Social Media Silences Conservatives?

emtb2rn, BSN, RN, EMT-B · May 27, 2020

So, trump tweeted today "Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen."

https://www.MSN.com/en-us/news/newsworldpolitics/trump-threatens-to-shutter-social-media-companies-after-Twitter-warning/ar-BB14FjIC

This is one of the most profoundly un-American statements I have ever heard. Shutting down media companies because you don’t like them is the province of tin-pot dictators and authoritarians. I don’t see a constitutional angle here because he’s talking about corporations, not individual citizens.

His objection is to Twitter suggesting readers fact-check several of his tweets based on their new model. I am amazed by trump’s ability to lower the bar on an almost daily basis. Also interested to see how this statement is defended, if at all. I assume his supporters with more than a room temperature iq will just hope it fades away.

toomuchbaloney · May 27, 2020

29 minutes ago, emtb2rn said:
So, trump tweeted today "Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen."
https://www.MSN.com/en-us/news/newsworldpolitics/trump-threatens-to-shutter-social-media-companies-after-Twitter-warning/ar-BB14FjIC
This is one of the most profoundly un-American statements I have ever heard. Shutting down media companies because you don’t like them is the province of tin-pot dictators and authoritarians. I don’t see a constitutional angle here because he’s talking about corporations, not individual citizens.
His objection is to Twitter suggesting readers fact-check several of his tweets based on their new model. I am amazed by trump’s ability to lower the bar on an almost daily basis. Also interested to see how this statement is defended, if at all. I assume his supporters with more than a room temperature iq will just hope it fades away.

More that just a little bit of Trump's thinking and behavior falls into the province of tin pot dictators and authoritarians. Certainly a pattern of removing all IGs who dare to investigate charges of corruption or malfeasance in the administration is evidence of that consolidation of power.

Editorial Team / Admin · May 28, 2020

Quote
... facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg called out Twitter for adding a fact-check to a tweet from President Trump ...
... Zuckerberg differed with Twitter's approach, saying "I just believe strongly that facebook shouldn't be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online," and neither should other private companies.

Read in its entirety: After Twitter fact-checks Trump's tweet, Mark Zukerberg says social media companies shouldn't be "the arbiter of truth"

toomuchbaloney · May 28, 2020

13 minutes ago, sirI said:
Read in its entirety: After Twitter fact-checks Trump's tweet, Mark Zukerberg says social media companies shouldn't be "the arbiter of truth"

Zuckerberg can run his social media platform and company the way he wants to run it. Zuckerberg is clearly comfortable with spreading propaganda and dangerous nonsense as long as long as he makes money. That arbiter of truth comment was good though...it reflects the role of FB as entertainment and marketing but not journalism or education.

TomPaine · May 28, 2020

Take out "social media" and insert "phone company." Imagine if AT&T disconnected calls or internet service if their user said something a supposedly unbiased "fact-checker" disagreed with.

What is the US Postal service labeled conservative mail as disinformation or destroyed it instead of sending it on to the intended recipient?

We are in modern times, and although I agree that these are private companies and for the most part can do with their business what they want, there is a fine line when the main mode of dialogue is biased towards one political view. I'm not saying I agree with what Trump said, but when these platforms start censoring one political point of view they are putting themselves in the crosshairs. facebook's approach is better in my opinion. Let the marketplace of ideas decide what is valuable and what is garbage.

toomuchbaloney · May 28, 2020

18 minutes ago, TomPaine said:
Take out "social media" and insert "phone company." Imagine if AT&T disconnected calls or internet service if their user said something a supposedly unbiased "fact-checker" disagreed with.
What is the US Postal service labeled conservative mail as disinformation or destroyed it instead of sending it on to the intended recipient?

We are in modern times, and although I agree that these are private companies and for the most part can do with their business what they want, there is a fine line when the main mode of dialogue is biased towards one political view. I'm not saying I agree with what Trump said, but when these platforms start censoring one political point of view they are putting themselves in the crosshairs. facebook's approach is better in my opinion. Let the marketplace of ideas decide what is valuable and what is garbage.

It appears from your comment that you are confused about what the government may do versus what a privately held company may do. What is the difference between Twitter and the US POSTAL service, in your view?

Similarly, what is the difference between hate speech, propaganda, misinformation, and conservative speech? If the conservative viewpoint is based in nonsense, conspiracy theory, racism, misinformation or propaganda the media platform has zero obligation to elevate it. See Alex Jones...he has freedom of speech but little in the way of amplification now...

TomPaine · May 28, 2020

I'm not confused at all. I never said the government should take action. I said these media companies are putting themselves in the crosshairs of government regulation by censoring certain political views. Though the government puts restrictions on private businesses all the time.

Explain to me why you're OK with Twitter censoring conversations but not AT&T or Verizon. Would you be OK with your phone company disconnecting your call if you said something that opposes the CEO's of Verizon's political views?

toomuchbaloney · May 29, 2020

44 minutes ago, TomPaine said:
I'm not confused at all. I never said the government should take action. I said these media companies are putting themselves in the crosshairs of government regulation by censoring certain political views. Though the government puts restrictions on private businesses all the time.
Explain to me why you're OK with Twitter censoring conversations but not AT&T or Verizon. Would you be OK with your phone company disconnecting your call if you said something that opposes the CEO's of Verizon's political views?

Your "what if" scenarios and conjecture aren't related to this discussion. Are you are telling me that AT&T and Verizon are attaching advertising to your phone calls and text messages and profiting from that while they allow you free access to their communication service, technology and support? Are you, further, going to persist in the notion that the US Postal Service is somehow akin to a private business in terms of what they may and may not do?

allnurses Guide · May 29, 2020

1 hour ago, TomPaine said:
I'm not confused at all. I never said the government should take action. I said these media companies are putting themselves in the crosshairs of government regulation by censoring certain political views. Though the government puts restrictions on private businesses all the time.
Explain to me why you're OK with Twitter censoring conversations but not AT&T or Verizon. Would you be OK with your phone company disconnecting your call if you said something that opposes the CEO's of Verizon's political views?

They didn't silence or censor anything. The link they added to the tweet has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the integrity of elections. They took the same approach to misinformation on COVID19.

emtb2rn, BSN, RN, EMT-B · May 29, 2020

tompaine said “Take out "social media" and insert "phone company." Imagine if AT&T disconnected calls or internet service if their user said something a supposedly unbiased "fact-checker" disagreed with.”

Your at&t scenario is wrong on a couple of levels.
1. Twitter isn’t censoring, they’re posting a warning.
2. you’re comparing an individual talking to another individual vs a message sent to potentially millions. It’s an apples to anthill comparison.
3. this whole thing started with trump tweeting a much debunked theory on mail-order ballots. You disputing that his tweet needed to be called out?
4. and another thing, claiming political neutrality while using trump’s own argument to start your statement is disingenuous.

Editorial Team / Admin · May 29, 2020

Quote
President Trump signed an executive order Thursday aimed at limiting the broad legal protections enjoyed by social media companies, two days after he tore into Twitter for fact-checking two of his tweets.
"We're here today to defend free speech from one of the gravest dangers it has faced in American history, frankly," Trump said from the Oval Office."

Quote
Twitter, in a statement, called Trump's order "a politicized approach to a landmark law," saying ...

Quote
Legal experts greeted the order with heavy skepticism, saying, absent a new law passed by Congress, it would not be legally binding.

Entirety: Stung By Twitter, Trump Signs Executive Order To Weaken Social Media Companies

Social Media Silences Conservatives?

More Like This