Censorship in social media is affecting elections.

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Kal'Stang, Oct 11, 2021.

  1. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I posted this post in another thread a couple of days ago. Not one single person on the left responded to it. So decided to make a thread on it. I'm going to add a little bit more to it though in order to provide the context.

    The most common argument against preventing social media from censoring content is that they are private entities and they have a free speech right to censor anyone that they want. After all, its their business right? But is that really why they argue against preventing them from censoring people? I contend that their argument is just a cover. They know that the censorship is in their favor. As such they want it. It benefits them so that is natural. And here is why I think their argument is just a cover.

    Democratic Party Stances: Citizens United was a travesty!
    Democratic Party Stances: Dark money affects elections and needs to be brought into the light!
    Democratic Party Stances: We need to stop the lobbying by corporations!
    Democratic Party Stances: We need to get rid of SuperPacs! (meanwhile uses them)

    All of those stances above are about privately owned businesses. All of them involve some form of Free Speech. Anyone can start up a SuperPac (their own social media platform). Anyone can lobby (send letters). Anyone can give money to the candidate of their choice thereby expressing their Free Speech just like its considered Free Speech to burn the American Flag (hand out pamphlets).

    But ensuring that Twitter, who has more memberships than the entire United States, and Google who handles searches measuring twice the amount of people on the entire planet every year (they also own YouTube who has more memberships than the populations of China and the United States combined), doesn't make it to where their platforms can affect the election by censorship? God Forbid!!!

    Btw, Anyone else remember when Democrats and everyone else on the left insisted that these companies DIDN'T censor about a year - year and a half ago? Now they've embraced it.

    It is obvious to me that the Democratic Party, and those supporting them, be they Democrats or simply support them because they're not the Evil Republicans, do support regulating companies free speech abilities. When they believe it either does not benefit them or when it effects them negatively.

    So...can anyone on the left or from the Democratic Party tell me what the difference is between the above points and ensuring that social media does not affect our elections?

    And please don't try to argue that social media does not affect elections or ask me to prove such. You all spent 4 years+ claiming that Russia affected the 2016 election via Facebook ads and the like. Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it to.
     
    RodB and joesnagg like this.
  2. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    14 views for this thread. Some of them that lean left. And not a single one of them dared reply. Not surprised in the least.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2021
  3. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Democrats love the way social media and especially its owners influence elections. Just like the MSM it is a free and very good public relations and advertising industry.
     
    Kal'Stang likes this.
  4. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have no idea what the donor class having so much power over elected officials has to do with "censorship"
     
  5. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Democratic Parties stance is to censor them by interfering with their free speech.
     
  6. Yulee

    Yulee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2016
    Messages:
    10,338
    Likes Received:
    6,379
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you under some impression that the left is pro social media? Hardly

    It just happens to be an issue the Conservatives are in lock step with the Democrats who would love government control of social media.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2021
    WalterSobchak likes this.
  7. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And yet, there are so many posts from people on the left in this forum that has been arguing against preventing social media from censoring.
     
  8. Yulee

    Yulee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2016
    Messages:
    10,338
    Likes Received:
    6,379
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I’m just shocked the Republicans are so for it. I know why Democrat politicians want control. They want government control of everything. But this is a new policy for the R’s.

    But, you know this forum will disappear when it happens right?
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2021
  9. Noone

    Noone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2021
    Messages:
    13,538
    Likes Received:
    7,984
    Trophy Points:
    113
    fainting-victorian-lady.jpg
     
    cd8ed likes this.
  10. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not surprised. They're the ones being censored the most.
     
  11. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah, figured that would you be your type of response. Because you can't argue the facts.
     
  12. Noone

    Noone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2021
    Messages:
    13,538
    Likes Received:
    7,984
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What facts, your OP was click bait. But nobody fell for it. 8)
     
  13. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    31,942
    Likes Received:
    15,602
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Govt isn’t censoring anyones free speech. Glad we cleared that up.
     
    FreshAir likes this.
  14. Chrizton

    Chrizton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2020
    Messages:
    7,707
    Likes Received:
    3,785
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is a fair argument that if facebook russian memes affected election then Social Media "This poster is lying" type warnings have the same affect. Beyond that, social media giants put themselves in the crosshairs. What happens now is what it is.
     
    Kal'Stang likes this.
  15. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    31,942
    Likes Received:
    15,602
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If Americans are getting election info from social media then we all deserve what we get. In others words we are a nation of dumbasses.
     
    Bow To The Robots likes this.
  16. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,839
    Likes Received:
    32,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Most of what I have seen on the subject is censoring due to violations of TOS, conspiracy peddled as fact and misinformation.

    Personally I don’t care if it is left right or purple — blatantly false information needs to be identified as such. People — myself included — are already highly misinformed, we don’t need sources purposely lying to people for votes or political agenda.

    Do you think we are well served by forcing social media platforms to host content that is knowingly fraudulent?
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2021
    FreshAir likes this.
  17. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,187
    Likes Received:
    62,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    some republicans want to censor ever ones views but their own

    some democrats want to censor ever ones views but their own
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2021
  18. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,187
    Likes Received:
    62,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Btw, Anyone else remember when Democrats and everyone else on the left insisted that these companies DIDN'T censor about a year - year and a half ago? Now they've embraced it."

    no one says that, republicans censor many of my posts here... it happens

    when it happens, learn from it and move on, simple - every site has a TOS
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2021
  19. Bow To The Robots

    Bow To The Robots Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    25,855
    Likes Received:
    5,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry, but this isn't exactly news. Here's the important distinction: The right side of the aisle has historically portrayed itself as the party of limited government (what we used to call, ironically, classical liberalism). The left side, historically the party of the more government the better. Yet both are willing to abandon their principles at the drop of a hat when it suits their appetites to use the state as a tool to mold and shape a society to their liking. The left makes no bones about their love affair with statism, collectivism, authoritarianism, the welfare state, etc., while the right pretends to be so erudite and steeped in the tradition of John Locke, but they can turn so quickly into statists even Karl Marx would be impressed.

    Facebook is a private company. Anybody who believes in the right to engage in commerce, the right of association, private property, will acknowledge that Facebook/YouTube/Google/Twit et al., belong to the shareholders of those respective companies and nobody else; and like any company they are managed to make those shareholders a return on their investment. Period. Just like any other business.
     
    Yulee likes this.
  20. Lucifer

    Lucifer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2014
    Messages:
    13,694
    Likes Received:
    9,416
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "Censoring" misinformation is what they are left with when common sense has evaded a certain segment of the population.
     
  21. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So what?
    Fox tv also censors things and they also effect elections.
     
    FreshAir, Noone and Lucifer like this.
  22. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It has to do with how much influence they have. Think about it. The reason Republicans are against the government censoring free speech is because the government has a lot of influence. So why wouldn't they be against these social media giants who have a big enough influence on society to affect the outcomes of elections being able to censor free speech?
     
  23. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you trying to tell me that the Democratic party does not hold these stances?

    Democratic Party Stances: Citizens United was a travesty!
    Democratic Party Stances: Dark money affects elections and needs to be brought into the light!
    Democratic Party Stances: We need to stop the lobbying by corporations!
    Democratic Party Stances: We need to get rid of SuperPacs! (meanwhile uses them)
     
  24. Noone

    Noone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2021
    Messages:
    13,538
    Likes Received:
    7,984
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's what you went on to say. Are you arguing for Citizens United, and the evils that it spawned?
     
    FreshAir likes this.
  25. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1: Who determines what is and isn't false? While Trump was in office WAPO kept a running list of lies that Trump supposedly said. But if one actually examined that list there were many "lies" that were not really lies, but exaggerations, or in grey areas. Note that they are not even attempting to do that with Biden. And that's fine. They're supposed to be a news agency. Not a platform. As such they are subject to defamation laws and the like where if they are not careful with their phrasing they can get sued. I'm just using them as an example because some of the things that they labeled as lies was actually subjective. And a lot of the "fact checkers" now a days are not so much fact checking as they are inserting opinion. For example I saw on Snopes the other day that they labeled the question asking if Biden had to start from scratch with a comprehensive covid vaccination distribution plan because Trump had no plan as "mixture" of true and false. It should have been a simple rating of "false" because Trump did leave Biden with a plan for distributing the vaccine. Something that they acknowledged. The reason that they marked it as "mixture" of true and false is because Biden made a new plan. Even using some of the ideas that was in the Trump plan. They tried to conflate one with the other instead of straight up saying that the claim was false. LINK: Did Biden Inherit 'Nonexistent' COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution Plan? | Snopes.com

    2: Do you really want a person who isn't elected, or business who is out for profit determining what is and isn't false? Especially when it comes to social issues which are, for the most part, entirely subjective?

    3: Who is writing and enforcing the TOS? If they write a rule into the TOS that states that anyone advocating for violating a persons rights shall be banned what does that mean? Sounds reasonable doesn't it? We don't want peoples rights violated right? But...what if they are a pro-life movement? Those on the left believe that there is a woman's right to have an abortion. Even though there has been no case law that has stated so (not even RvW) and there is nothing in the Constitution about it. Now...if they keep banning any speech from the pro-life side what kind of influence do you think that creates? Less belief in the pro-life movements arguments... particularly if no one ever hears of their arguments because it is being censored. Its the same reason that we don't want the Federal government interfering with speech.
     

Share This Page