Free Speech

Trump To Convene 'Social Media Summit' Over Accusations of Anti-Conservative Bias

The president invited Republican lawmakers as well as social media stars who claim that tech giants are suppressing free speech.

|

President Donald Trump will convene a "social media summit" at the White House on Thursday to discuss the influence of big tech and what he perceives as censorship of right-leaning voices. Republican lawmakers and social media figures—including Rep. Matt Gaetz (R–Fla.), Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, and the Twitter personality "CarpeDonktum"—will reportedly be in attendance.

Noticeably absent from the list are executives from the tech giants themselves, who were not invited.

Trump's call to arms comes as some elected officials—many of whom accuse social media platforms of kowtowing to liberals and unfairly scrutinizing conservative perspectives—issue a rallying cry to police online companies, including Facebook, Twitter, and Google. Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) introduced a bill in June that would require the tech behemoths to verify their political neutrality with the Federal Trade Commission every two years. If they failed to do so, they would lose protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which, in turn, would leave them to face greater criminal and civil liability for every post published on their platforms.

Although Hawley says his bill is intended to protect free speech, it would likely have the opposite effect, as social media companies would be forced to crack down on posts that could land them in court absent Section 230 protections.

Few lawmakers expressed support for the proposal in its current form. But Hawley isn't alone in his desire to crack down on online platforms. Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas), once a lover of limited government, grilled Google User Experience Director Maggie Stanphill during a congressional hearing last month over whether the company's leaders had voted or donated to Trump. While the answer to the former was inconclusive, the response to the latter was "no." That's evidence of internal bias, Cruz said, and possibly grounds for government intervention.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R–Tenn.) agrees. During a similar congressional hearing in April—a testament to how hot a topic this has become among Senate Republicans—she compared social media to a "town square," one which needs a sheriff to stop the suppression of conservative thought.

These claims are overblown. Conservative media companies have proven quite adept at leveraging online algorithms to send their stories on a viral streak, using the likes of both Facebook and Twitter to do so. A study released today concludes that a large swath of the popular stories about current Democratic presidential contenders are coming not from "the liberal media," but from right-wing publications. In regards to Kamala Harris (D–Calif.), Sen. Cory Booker (D–N.J.), and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro, four out of the five most popular articles about each over the past several weeks were published by conservative sources such as Breitbart, TheBlaze, and Fox News.

That likely won't sway many conservative figures who feel they've been unduly targeted by liberal content moderators. Project Veritas founder James O'Keefe, who also made the cut for Trump's summit, drew headlines in June after he publicly decried YouTube's decision to remove a video he posted that appeared to paint Google as politically biased against Republicans. (It's worth noting that O'Keefe has a history of doctoring videos, and the executive at the center of the video, Jen Gennai, says this is no exception.) Charlie Kirk, the social media giant who has gained over one million Twitter followers in his pursuit of "owning the libs," has been another vocal opponent of social media censorship. "Conservatives being censored on social media is on [sic] the most important issues heading into 2020!" he tweeted in May. "WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED," he continued.

It is true that online figures of a similar (although perhaps more incendiary) ilk—such as right-leaning provocateurs Milo Yiannopoulos and Alex Jones and the left-leaning black nationalist Louis Farrakhan—have been subject to near-complete online exile amid allegations of organized hate. But social media platforms are private companies who can promote whatever values they so choose—an argument that, to a degree, resonates with the TPUSA founder.

"I think there will be some form of equilibrium" between social media companies and conservative Americans, Kirk tells the Associated Press. "Hopefully these companies can self-correct."

What action the tech giants could take to please conservative critics remains unclear. Regardless, Kirk and company would do well to remember that limited government means just that—even when you don't like the outcome.

Advertisement

NEXT: AOC Wants To Kill the Department of Homeland Security. Libertarians Have a Plan For That.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. AND HERE WE GO

  2. More silly whining by vanquished, authoritarian right-wingers. The whimpering has never enabled them to avoid getting stomped in the culture war, but maybe it makes them feel better in a snowflakely sense.

  3. “I think there will be some form of equilibrium” between social media companies and conservative Americans, Kirk tells the Associated Press.

    As right-wingers are replaced by better Americans, this point becomes less interesting, less important, and less relevant daily.

    Carry on, clingers.

    1. Shut up bigot. No one cares what you have to say.

      1. If you don’t like bigots, you’re a bigot! Wait, wouldn’t that make you a bigot as well?

        1. Oh I’m a bigot alright. I’m just a bigot against morons. Sorry.

  4. Time for some common sense posting control.
    In order to register for a social media account, an applicant must first attend courses on constitutional theory, paid for by the potential applicant. Then the potential applicant must submit to a full background check, including fingerprints, also paid for by the applicant. Then they can become a real applicant, submitting an application form to the local sheriff’s office for approval. If the application is approved, it will allow the holder to create and post to one account, using their real name only. If the applicant wants an “assault posting” permit, for multiple accounts on multiple platforms, there will be a significant additional fee. As a condition of this permit, the holder’s social media accounts are subject to review at any time by federal agents. With these simple and common sense actions, along with removal of all banning by the host sites, civility will return to the internet/web as surely as democrats like federal control of individuals.
    I know some alt-right agitators will call this a violation of the so-called “free speech” alleged right, but that issue has already been settled.

  5. “I was explaining how Google’s Trust and Safety team is working to help prevent the types of online foreign interference that happened in 2016.”

    Well, you’re kind of starting from a shaky premise here. So Google’s Trust and Safety Team will make sure that influences that never really happen and “caused Donald Trump to win” won’t happen… again. If your perception of those influences are flat out wrong, then what prevention measures will you be taking to avoid a repeat of 2016?

    1. It doesn’t matter. This is the private market so who cares if what they do subverts the will of the people and causes a socialist to be elected?

  6. “O’Keefe has a history of doctoring videos, and the executive at the center of the video, Jen Gennai, says this is no exception.”

    And that’s enough for you to believe it.

    Anyway, who else is looking forward for Tim Pool to take out the trash?

    1. It’s not like O’Keefe is making up the fact that google is trying to deplatform conservatives. Did you see that petition google employees are passing around and signing in an effort to remove adsense from breitbart? Pretty sure that’s real.

      1. It’s absolutely real, the only question is, should there be a legislative solution. To that I say “no”.

        1. That’s obvious enough, whether someone doctored videos or not.

      2. It’s not like O’Keefe is making up the fact that google is trying to deplatform conservatives.

        I think more precision is required in this type of discussion.

        It is clearly NOT true that Google is trying to “deplatform conservatives” as a whole. Last I checked, National Review still appears in Google search results.

        Of all of the individuals who have been “deplatformed”, most of them have done something rather outrageous, so much so that I think even a neutral observer would say that the action might have crossed a line. I.e., Alex Jones and his despicable Sandy Hook Trutherism. Not everyone, but most.

        I think a more precise characterization might be to state that certain social media companies are trying to deplatform “providers of objectionable content”, but that their understanding of what constitutes “objectionable content” is not consistent, nor is their enforcement consistently applied.

        1. It is clearly NOT true that Google is trying to “deplatform conservatives” as a whole. Last I checked, National Review still appears in Google search results.

          And Fox News always features prominently on the Google News pages.

          I think a more accurate statement would be that Google tends to suppress the right-wing fringe, but not the left-wing fringe. If Google news is going to foreground articles from ThinkProgress, they need to be carrying Breitbart, too (if they were trying to be unbiased).

          1. And Fox News always features prominently on the Google News pages.

            But Fox News doesn’t peddle Sandy Hook Trutherism stories. Neither does National Review.

            1. If only Sandy Hook Trutherism was the only thing that got you deplatformed.

            2. But Fox News doesn’t peddle Sandy Hook Trutherism stories. Neither does National Review.

              Exactly.

              What I’m saying is that where you see the bias is that you do get fruitcake conspiracy theories from the left on Google. You just don’t get them from the right.

            3. Sandy Hook Trutherism nonsense shouldn’t get anyone “deplatformed”.
              Either GoogleAppleFacebookTwitterInstagrm provide a utility to the public like a phone company does, or they provide private platforms where they control the conversation. They shouldn’t get to play it both ways.

              1. Can you at least see how a neutral person might regard Sandy Hook Trutherism as offensive, and qualitatively different than other types of speech?

          2. I think “fringe” is too harsh a word. I’d say right-of-center individuals who aren’t from “authoritative” sources. Not everything that people have been deplatformed or demonetized for is “fringe”. Sometimes it’s plain science.

            1. Sometimes it’s plain science.

              I could certainly see that happening with climate change or with gender stuff, and maybe “fringe” is the wrong word – my only point really is that Google isn’t suppressing right wing views wholesale, and that where the bias is clearest is that they do host crazy-pants from the left without comment, but can’t abide non-mainstream views from the right.

              1. Google isn’t suppressing right wing views wholesale, and that where the bias is clearest is that they do host crazy-pants from the left without comment, but can’t abide non-mainstream views from the right.

                This is exactly right.

                And frankly I think it also illustrates a profound insecurity on the right-wing – that so many genuinely believe that if Twitter is banning actual Nazis, that they “are next” for nothing more than their completely mainstream conservative views.

                It’s paranoia and it’s insane.

                1. Considering the list of those banned is far more extensive than actual “Nazis” you co.pletely missed Square = Circles point.

                  1. The psychotic thinks everyone who isn’t progressive is a nazi.
                    It’s a bit ironic

                    1. Umm no. Read my comment below. There is a vast gulf between mainstream conservative thought, and right-wing hate-filled Nazi bullshit. YOU should not be afraid to call out people spouting hate filled nonsense without fear that your views will be criticized.

                    2. Who defines what is mainstream and who defines what is hate?

                    3. The platform’s owners.

                    4. “YOU should not be afraid to call out people spouting hate filled nonsense without fear that your views will be criticized.”

                      I’m not, which is why I call YOU out so often.

            2. They have to have a good excuse, so they deem certain things to be hate speech or even inciting violence even though it’s not really. It seems to be anyone who directly challenges the SJW narrative with regards to race/sex/religion/etc. If you run stories or videos about how trannies aren’t really women/men or if you bitch too much about immigration or criticize Islam then that’s seen as “hate” and it gives the social media companies an excuse to remove their political rivals from their platform.

          3. Google tends to suppress the right-wing fringe,

            If by “right-wing fringe” you mean new and upcoming voices such as left-of-center Tim Pool, yeah, you’re totally right.

        2. the action might have crossed a line. I.e., Alex Jones and his despicable Sandy Hook Trutherism

          I don’t see how being a conspiracy theorist crosses any boundaries that would be a cause for deplatforming. Google would have to deplatform itself for pushing the “Russia hacked our democracy” story.

          what constitutes “objectionable content” is not consistent

          How can it be? It’s purely subjective and arbitrary.

          1. I don’t see how being a conspiracy theorist crosses any boundaries that would be a cause for deplatforming.

            In general, no. But I think the despicable nature of the Sandy Hook Trutherism struck a lot of people as below the belt. Believing that the Moon landing was a hoax is IMO qualitatively different than believing that grieving parents are faking the deaths of their children.

            1. They are, but you keep harping on Sandy Hook Trutherism. Again, that’s hardly the only thing that gets you deplatformed.

              1. I just use Sandy Hook Trutherism as an example. Would you at least agree that believing in Sandy Hook Trutherism is qualitatively different than believing in, say, that tax rates should be low, even if there are a segment of conservatives who would believe in both? And that deplatforming the instigator of Sandy Hook Trutherism is not the same as “deplatforming conservatives” as a broad matter?

                1. It’s culture war stuff that gets you deplatformed, not tax policy.

                  1. It’s culture war stuff that gets you deplatformed, not tax policy.

                    Right – so it’s not “conservatives” broadly, not even “conservative ideas” broadly, that are being deplatformed – it’s a specific type of conservative point of view, and more pointedly, it’s right-wing culture war edgelords that are being deplatformed (mostly).

                    Which is bad from a freedom of expression point of view, but it’s important to make the distinction IMO, if for no other reason than to not buy into the right-wing victimhood narrative that Twitter wants to ban anyone who objects to high taxes.

                    1. That’s a very broad radical individualist generalization.

            2. believing that grieving parents are faking the deaths of their children

              Correction: it’s actors pretending that they are grieving the deaths of children that never died. See? Not so offensive.

              1. Except that children really did die, and the logic of the conspiracy theory requires one to believe that the actual grieving parents are faking it.

                1. No, conspiracy believers believe that no actual children die and that there were no actual grieving parents. This of course is demonstrably bullshits, but isn’t unique.
                  For an individualist, you sure seem okay with dictating what is and isn’t acceptable.

                  1. No, conspiracy believers believe that no actual children die and that there were no actual grieving parents.

                    So when they see parents who appear to be grieving over their dead children at Sandy Hook, they must conclude that those parents are faking it and/or in on the conspiracy.

                    1. Yes they actually believe this as hard as it is for you to grasp. But some on the left also believe Bush knew that Iraq did not have an active WMD program (coalition forces did find chemical weapons just not new chemical weapons) despite the fact several other countries and his predecessor also believe that Iraq continued it’s WMD program. Many also believe that Bush blew up the World Trade Center (though whack cases on both sides believe this one for different reasons). Conspiracy theories rarely make sense except to the initiate.

                    2. I’ve got a weird feeling that Jeff probably agrees with the 9/11 Truthers–at least to some extent.

                      Am I right, Jeffy?

                      The difference being, in the trutherism you like, there’s no insistence that it never really happened–in 9/11 trutherism, Bush killed those people.

                    3. I’m sure you have many weird feelings, Azathoth. I suggest getting professional help.

    2. And that’s enough for you to believe it.

      Have you seen his latest video?

      1. The word you’re looking for is ‘edits’.

        O’Keefe edits his videos.

        The ones designed to go viral are edited down considerably–to the nuggets of truth. So they’re slick and quick.

        But O’Keefe offers the full videos as well. You can watch the entirety of them as well as the ones edited for effect.

    3. O’Keefe does not doctor videos. The progtards jut keep saying that, knowing that the treasonous media will report it as fact.

  7. What action the tech giants could take to please conservative critics remains unclear.

    Stop collaborating to have third party companies such as payment processors and backbone providers/certificate authorities also deplatform conservatives. That would be a major start.

    1. “collaborating to have third party companies such as payment processors and backbone providers/certificate authorities also deplatform conservatives.”
      This is so frightening and wrong, but somehow traditional liberals are okay with it, and never think that this will end up happening to them too.

  8. They are the recipients of a crony capitalist legal exemption from publishing liability law.
    When @Reason says “Free Markets”, they mean Crony Capitalism.

    1. Can you not make the distinction between a social media platform and a publisher? Do you want the government deciding how social media platforms should be managed? What you’re asking for is the government colluding with Google and Facebook to determine what is acceptable online speech and what isn’t. The internet is relatively free right now, try not to ruin it.

      1. I’m convinced that “platform vs. publisher” distinction creates more problems than it solves. The problem with the social media giants is they are becoming publishers– or perhaps we need a third category: Curator. If one can’t agree that they’re publishers, few could disagree they’re becoming curators. By seeking to “promote authoritative voices” and “flag” problematic ones, that’s curation.

        1. They are more like libraries. They’re not writing or authoring or editing books, they are facilitating the spread of the ideas contained within the books.

          If a library chooses not to carry a particular book, that book’s author’s rights haven’t been violated.

          If a library chooses to publish a list of books that the librarians think are excellent books, being left off the list doesn’t mean that there has been some nefarious act of censorship.

          And if a library chooses to remove a book from its collection, because the library’s management has deemed its content to be inappropriate for its patrons, then removing the book is not equivalent to burning the book or silencing the author.

          1. I like this analogy

          2. If a library chooses not to carry a particular book, that book’s author’s rights haven’t been violated.

            Yes – and applying that to my point below, if a library happens to have defamatory material in it, the fact you wouldn’t take action against the library doesn’t mean you can’t take action against the author.

            Now, if the library hosts the author and puts ads up all over town promoting it, that’s different.

          3. This analogy is incomplete. I’m not arguing that Twitter banning someone because the librarian Jack Dorsey doesn’t like his politics is censorship. I am arguing that you might have a problem when Jack Dorsey gets on the phone to every library in the country and colludes with them to not carry a particular set of books again because we don’t want to see trump in the White house in 2020. After that, all the libraries got on the horn to the publishing houses and asked them to drop a particular author, and then called the transportation companies and told them not to ship any books by said author. And as long as everyone in the chain is a private company, nothing to see here.

            Again, I’m not calling for a legislative solution, but I’m definitely 100% on board with loud, deriding criticism, and I might be on board with a civil suit for violating terms of service– which goes both ways.

            I don’t shed a tear because Google is getting the “60 minutes” treatment.

            1. Don’t forget banks.

          4. They are more like libraries

            When libraries ban books, remove them from the shelves and destroy them, and then damnatio memoriae authors, anyone who isn’t a total fascist should be very concerned.
            It frightens me that you guys think that’s okay, Chemjeff and MelonUpton.

        2. I’m convinced that “platform vs. publisher” distinction creates more problems than it solves.

          It actually seems to me more like a distinction without a difference. Section 230 seems merely to acknowledge the relative lack of control platforms have over what gets posted, and so forestalls frivolous litigation about things people post on Facebook or in comments sections.

          When people post things that are defamatory or incite violence, it’s not like they are given a pass because it was on a platform rather than published.

          I would also bet cash money that you could take FB to court today and argue that their curation of content makes them at least somewhat culpable if they knowingly promoted something that was defamatory.

          It just doesn’t seem to me that Section 230 is the magic invincible armor its critics seem to think it is.

          1. It just doesn’t seem to me that Section 230 is the magic invincible armor its critics seem to think it is.

            It’s not. It doesn’t prevent lawsuits against defamation between individual users on a platform. It only prevents lawsuits against the owners of the platform itself.

            Furthermore, somehow the idea has spread on right-wing sources that Section 230 “requires platforms to be neutral”, I’ve heard that claim made many times. But that isn’t true either.

            1. the idea has spread on right-wing sources that Section 230 “requires platforms to be neutral”, I’ve heard that claim made many times

              The argument is that if they aren’t neutral then they are acting as publishers and aren’t covered by Section 230.

              And the fact that that’s not an unreasonable position indicates that there isn’t anything in particular wrong with Section 230. If you are acting as a publisher, it doesn’t shield you from jack. But you have to damage someone and that someone needs to take action against you.

              Reading Section 230 as some positive obligation to be neutral that is enforceable by unilateral government action is not the right way to address the issue.

            2. Furthermore, somehow the idea has spread on right-wing sources that Section 230 “requires platforms to be neutral”

              I agree with you here completely. There’s nothing I read that suggests that they must remain ideologically neutral. It’s the collusion that I have a problem with– especially when that collusion appears comprehensive and widespread– so widespread that it becomes a serious threat to commerce itself.

              To be clear, if you can’t even own a bank account, process transactions or do payment processing for your livelihood because every “private company” won’t do business with you over your political views, that’s a problem.

              1. Guess you did. Good job.

      2. It was crony capitalism to give them immunity from libel suits, copyright infringement, etc in the first place.

        I don’t have much of a beef with that, except I thought we were exchanging that immunity for them not censoring us, but I guess I was wrong. But since we didn’t get what we wanted out of the deal there isn’t much of a reason why they should still get the benefits while we are left out in the cold..

        1. It was crony capitalism to give them immunity from libel suits

          Good heavens no. Section 230 was written before Google existed existed. Please, inform yourself.

          https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history

      3. Can you not make the distinction between a social media platform and a publisher?

        I don’t think any of you idiots understands it–or what’s going on here.

        I get on the social media site of my choice, after having filled out the information and agreeing to the ToS.

        I then proceed to speak to the circle of friends I choose myself. And listen to the circle of friends and interests that I like. And watch the videos whose individual creators I have subscribed to.

        Do you see where I’m going? I choose what I watch, who I talk to, who gets to see MY content, and who I listen to.

        We keep talking about ‘publisher/platform’, but that’s not what it is.

        It’s publisher/ phone company. My friends aren’t broadcast media–my IMs aren’t public property. If I tweet to my friends how much some person just pissed me off and I use off color language, why is that any different from if I called them all to do so?

        That’s the service Facebook, Twitter, Instagram et al claimed to be providing–a way to share crap with the people of my choice. NOT a billboard that I had to spraypaint everything on that had to pass muster at the Social Media offices.

        But social media is acting as if it IS that billboard.

        And it’s not. It’s a very advanced party line–and I pay for the LINE, not for some operator to make sure I don’t swear.

        1. But you are demanding that a private company allow you their service. Regulating away the agency a private company has in moderating their content is not a good idea in almost any circumstance and it is a mistake that we have made too many times in the past. Spiting leftists isn’t a good reason for giving the government more power.

          1. Nope.

            I’m demanding that they stick with the ToS we agreed to when I signed up.

            Nothing more. Nothing less.

            They offered an entirely voluntary media stream–one that I could customize to include my friends and the things I liked–in exchange for being able to shove ads and promoted content into my stream–and I accepted.

            Not they’re deciding that I can only have the friends and likes that they choose. And I didn’t agree to that.

    2. Please explain to us all why, if you slander me on Reason’s comment boards, that Reason should bear any legal responsibility whatsoever for that slander.

      “Oh but Reason doesn’t moderate content” is not an excuse, because they do. It is rare, but they do. And no, not just for illegal content.

      So, what precise liability should they bear?

      1. You’re effectively anonymous Pedo Jeffy, so you can’t be slandered.

        Now where is my rent? You’re way overdue.

  9. ” But social media platforms are private companies who can promote whatever values they so choose—an argument that, to a degree, resonates with the TPUSA founder.”

    They are the recipients of a crony capitalist legal exemption from publishing liability law.
    When @Reason says “Free Markets”, they mean Crony Capitalism.

  10. The internet is a sewer full of alt-right Trumpy douchebags and yet the MAGA turds are being oppressed on the internet. OK.

    1. Correct, you progtarded piece of shit. Because of a loose conspiracy of treasonous scum like you. And the only reason you get away with it is because most of my fellow patriotic Americans haven’t woken up to the reality that you are an existential threat that must be eliminated from within our borders.

      Best you progtarded trash learn your place. Which is back under that rock you crawled out from.

    2. IKR?

      But chicken and egg. They wouldn’t be Trumpy douchebags if they weren’t constantly whining about what victims they are of everything. That is their essence.

    3. You’re alienating half of your own party.

  11. >>>What action the tech giants could take to please … critics remains unclear.

    stop being colossal asshole government collaborators good start

  12. It’s worth noting that NBC has a history of doctoring videos.
    It’s worth noting that NBC has a history of doctoring audios.
    It’s worth noting that CNN has a history of doctoring videos.
    It’s worth noting that CBS has a history of doctoring videos.
    It’s worth noting that WAPO has a history of doctoring stories.
    It’s worth noting that ABC has a history of doctoring stories.
    It’s worth noting that CBS has a history of doctoring National Guards Files .
    It’s worth noting that NYT has a slogan about all the news fit to print. Snip Snip Cut Cut Rip Rip.

    1. Theyre propagandists. Of course they alter the facts and the truth to fit a Narrative.

    2. No they don’t.

      And two wrongs don’t make a right.

      1. But a million wrongs make a left.

  13. Social Media Summit is a good name for a folk revival festival

  14. Ah, this is a meeting of the intellectual titans of conservatism…

    …you guys are so fucked, aren’t you?

    1. No because few here are conservatives, nationalists or populists. And this is a meeting of nationalists and populists. I guess reading the whole article is too challenging for you.

      1. Oh, sure. You just unquestioningly support those positions and the pundits and politicians that hold them. But as long as you don’t use those exact words I guess you’re in the clear.

        Enjoy your Project Blitz, border wall and your current joy at “pwning the libs”. It won’t last.

    2. Oh Esme, the world’s smartest progtard is still inferior to the world’s dumbest conservative. Your kind really are trash. And like Disco Man, progtards are headed for the garbage can.

  15. Here is an O’Keefe video that I might recommend.

    1. His best work yet!

    1. “Big League Politics” lol

      And this article illustrates part of the problem right here.

      This group wants to “fight hate and extremism online”. And immediately you jump to “OMG CENSORSHIP THEY’RE COMING TO SILENCE YOU”.

      Can we just pause for a moment and recognize that there is a vast gulf between mainstream conservative thought, and right-wing fringe hate-filled crap? And that being opposed to Nazis shouting “Jews will not replace us” is not equivalent to being opposed to conservatives shouting “lower my taxes”?

      1. So they appoint themselves the purveyors of what is mainstream conservatism and what is “hate” (and why do you seem not to grasp that part of the problem is that they are mainly focused on right wing “hate” then left?). And you don’t find this problematic or ripe for abuse? Very Libertarian of you!

        1. Okay just stop for a moment.

          Can we both at least agree that Nazis shouting hate-filled crap is *qualitatively* different than mainstream conservatives advocating for mainstream conservative views? And that opposing Nazi speech is not the same as opposing all right-wing speech?

      2. Pedo Jeffy, ready with his own brand of retarded analaysis.

        Stupid bitch.

        1. Falsely accusing someone of being a pedophile is probably the worst form of slander there is, and it is actionable.

          1. That’s why he does it. He’s a shithead who gets off on provoking people. No different than a 5th-grade bully.

            1. Whats your obsession with 5th graders and why do you know so much about them?

            2. I think he’s cute. The repeated calls for genocide against his political opponents is just adorable.

      3. Yeah, Tim Pool is such a Nazi. You’re a moron.

        1. Did I say Tim Pool is a Nazi? No.
          Did I say every person banned was a Nazi? No.
          Stop being an idiot about this issue. Objecting to the speech of *actual Nazis* is not the same as objecting to the speech of mainstream conservatives.

          1. The article from Big League Politics is trash, I’m not even concerned with that, but I didn’t make that clear. I should have, my mistake.

            I’ve seen you claim that all these tech companies in general want to do is go after Nazis. That’s not true. They are going after anyone and anything that is hurting their image with the majority of vocal people on Twitter. Similar to how Nike just pulled a 4th of July shoe off the shelf because 1 former NFL player and a few people on Twitter said the original flag was fucking racist. This stuff is bleeding out into the world in really dumb ways and I see you covering for it all the time.

            Its honestly not even about them censoring conservatives. It’s about them attempting to censor everything that doesn’t adhere to their narrow view of the world, which honestly I don’t even think its far left – saying its far left would mean that it has some sort of ideological foundation with a set of unifying principals.

            1. principles, not principals. Lol

  16. Maybe rightwingers should figure out what facts are.

  17. Why would a sane adult need to ask what these companies can do to please conservative critics? This isn’t rocket science. Here is what you do: ban people only for illegal speech. It’s that simple.

    Someone gets their fee fee’s hurt by a tweet? That person can block the person tweet.

    Oh and you do know Facebook has now said death threats on their platform are okay against anyone on their “dangerous persons ” list. I’m not kidding. Please, defend this with “muh private company”. Defend the fact Trump legally now can’t block people on Twitter cuz the public is owed access to him, buuut Twitter can also block access to anyone they want, even when it comes to someone the courts have said the public are owed access too.

    All of this is completely normal.

    The Democrats weren’t going “muh private company” when crying that Facebook sold as space to Russians.

    1. *ad space

      Christ add an edit button

  18. Yeah, Trump totally should have invited the likes of Pichai, Dorsey and Cuckerberg. Because if they have the gall to lie to Congress, they’re totally going to implicate themselves by telling the truth to e-celebs and Trump. Oh wait they already had that chance a million times and lied straight Tim Pool’s face on the JRE.

  19. I am making easily persistently $15k to $20k simply by doing direct work at home. Multi month again i have made $45890 from this movement. amazing and smooth to do work and standard pay from this is bewildering. i have propose each final one of you to join this progress right directly as low protection and get than full time salary through take after this association.

    So I started———>>>>>>> USDREPORT.COM

Please to post comments