Censorship in social media is affecting elections.

I wish republicans supported all those things... but I think it was the rest of your post the poster was referring too

 

Being for limited government =/= no government. Obviously government is needed. Or as many call it, a "necessary evil".

And I don't see this as conservatives abandoning their principles. They do not want the government to interfere with speech because of the influence that they carry to determine what is and isn't. They are applying the same logic to these big social media tech giants.

 

all one has to do to tell if a site is biased is look at the long term posters

like on this site, many from the left and many from the right, for a site that is biased, you won't see that

 

No one says that NOW.

 

I have been to sites that are biased, and it's obvious when they are - they only say it about those site

most sites are against hate and violence, ect.....

sites like twitter and facebook are for the most part not biased, plenty of both sides there represented

 

Nope. Not for Citizens United. I think it was a stupid moronic decision. But like it or not it is about free speech. And those on the left want to get rid of it. Proving that they have no problem censoring free speech from private businesses when it can affect national elections. The problem is that they are not applying the same to social media giants. The only difference that I can think of between the two is that Citizens United benefited Republicans. While allowing these social media giants to censor benefits Democrats.

 

To be clear, my argument is based on the ability of a social media site to influence national elections. Sites like this does not even have a .03% chance of affecting the elections.

And no, FB et al are most definitely biased and is using that bias to affect elections. This has been proven already.

 

I mostly agree with what you have posted but I want to point to the last sentence — “we don't want the Federal government interfering with speech.” — so with that do we really want the government stepping in to private companies telling them who they must host?

Most of the content I have seen censored has been open threats, conspiracy, or blatant repetition of lies. Do you have an example of someone or an organization you feel was unfairly banned?

 

If a company is big enough to affect the election, then yeah. To me the issue with social media censoring and wanting to get rid of dark money from politics are two sides of the same coin. Both are meant to promote everyone having a voice and not being drowned out by those bigger than them. And whether its got a lean towards the left or right, we need to make sure that voices are heard. Even if we disagree with them.

It's hard to remember all of them. Especially when one has CRS. Even more so when "trusted sources" often won't report on such things. But here is an example of censorship, though not complete like others I have seen through the years. Yes, Twitter can reject this anti-abortion group’s ads for displaying ‘sensitive content’ - The Washington Post

Note, I could probably show more but those are generally from sites that most people won't accept as "trusted". Especially when their being partisan. They'd rather attack the messenger than look for the main points and then doing some homework. There's also the practice of "shadow banning" in which Twitter, Youtube et al will leave your content up but make it to where your content is never promoted so that it can't get out to new or even established people unless they have a direct link. Shadow banning - Wikipedia For most content creators the only way to tell if you're shadow banned is if they watch their stats showing new viewers. And even that is hard to prove as being "shadow banned".

 

The donor class has the same right to free speech as any other citizen. No less, but also not more.

 

Ok — that is reasonable. Can I ask what your stance is on partisan gerrymandering and programs designed to make it harder to vote such as shutting down polling stations and limiting hours?

Abortion is a sensitive and often graphic topic, Especially with some of the images used on the pro-“life” side. Many of the people that have said they were shadow banned were often done with valid reason and was only temporary.

 

I consider it to be a normal part of politics. I believe that we can reduce it, and should, but we'll never fully get rid of it.

Except that being shadow banned is done behind the scenes and never admitted to. And who determines the validity? A neutral party? Or a biased one? Same goes for the images.

 

What happens to truth when subscribers to a particular ideology decide they're right about everything: