick the game table over if they are losing, never mind that it hurts them more.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/1/2020 @ 10:46 amok….but how are FB or Twitter doing something that NYT or Wapo can’t?
WaPo/NYT can get sued for pro-violent content. FB is immune.
beer ‘n pretzels (a30715) — 10/1/2020 @ 10:46 amThe point of the immunity is that nothing written on Twitter and Facebook is written *by* Twitter and Facebook
Not written by, but also not deleted by. You can shape speech even though you don’t speak.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/1/2020 @ 10:47 amthe result of a conscious decision by somebody working for them.
Newspapers get letters. They only print some of them, and they are liable for those they print.
Social media gets posts. They only let some of them remain viewable, and they are not liable for any such.
The difference here is in degree, not in kind.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/1/2020 @ 10:50 amThe NY Times might print a letter in their paper than they also post online. In both cases they vet the material prior to publication. The same content is actionable in one forum and not the other, even though the same conscious act is involved.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/1/2020 @ 10:53 amIf Republicans are so bent out of shape with Twitter, use Parler. Oh wait, even Parler bans users who abuse the service.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/1/2020 @ 10:53 amHillary would have crushed Cruz…he didn’t have Trump’s fire, willingness not to play by the “rules” or “not a DC insider” credentials. But of course, we will never know.
“Let the [anti-Trump] hate flow through you”
Horatio (79bbf3) — 10/1/2020 @ 11:19 amAmazon blocks sale of merchandise with “stand back” and “stand by”
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/1/2020 @ 11:31 amAmazon and other online retailers are pulling merchandise from their sites emblazoned with the words “stand back” and “stand by” and displaying the insignia of the Proud Boys, a far-right extremist group.
……..
Individuals associated with the Proud Boys online took Mr. Trump’s directive as words of encouragement, and products displaying the phrase quickly made their way onto sites including Amazon and Teespring, an online platform that lets users create and sell their own merchandise.
……..
Amazon blocks sale of merchandise with “stand back” and “stand by”
Good thing they are on the case. Maybe a third to half their revenues derive from counterfeiting, but hey, at least the world is safe from Proud Boys T-Shirts.
Bored Lawyer (7b72ec) — 10/1/2020 @ 11:34 amMeanwhile, you can still buy The Antifa Handbook, and Antifa flags on Amazon.
The hypocrisy is baked in. We shouldn’t be surprised.
beer ‘n pretzels (7e0671) — 10/1/2020 @ 11:37 amIn 1996, Chris Rock had a monologue, where he said:
OK, Donald, you won. You get the magic decoder ring.
Bored Lawyer (7b72ec) — 10/1/2020 @ 11:46 amWHOOPS! wrong post!
Bored Lawyer (7b72ec) — 10/1/2020 @ 11:53 amAPStylebook
@APStylebook
New guidance on AP Stylebook Online:
Use care in deciding which term best applies:
A riot is a wild or violent disturbance of the peace involving a group of people. The term riot suggests uncontrolled chaos and pandemonium. (1/5)
Focusing on rioting and property destruction rather than underlying grievance has been used in the past to stigmatize broad swaths of people protesting against lynching, police brutality or for racial justice, going back to the urban uprisings of the 1960s. (2/5)
Unrest is a vaguer, milder and less emotional term for a condition of angry discontent and protest verging on revolt. (3/5)
Protest and demonstration refer to specific actions such as marches, sit-ins, rallies or other actions meant to register dissent. They can be legal or illegal, organized or spontaneous, peaceful or violent, and involve any number of people. (4/5)
Revolt and uprising both suggest a broader political dimension or civil upheavals, a sustained period of protests or unrest against powerful groups or governing systems. (5/5)
__ _
IOW – ‘ix-nay! Don’t you realize there’s an election to win??’
harkin (ab264c) — 10/1/2020 @ 12:05 pm__
I am not a lawyer but wondering if political views are considered protected when it comes to employment, versus other factors that are protected like gender, age, etc.
Can you refuse to hire someone based on their political views? Fire them?
As to this thread, I can see why Republicans are mad, but their recourse is flawed.
Hoi Polloi (2f1acd) — 10/1/2020 @ 1:36 pmI want them to subpoena Disney which now owns the Marvel comic books too and ask them why they gave Deadpool a memory wipe and erased all the old comic book continuity and made the two movies the continuity and even draw him like Ryan Reynolds and they even draw the Punisher like the actor in the series on Netflix and why is it on Netflix anyway and not on Disney+ and who did they think they were fooling in Star Wars: The Force Awakens by having a black guy playing a former Storm Trooper when everybody knows that all the Storm Troopers were clones of Django Fett who is a Filipino and since we’re on the subject what’s the idea of spending gazillions to make a live-action Mulan while canceling both Phineas & Ferm and Milo Murphy’s Law and why isn’t either of the Deadpool movies on Disney+ either but instead we got the Mandalorian which is a total waste and like anybody could tell the difference between the original Yoda dolls oh excuse me “action figures” and the Baby Yoda dolls and those are dolls and can’t they give the lady wrestler better lines than grunts and Clint Eastwood should probably sue them for stealing his voice.
nk (1d9030) — 10/1/2020 @ 7:17 pm