U in denial. Recentlly charlie kirk twitter was locked.

I follow many on IG "we've removed this post because it violated guidelines". No specifics and anti trump pages can post all day about doing bad stuff to him and his supporters with less restrictions.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

That and “FB jail” and other stuff. I see both views in me feed and it is def biased. But yeah, guess taking down channels like Hickok45 for a while and others like it isn’t censorship at all. Nah, can’t be. Not tangible.

Ur also missing the point. Who sets up the AI and what to ban?

Its like anti 2a lawmakers. Lets ban short barrels, then bump stocks, then pistol grips, then 30rd mags. We are not anti 2a, we just want to make all parts illegal, so ur left with a single shot rifle. But u can still own a rifle.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

That and “FB jail” and other stuff. I see both views in me feed and it is def biased. But yeah, guess taking down channels like Hickok45 for a while and others like it isn’t censorship at all. Nah, can’t be. Not tangible.

And many reloading vids by IV8888

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

And many reloading vids by IV8888

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Nah. Didn’t happen. At. All. Nope. Nada.

Course it couldn’t, because then that might be, uh gasp, proof.

4got to mention, on IG even though im following the person, i have to type their entire name b4 it pops up if theyre a conservative.

BJ Baldwin had a video showing his name was not showing up unless fully typed.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

https://www.facebook.com/Theconservativelatina/photos/a.355383218225181/1070078010089028/

good thing no one here voted for her...

I voted for her but did so before I saw this.

She is mostly correct though and somewhat incorrect. Problem is that it is a complicated topic and not easily summarizable in a tweet.

Plus throwing section 230 out the window because of a perceived or actual bias by FB and Twitter is rather short sighted and stupid. The potential ramifications can go quite far.

Again there's no real proof they are.  From most of my research of neutral parties it appears there's no major bias.  Only one recent incident everyone is talking about, but the way the information was gathered ( illegally through Russian spies)  is suspect as fuck, I can understand why they acted as they did. They rectified the issue and became more neutral which I support.  Its a real gray area,  respecting everyone's freedoms and rights.  Including corporations.  If you support capitalism you have to support the negatives that come with that.

no major bias?
https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-facebook-have-censored-trump-65-times-compared-to-zero-for-biden-study-says?fbclid=IwAR2FlVjGtz-foWc5SFJDTrdzYIZhCmG_lnkhSFBwlcZ0JMqo9vZcL4vHfEk

Section 230 provides immunity to social media companies like Facebook and Twitter against being sued over the content on their site. This allows them to operate and flourish without needing to moderate content.

The term used for what Twitter and FB are "supposed" to operate as is "platform".  That means they are not responsible for the content others post, and they only censor material that breaches the site's Terms of Service (ToS).

However, since Twitter, FB and other social media sites have started EDITING and censoring some content and not others, even though they both contain similar materials, they are no longer a platform. They fall under the category "publisher."

Since Section 230 of the FCC regulations protect platforms from being sued, they enjoy a special government protection.  That means they must adhere to the standards that apply to a platform.

Once their biases come out, and they begin to sensor this and allow that -- for the most part only differentiated by the politics of the users posting and sharing it, they become editors and "publishers". That means they no longer have protection against lawsuits for the material shared, and any credibility as a "public square" for ideas is shot to hell.

These same sites were used by foreign entities to "interfere in a Presidential Election."  What do they call what  FB and Twitter are doing now on their own? 

In 2012, it was estimated that 70% of adults get their news from Social Media rather than news sites and television.  If YouTube is included, which I think it is by way of Google owning it, I'm sure that number has risen greatly.  That makes Social Media capable of determining who will be the next President by censoring one candidate and promoting another.

This is not a free speech issue.  It's a private sector monopoly being taken over by one political faction used to replace the formerly free press.

I checked and Section 230 does not appear to contain the word publisher and it doesn't define publisher. You stated that when social media starts editing stuff they become publishers but section 230 doesn't say such a thing. Is it contained in some other section?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

Posts have been edited on 2ahawaii.com. Does that make it also a publisher?

FB is not a monopoly though.

BREAKING: Facebook Insider Blows The Whistle With Undercover Video That Proves Anti-Conservative Bias

Facebook Insider Zach McElroy: I Will Testify Before Congress About the Facebook Bias I
Witnessed Against Trump Supporters, Conservative Causes

McElroy: “We are essentially in charge of what gets said and what gets stifled”

McElroy: 75-to-80 percent of Posts Selected by Facebook’s Algorithm for Moderator Review
Support President Donald Trump, Republicans and Conservative Causes

Facebook Content Review Lead: “It’s a Very Progressive Company, Who’s Very Anti-MAGA”

https://trendingpolitics.com/breaking-facebook-insider-blows-the-whistle-with-undercover-video-that-proves-anti-conservative-bias/

It's always one-sided on major issues.  Conservatives are "accidentally" censored (mistake, bad algorithm, rogue employee), and the Liberals are only censored if it causes bad press for FB.

There have been so many people censored by FB, TY and Twitter, no one can possibly say it's rare.  Why else would the big tech giants' CEOs be hauled into Congress on multiple occasions to testify as to why it's happening?

I checked and Section 230 does not appear to contain the word publisher and it doesn't define publisher. You stated that when social media starts editing stuff they become publishers but section 230 doesn't say such a thing. Is it contained in some other section?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

Posts have been edited on 2ahawaii.com. Does that make it also a publisher?

FB is not a monopoly though.

Read this, then get back to me:

https://reason.com/2020/05/28/47-u-s-c-%C2%A7-230-and-the-publisher-distributor-platform-distinction/



All the Tech Giants, FB, Twitter, and Google, comprise a monopoly in their business sector.  FB has the monopoly on FB-style posting.  Twitter with Tweets.  And Google with Videos (YT).

A monopoly is not defined by zero competition in the market, but with dominant control over the market.  Each of these companies dominate their respective niches in the social media market.

Why do you even need this explained for you?   

BREAKING: Facebook Insider Blows The Whistle With Undercover Video That Proves Anti-Conservative Bias

https://trendingpolitics.com/breaking-facebook-insider-blows-the-whistle-with-undercover-video-that-proves-anti-conservative-bias/

It's always one-sided on major issues.  Conservatives are "accidentally" censored (mistake, bad algorithm, rogue employee), and the Liberals are only censored if it causes bad press for FB.

There have been so many people censored by FB, TY and Twitter, no one can possibly say it's rare.  Why else would the big tech giants' CEOs be hauled into Congress on multiple occasions to testify as to why it's happening?

Impossible, shadow banning is a myth.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Impossible, shadow banning is a myth.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

So is ANTIFA.

-- Joe Biden

Nah. Didn’t happen. At. All. Nope. Nada.

Course it couldn’t, because then that might be, uh gasp, proof.

It could be antigunners reporting the video and YouTube auto removing. I've seen this happen to everyone. Not everything is a conspiracy. Get all the facts out first.   I really doubt YouTube is doing it on purpose it would put them in so much legal danger.

no major bias?
https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-facebook-have-censored-trump-65-times-compared-to-zero-for-biden-study-says?fbclid=IwAR2FlVjGtz-foWc5SFJDTrdzYIZhCmG_lnkhSFBwlcZ0JMqo9vZcL4vHfEk

The horrors of fact checking oh nooooo.  Trump says dumb shit all the time that isn't true. Doesn't mean bias at all.  Biden for better or worse gets everything he says past lawyers and writers probably. 

I checked and Section 230 does not appear to contain the word publisher and it doesn't define publisher. You stated that when social media starts editing stuff they become publishers but section 230 doesn't say such a thing. Is it contained in some other section?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

Posts have been edited on 2ahawaii.com. Does that make it also a publisher?

FB is not a monopoly though.

I agree

BREAKING: Facebook Insider Blows The Whistle With Undercover Video That Proves Anti-Conservative Bias

https://trendingpolitics.com/breaking-facebook-insider-blows-the-whistle-with-undercover-video-that-proves-anti-conservative-bias/

It's always one-sided on major issues.  Conservatives are "accidentally" censored (mistake, bad algorithm, rogue employee), and the Liberals are only censored if it causes bad press for FB.

There have been so many people censored by FB, TY and Twitter, no one can possibly say it's rare.  Why else would the big tech giants' CEOs be hauled into Congress on multiple occasions to testify as to why it's happening?

You are only looking at it from one side liberals complain they are censored too....fb is not a monopoly there are dozens of social media sites. Just because it's not a clone or just as big doesn't make it a monopoly. There's even a conservative bias version. They are getting hauled up there cause people like yourself belive there is bias. Then when they there they find nothing wrong.  You think of there was a conspiracy they would of been found out with all the investigations....

It could be antigunners reporting the video and YouTube auto removing. I've seen this happen to everyone. Not everything is a conspiracy. Get all the facts out first.   I really doubt YouTube is doing it on purpose it would put them in so much legal danger.

Could be.  But you mentioned that there was no proof of accounts being blocked and/or restricted.  I am not a conspiracy theorist.  I am just pointing out the facts that many accounts have been suspended and/or blocked.  Look at the "policy" being implemented and the bias at implementation.  Lots of instances of that.  As someone who does associate with folks with alternate views, even they are surprised that some of the BLM, defund police, etc content doesn't get restricted due to "safety concerns".  And believe me, for many of them, if they or their "cause" was slighted, they'd make it known. 

The point is the biased implementation of "rules".  As a "stauch 2a advocate", seems like you're ignoring points just to win an argument. 

It could be antigunners reporting the video and YouTube auto removing. I've seen this happen to everyone. Not everything is a conspiracy. Get all the facts out first.   I really doubt YouTube is doing it on purpose it would put them in so much legal danger.

So anti gunners reported hundreds and 10 years worth of reloading videos by IV8888 and may other people also reported the same?  How does a reloading video violate policy, but shooting objects like how Kentucky Destruction does not violate policy?  Or any of IV8888's other videos like firearm testing, body armor testing, top 5 stuff, etc... Maybe he's reloading in a G-string like some other on this forum do.

  You think of there was a conspiracy they would of been found out with all the investigations....

Do you really trust "investigations"?  Wait, NM, I know your answer.

I checked and Section 230 does not appear to contain the word publisher and it doesn't define publisher. You stated that when social media starts editing stuff they become publishers but section 230 doesn't say such a thing. Is it contained in some other section?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

Posts have been edited on 2ahawaii.com. Does that make it also a publisher?

FB is not a monopoly though.

I think Trumps XO defined it.  That's why Michael Kitchens from SSH was opposed to it because they do remove comments and people from the group.  He was concerned over legal liability.  IDK the full details because the topic never came up or stayed on the SSh page very long.