Reason Roundup

Twitter Blocking a New York Post Article Was Dumb—but Not Illegal, Censorship, or Election Interference

Plus: 898,000 new jobless claims, and more...

|

By definition, Twitter can't violate the First Amendment rights of the president, members of Congress, or anyone else. First Amendment violations are things the government does to the people, not the other way around. There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting Twitter from restricting speech on its platform, and it is certainly not "censorship" (which has denoted government suppression of information since the office of censor was created in Ancient Rome to impose public morality).

This shouldn't need repeating as often as it does these days. But President Donald Trump and those who support him have been working hard to recast censorship as something private companies can do to the most powerful man in the country (see Trump's executive order on Twitter) while arguing that government should be allowed to restrict these companies' freedom of speech, conscience, and association.

The latest round of redefinition comes in response to Facebook saying it would "limit distribution" of a New York Post article about Hunter and Joe Biden due to concerns about its veracity. Twitter also temporarily blocked users from sharing the article, saying that it violated its "hacked materials" policy. (Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey later admitted the rollout of this decision was not great, but did not seem to disagree with it overall.)

It was a bad move on the part of Facebook and Twitter, denying users the opportunity to discuss and perhaps counter the claims in the article among themselves (and likely drawing much more attention to the story than it would have gotten otherwise). Doing so also opened Twitter and Facebook up to allegations of suppressing information critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden at a time when both companies are putting on a big show of being impartial arbiters of information about the pandemic and the 2020 election (a doomed cause which routinely results in poor calls like this).

But here's the key thing: they don't have to be fair arbiters of political information.

Facebook could decide to ban any content critical of Biden. Parler, a social media platform for conservative refugees of Twitter and Facebook, could ban anyone questioning the New York Post story. Twitter could disallow all election content and Reddit can nix any posts about narwhals or sloths.

Any of those choices—no matter how politically biased or how weird—would be within their legal prerogative as private entities, which are under no obligation to treat all content equally, to humor information they find unfit, or to set content standards that make any outside sense at all.

Because of the First Amendment, private platforms and publishers aren't required to air any particular viewpoint. Which means social media companies are protected from having to permit any government official to use their service as a microphone or having to give any particular person, article, or idea a place to call home.

Nor does the federal communications law known as Section 230—often invoked by Trump and other Republicans as a law banning bias on social media—actually require the parties it protects to be politically or ideologically neutral. And repealing Section 230 wouldn't suddenly make neutrality a requirement. The First Amendment would still exist, and it would still mean that these companies couldn't be forced to broadcast government messages or to provide refuge for content it deems misleading or even just doesn't like.

Without Section 230, however, companies would be forced to constantly defend their constitutional rights in court—which is expensive and time-consuming. A lot of them will decide it's simply not worth it to allow any controversial speech, and define controversial quite broadly. This ends with everyone—Trump fans, Biden fans, and all the rest of us—facing more limits in what we can see, say, and share online.

If a social media company has an overly narrow mission and too many rules, or claims to be a place for all but continually curates and suppresses content in biased way, then the best way to remedy this is by boycotting and helping to build up alternatives, not granting the government broad new powers to regulate media, ideas, and speech.

Trump tweeted about the Post article yesterday evening, writing "so terrible that Facebook and Twitter took down the story of 'Smoking Gun' emails related to Sleepy Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, in the @NYPost. It is only the beginning for them. There is nothing worse than a corrupt politician. REPEAL SECTION 230!!!"

It's obvious why Trump and other politicians cheer the downfall of Section 230, since that would make suppressing speech the government doesn't like easier. It's just not clear why private citizens and journalists keep cheering this on.


FREE MINDS

The New Yorker on "why Facebook can't fix itself."

… the company is moving in several contradictory directions at once. In theory, no one is allowed to post hate speech on Facebook. Yet many world leaders—Rodrigo Duterte, of the Philippines; Narendra Modi, of India; Donald Trump; and others—routinely spread hate speech and disinformation, on Facebook and elsewhere. The company could apply the same standards to demagogues as it does to everyone else, banning them from the platform when necessary, but this would be financially risky. (If Facebook were to ban Trump, he would surely try to retaliate with onerous regulations; he might also encourage his supporters to boycott the company.) Instead, again and again, Facebook has erred on the side of allowing politicians to post whatever they want, even when this has led the company to weaken its own rules, to apply them selectively, to creatively reinterpret them, or to ignore them altogether.


FREE MARKETS

There were 898,000 new jobless claims filed last week. "The total for the week ended Oct. 10 was the highest number since Aug. 22," reports CNBC. "The number represented a gain of 53,000 from the previous week's upwardly revised total of 845,000."


QUICK HITS

• With the second presidential debate now canceled, Biden and Trump will each do separate televised town halls tonight.

• Reason's Nick Gillespie talks to Jia Lynn Yang, author of One Mighty and Irresistible Tide: The Epic Struggle Over American Immigration, 1924–1965, about the past and future of U.S. immigration policy.

• Barron Trump also contracted COVID-19, along with his parents. The 14-year-old "is a strong teenager and exhibited no symptoms," said Melania Trump in a Wednesday statement, also announcing that she has now tested negative again.

• How math became a weapon against tyranny.

• Today is the final day of the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings. Find all of Reason's coverage from this week so far here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Classes #16: The Scope of the 14th Amendment I – The Privileges or Immunities Clause, andCovenants II

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. Never seen so many strawmen packed into an opening paragraph.

    1. Too true.
      There is a real possibility that if this page is opened in California, a wildfire (caused by global climate warming change) would break out.

      1. This isn’t a strawman, it’s a media wide deflection. Did you notice how everyone is going straight to debating tech company censorship/regulation and not Biden family corruption? If you go along with it, you’re doing their job for them.

        This story is about the Bidens first and foremost. Don’t let them weasel out of it.

        1. ^ this. Give this man a (cocaine) cookie. The Bidens need to be nailed to the wall on this.

        2. The Biden corruption and the BigTech ban-hammering are inextricably linked at this point. Facebook and Twitter went into a banning frenzy, including the campaign account of the sitting President, and just now I read that YouTube is getting in on the act. Just a quick reminder that YouTube is owned by Google.

          It’s not just the corruption aspect here, which NeverTrumper dorks like Patterico are hand-waving away–there’s no logical reason for them to be melting down like this.

          I REALLY want to know what’s on that hard drive now. Most IT guys will poke around in there while they’re working on them out of curiosity, but not to the extent that they’d find a file of emails talking about deep-dive, esoteric stuff like backroom political deals. Keep in mind the laptop was dropped off and no one ever came by to grab it for over a year.

          Something must of have really spooked the tech guy to have the shop owner contact the FBI. And that’s probably why BigTech is going on a banning frenzy right now.

          1. Corroboration of flights to Pedo Island? Or mentioning the take: either intel or specific individuals that were now malleable after their visit?

            The IT security is surprisingly amateurish for these people. See, allowing Seth Rich the access he had, Weiner’s laptop, Hillary’s server. It doesn’t comport with their state of the art use of other security/covert action professionals. Especially Hillary’s. The Mafia never had cleaners as good as she—allegedly—has used.

            1. It’s amazing what you can get away with when the senior leadership of the agencies investigating you are in your corner.

              1. Makes $140 to $180 per day online work and i received $16994 in one month online acting from home.CMs I am a daily student and work simply one to a pair of hours in my spare time. Everybody will do that job and online makes extra cash by simply You can check more.

                open this web….Click here

          2. The public/private partnership between the DNC and all of big tech is a long term issue and the battle won’t be won now. It’s an incredibly complicated issue and there is no consensus even among the political parties about what any of it means. Biden’s corruption is right in front of us and if properly utilized and amplified might be able to dissuade people from voting for him. If he wins, you can pretty much guarantee that the line blurring the media and the state will get erased even faster than it already is.

            I’m saying that:
            1) You’re letting the media dictate the terms of the conversation again and they are choosing to talk about the divisive and complicated culture war issue instead of criminal actions by the man leading the polls to become POTUS by double digits. Stop reacting to what they want you to and lead the conversation. The Bidens are corrupt as fuck. We have the receipts. That should be the only thing we bother talking about.
            2) Hammering the corruption right now might be the only hope of at least putting the brakes on the inevitable merger of the DNC and Google/Facebook. Keeping power out of their hands at least for a few more years while you can take the time to actually build a case that might convince people that they need to be worried about big tech and their political influence. Right now, all those services are still incredibly popular and people don’t want to hear about how evil they are. Focusing on Biden may have a chance of winning back swing voters or encouraging people to get off their asses to oppose him.

            Strategically, you’re going to get nothing out of the big tech debate. Biden is a corrupt scum bag and there are documents to prove it. That’s actually valuable.

          3. If Twitter were to have censored Obama, would leftists have claimed:
            a] It’s fine because they are a private company and not subject to censorship issues
            b] Evil corporations stifling free speech and muscle an election
            c] Unconstitutional… or sumpin
            d] A good excuse to riot
            e] Hold emergency congressional hearings and impeach someone
            f] Demand that Twitter be nationalized for their crimes
            g] Let Hirono out of her cage to accuse Jack Dorsey of rape
            h] Declared they are all racists and arrested Twitter execs for hate speech

            I’m going with everything except A

        3. Speechless is spot on, as even tReason still hasn’t posted an article about Hunter Biden’s computer or e-mails.

          The print edition of today’s Wall St. Jrnl also didn’t contain any articles about Hunter’s computer or e-mails, even as its lead editorial denounced Facebook and Twitter for interfering in a presidential election by censoring the NY Post article, and references to it.

          But the Wall St Jrnl ran a front page article accusing Trump of interfering with CDC (by not allowing CDC to hold a press conference about the viruys).

          The print edition of today’s Pittsburgh Post Gazette contained no mention of Hunter Biden’s computer or e-mails, but contained lots of AP stories trashing Trump, and scaring readers about Covid.

          So its not just Twitter and Facebook that have blocked postings and stories about Hunter Biden’s computer and e-mails, but much/most of the so-called news media.

          1. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29758 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. Jkl I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month the from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

            what I do………………………………Visit Here

    2. It’s not a strawman argument if people are actually making the argument in earnest.

      1. Censorship does not require government action, violations of the 1a do. She, and apparently you, fucked up your own strawman.

      2. The only people mentioning it are gaslighters like ENB. And gaslights are dangerous around strawmen.

        1. You guys are absurd. Private entities aren’t bound by the 1st Amendment. That’s constitution 101, and it embarrassing that “libertarians” think it would be peachy if the government should compel a private entity to publish something it would rather not.

          And this is true even though it’s obvious that Twit and Facebook are run by biased hacks.

          1. You missed the point and made the point at the same time, Brilliant!

            1. It’s almost like he didn’t read a single previous comment before making his.

            2. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29758 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. Tyu I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month the from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

              what I do………………………………Visit Here

          2. This is libertatianism condensed: If the government doesn’t do it but some powerful oligopolist does, it isn’t bad.

          3. As Homble just exemplified, many commenters here are not libertarians.

            1. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29758 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. Hjk I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month the from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

              what I do………………………………Visit Here

            2. It goes beyond that. You progs declared war on us a long time ago. It’s been escalating since George Floyd’s death.

              How lomg do you think we will hamstrung ourselves by playing by the rules when your kind does not? If progressives have their way, they’re will be no individual freedoms left anyway.

          4. You are correct in general that “Private entities aren’t bound by the 1st Amendment”. The idea that competition will circumvent such issues, is at root a cornerstone of liberty. But does there come a point at which this changes?

            Consider that all media and communication utilities as generally defined are private entities. Therefore, if one is to take this as an absolute position on all private companies, would not not be conceivable and should it be allowed for all media, suppliers of communication services or even power utilities to declare a blackout on a politician or a political party not of their choosing? All these private companies are in relatively few management hands, so the idea of an agreement to shut down all services, while not likely, isn’t an impossibility. This could be a bit problematic if private carriers and utilities decided they were going to gang up on an administration and shut down all services, essentially amounting to unseating the government.

            But hey… Constitution 101, right? I am by definition a constitutional literalist, but also recognize that there are issues that are critical to liberty that are not being dealt with, and thus subject to abuse.

    3. I make up to $90 an hour on-line from my home. My story is that I give up operating at walmart to paintings on-line and with a bit strive I with out problem supply in spherical $40h to $86h… someone turned into top to me by way of manner of sharing this hyperlink with me,CMs so now i’m hoping i ought to help a person else accessible through sharing this hyperlink…

      ===========► Click here

      1. Nothing like throwing in some misogyny into the morning CACLL Two Minute Hate.

        1. Youre also a cunt. Equal gender cuntiness around here.

          1. He’s probably the latest sockpuppet for her strange-looking beard.

          2. Awww, someones mommy didn’t call them upstairs from the basement for a hot pocket.

          3. He’s a mendacious cunt at that.

        2. She’s never going to fuck you

            1. How much are you offering?

              1. Not much look at her.

    4. Really? Can you break that down a bit and point out the straw men?

      1. No. No soup for you!

        1. So, you got nuthin’.

          1. Everybody else knows, why don’t you? Because you are stupid. Really stupid.

            1. >>Everybody else knows, why don’t you?

              this is very funny.

          2. You’ve gotten noticeably dumber over the last few days. Did you bump your head?

        1. Content-free R Mac

          1. That’s not a thread you really want to pull too hard.

      2. Because nobody she quoted mentioned 1a. Her entire argument requires that to have been said dummy.

        1. Nowhere in the opening paragraph does she say anyone did mention the First Amendment.

          I’m dummy rubber and you are dummy glue. Nyeah, nyeah, nyeah. Grow up.

          1. Her first sentence you retarded cunt. It outlines the predicate of her argument.

            By definition, Twitter can’t violate the First Amendment rights of the president, members of Congress, or anyone else.

            You are really fucking stupid. Being completely honest here. Nobody is arguing twitters actions were government actions you fucking retarded cunt. They are asking it is censorship. She switched definitions on the 2nd God damn paragraph you retarded cunt.

            1. It looks like ENB’s argument is that compelling social media platforms to publish user content they don’t want to publish is compelled speech, which would violate the First Amendment.

              That would be the First Amendment tie-in.

              1. Okay. So youre doubling down on being a retarded cunt. From the first paragraph again.

                , and it is certainly not “censorship” (which has denoted government suppression of information since the office of censor was created in Ancient Rome to impose public morality).

                This is an untrue assertion that allowed her to switch from 1a arguments to opponents being wrong about censorship.

                This is why you’re a retarded cunt.

                1. That is really embarrassing for white knight.
                  Hilarious!
                  But par for the course

                  1. Idiots with no shame don’t get embarrassed. Which is good for us in this case, because she will continue to make an ass of herself for our amusement.

                2. You’re so tough.

              2. but they arent a publisher, so they cant be compelled to publish. They are a platform.

                If they were a publisher, they could be held liable for libel because they exercise editorial control.

                See? see what we have been saying? GFY anyway

                1. OK, being forced to platform user content.

                  1. Like the telephone or media companies? User content via signal from one party to another, both are carriers, and using both video and audible messaging. I know you love to see this when it’s against Trump, but suspect you’d be all over the *evil right wing corporate censorship* thing if media and phone companies cut all access to your favorite politician.

                    There are constitutional issues at stake, but excusing shutting down political discourse ‘cuz liberty and right to do so’ is also very dangerous. There’s an entire field of law called antitrust which disallows a LOT of private enterprise actions.

                    The only real amusing thing here is that suddenly everyone on the left understands something about application of constitutional restrictions and is almost magically for the rights of big corporations who abuse their market position, even to do the opposite of their stated purpose.

                    1. “ if media and phone companies cut all access to your favorite politician”

                      You just argued against your own point. Facebook and Twitter don’t have the power to prevent anyone from getting to the Post story.

                    2. You just argued against your own point. Facebook and Twitter don’t have the power to prevent anyone from getting to the Post story.

                      “These monopolies aren’t acting like monopolies!”–The White Gaslighter

          2. And yet she couldn’t stop saying it. If you just wipe a little more shit from your eyes, you’ll see the strawman.

          3. That’s why it is a straw man. She starts off with a vociferous take down of an argument no one has made about this. That is literally what it means to argue a straw man.

            1. Bless you for spoon-feeding a retard. Heaven waits for you.

            2. But she also didn’t say anyone said it.

              1. “This shouldn’t need repeating as often as it does these days.”

                You’re truly a fucking moron.

                1. “You’re truly a fucking moron.”

                  Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

                  So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…

                  Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

                  Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

                  Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

                  At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

                  Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .

                  Thank You! -Reason Staff

                  1. Dumbfuck HihnSQRLSo burps out his copypasta.

                    1. Wow, what clever wit! Did your mommy help you write that?

      3. Everyone knows that Jack Dorsey is just dumb and never malicious or anything like that.

    5. Hello.

      Is 2020 over? The year intellectualism and science went dodo.

    6. Our resident lipstick lesbian is a hard core Twitter tard. I doubt she could even live without it.

    7. NEW — the @JoeBiden campaign responds to the @nypost story and @Twitter fallout on @cheddar:

      “Twitter’s response to the actual article itself makes clear that these purported allegations are false and are not true.” @JTOBrown

      Bidens campaign has a worse strawman.

      1. That’s the thing about this story. It has many aspects that can be readily verified.

        In the one article so far I’ve seen attempting to verify, someone actually talked to the repair shop’s proprietor. It is worth checking out:

        https://www.thedailybeast.com/man-who-reportedly-gave-hunters-laptop-to-rudy-speaks-out-in-bizarre-interview?source=politics&via=rss

        1. Hey cunt. The nypost has verified most of the information already if you had bothered to read it.

          1. So, are you scared to have others check it out?

            The Post, to give a couple of examples, got no statement from Joe Biden and no verification from the FBI.

            1. “got no statement from Joe Biden and no verification from the FBI.”

              So they didnt bother with getting lied to twice?

              BFD.

            2. Check what out exactly? What do you think they can find? A different hard drive with emails saying the first is fake?

            3. As reported, Biden’s camp was contacted and chose to neither confirm or deny these are his emails, and the FBI said they are neither confirming or denying that they have them in possession. “No comment” technically is a comment.

              However a verbal interview with the shop owner is rather viral and I’ve heard it in several places, but I won’t waste my time with a link that you honestly don’t care about anyway.

              1. I linked to that very interview in a comment on this page.

                I also read that a Republican committee member (intelligence committee, if I recall correctly) is inquiring with the FBI, so hopefully whatever he finds out will become public soon.

      1. Truth is unsafe.

      2. People cannot type “New York Post Biden story” into a search engine? Or guess that the post is at nypost.com?

        Twitter’s blocking the link is a pretty weak “censorship” of the story. It’s right there on the Post’s website for anyone to read.

        1. That’s cute.

        2. “People cannot type “New York Post Biden story” into a search engine? Or guess that the post is at nypost.com?

          Twitter’s blocking the link is a pretty weak “censorship” of the story. It’s right there on the Post’s website for anyone to read.”

          Considering how many people’s primary source of information seems to be Facebook and Twitter, how would people even know to look for it?

    8. Google paid for all online work from home from $ 16,000 to $ 32,000 a month. The younger brother was out of work for three months and a month ago her check was $ 32475, working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger….So I started…..Visit Here

    9. I quit working at shop rite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $45 to 85 p9er/h. Without a doubt, this is the easiest and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started 6 months ago and this has totally changed my life.

      For more details………………Visit Here

    10. Easy and easy job on-line from home. begin obtaining paid weekly quite $4k by simply doing this simple home job. I actually have created $4823 last week from this simple jobDo online job Get earned

    11. Google paid for all online work from home from $ 16,000 to $ 32,000 a month. The younger brother was Abt out of work for three months and a month ago her check was $ 32475, working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger….So I started……Visit Here

    12. What alleged strawmen would that be in the opening paragraph?

      The only problem with the paragraphs in this article is that is very Mighty White and KreeeeeeshChaaaan of Reson.com to conveniently pretend to forget to report the very very relevant facts that:

      “Trump lawyer erupts in anti-Semitic rant after admitting source of Biden dirt might be ‘Russian spy’

      . . . Giuliani confessed that there was a chance that his repeated go-to source for dirt on the Bidens in Ukraine might be a “Russian spy” — and claimed, in an anti-Semitic rant, that he was being set up by billionaire Jewish philanthropist George Soros. . .”

  2. ‘and it is certainly not “censorship” ‘

    It is, by definition. Censorship is not the sole purview of the government.

    1. Yes, throughout history, churches have certainly been properly accused of censorship.

      1. So then the solution here is for Government Almighty to nationalize the churches, and social media, to prevent censorship? Welcome to the New World Order, where Government Almighty will replace censorship with censorshit!

        1. That’s not what was said at all.

          1. And he hastily retreats to the motte.

            1. White knighting for squirrel mischaracterizing what someone says now?

              You continue to descend into Lying Jeffy territory.

              1. “…squirrel mischaracterizing what someone says…”

                Did moron R Mac miss the FUCKING QUESTION MARK at the end of the SQRLSY remark?

                “So then the solution here is for Government Almighty to nationalize the churches, and social media, to prevent censorship?”

                QUESTION MARK is a punctuation mark, in this case, saying, “Is this what you meant to say?” With all you right-wing nut-jobs lusting after a “Government Almighty Ministry of Truth” to help you TAKE OVER the private property of web-site owners, to MAKE THEM publish Your Precious Remarks… You whiners and crybabies you! It is an entirely rational assumption that you crybabies want to nationalize the private properties of web site owners, so as to protect YOUR precious Baby Feelings! Since I see NO rational refutation of what I say… Just endless moronic grade-school-level name-calling… I am assuming that what I say, is true!

                Refute it, whiners and cry-babies!

                1. Go back to your port-o-potty buffet shiteater. No one is interested in. Engaging your annoying factless bullshit.

                  Best you just kill yourself.

            2. He didn’t even make any argument he just mentioned that your interpretation wasn’t accurate.

              When did you go full tilt troll?

              1. Day one when he created the sock.

            3. It’s good that we finally have WK identifying logical fallacies. Now we just have to get him to characterize them properly.

              I am done acknowledging SQRLSY or his Redneck Killer sock/best friend. I will flag every post and pretend they don’t exist and suggest everyone else does the same. Maybe they will get a different hobby. I don’t wish to participate with people with clear mental health issues threatening to rape and murder the families.

              1. “I am done acknowledging SQRLSY or his Redneck Killer sock/best friend. I will flag every post and pretend they don’t exist and suggest everyone else does the same.”

                Welcome aboard!

                I can have discussions with earnest commenters. I won’t waste my time with mendacious garbage like him.

                1. Truth hurts, doesn’t it?

                  Tell the speakers of the truth, that they are garbage, and walk away… Do NOT engage with what they say, or Your Precious Ego and Self-Righteousness might be challenged!

                  Growth hurts! The other choice will only lead to endless pain, till you swallow at least a TINY bit of your narcissistic ego! See M. Scott Peck, The People of the Lie. https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684848597/reasonmagazinea-20/

                  1. Dumbfuck HihnSQRLSo lacks self-awareness.

                    1. Wow, what literary talent and rapier wit! Let’s see if I can match or exceed it, with some OTHER brilliantly smart comments that I have created just now!

                      Fuck off, spaz!
                      You eat shit, you said so yourself!
                      You’re a racist Hitler-lover!
                      Take your meds!
                      That’s so retarded!
                      You’re a Marxist!
                      Your feet stink and you don’t love Trump!
                      Your source is leftist, so it must be false!
                      Trump rules and leftists drool!
                      You are SOOO icky-poo!
                      But Goo-Goo-Gah-Gah!

                      Wow, I am now 11 times as smart and original as you are!

        2. Youre as functionally retarded as ENB is here. But still more racist.

          1. Are you sure? Has ENB ever done an article about black prostitutes?

            1. Probably just the trans ones.

      2. Yes and throughout most of history there was no separation between church and state.

        1. That’s a fucking retarded assertion.

          1. Examples: Divine mandate of Kings, French 1st estate, Church of England, persecution of Christians by Roman Emperors for refusing to acknowledge divinity of the Emperor, Akhenaten changing state religion to monotheistic.

            There has been some interesting studies also on the crucial role religion played in the creation of civilization itself.

            1. Divine mandate of Kings, French 1st estate, Church of England, persecution of Christians by Roman Emperors for refusing to acknowledge divinity of the Emperor, Akhenaten changing state religion to monotheistic.

              All of these are examples of high-profile struggles between the “Church” and the “State.”

              1. Just like struggles between Dems and Repubs are examples of factions fighting within the same political structure. Just like the FBI and CIA having turf wars. Or Navy vs Army. The religious leaders and political leaders were factions vying for more power within their political structure.

    2. I am unable to even

    3. It is also, by definition, prima facie interfering with an election

        1. Stupid, or just acting stupid. Does it matter?

        2. It is weird what discussions you defend. So you defend sqrslys racism, you defend corporate censorship, you defend prosecutors tampering with evidence against the mccloskys, you defend blm/antifa as long as they don’t have their notarized memberships on video…

          1. Then lies about being a leftist.

          2. “ sqrslys racism”

            You are a troll.

              1. I was saving that for later.

            1. You are a troll.

              LOL! The unperson formerly known as SQRLSY has been spending the past few months expressing a disgusting amount of prejudice against religion. Please continue to prove your NPC credentials.

              1. OPEN QUESTIONS FOR ALL ENEMIES OF SECTION 230

                The day after tomorrow, you get a jury summons. You will be asked to rule in the following case: A poster posted the following to social media: “Government Almighty LOVES US ALL, FAR more than we can EVER know!”

                This attracted protests from liberals, who thought that they may have detected hints of sarcasm, which was hurtful, and invalidated the personhoods of a few Sensitive Souls. It ALSO attracted protests from conservatives, who were miffed that this was a PARTIAL truth only (thereby being at least partially a lie), with the REAL, full TRUTH AND ONLY THE TRUTH being, “Government Almighty of Der TrumpfenFuhrer ONLY, LOVES US ALL, FAR more than we can EVER know! Thou shalt have NO Government Almighty without Der TrumpfenFuhrer, for Our TrumpfenFuhrer is a jealous Government Almighty!”

                Ministry of Truth, and Ministry of Hurt Baby Feelings, officials were consulted. Now there are charges!

                QUESTIONS FOR YOU THE JUROR:

                “Government Almighty LOVES US ALL”, true or false?

                “Government Almighty LOVES US ALL”, hurtful sarcasm or not?

                Will you be utterly delighted to serve on this jury? Keep in mind that OJ Simpson got an 11-month criminal trial! And a 4-month civil trial!

            2. He word for word said all young black men are felons you racist apologist.

              1. It’s why he called himself the White Knight.

              2. Another example of your mischaracterizing what someone said, this time by leaving out all context.

                You are a troll, with no interest in truth.

                1. There was no context dipshit. That was his quote. Word for word.

                  1. We both know that is not the truth.

                  2. JesseSPAZ being a total liar again! What a TOTAL surprise! Lies from the Evil One’s Minion, Der JesseBahnFuhrer, who hates blacks, and salivates (and beats off) when they are choked to death for selling “loosies”!

                    https://reason.com/2020/09/15/viral-videos-show-georgia-deputies-beating-a-passenger-for-not-having-a-drivers-license/#comments

                    SQRLSY One
                    September.15.2020 at 11:14 am
                    All young black males have felony arrest warrants out for them… THAT is the problem here! For things like selling “loosie” cigarettes, and for blowing on cheap plastic flutes w/o permiSSion! From the SS!!!

                    To find precise details on what NOT to do, to avoid the flute police, please see http: //www.churchofsqrls.com/ DONT_DO_THIS/ … This has been a pubic service, courtesy of the Church of SQRLS!

                    1. Dumbfuck HihnSQRLSo limps out again.

                    2. Wow, Red Rocks for brains! What clever wit! Did your mommy help you write that?

                    3. Squirrelly, you have nothing to contribute, and only progtards like WK are on your side. You are not a libertarian, and you are a racist. You should really go elsewhere. Like WaPo, where so many of the progs are stupid, like you. You leftists can jerk each other off.

                      Or better yet, be honest with yourself, and admit what a loathsome oxygen thief you really are and finally do the right thing. End it all.

      1. it may not be interference and even legal censorship until the value is determined to be an in kind donation to the Biden campaign which is very valuable and Biden needs to legally account for this in his donation acknowledgments.

    4. Only the government can self-censor.

    5. “Censorship is not the sole purview of the government.”

      This is merely an attempt by ENB to rewrite definitions, just as lefties tried rewriting “Sexual Preference” and “Wuhan Flu” earlier. They want to win arguments without actually having to argue on the merits, so they try to change what you mean. It is a completely dishonest way of arguing.

      If you search for “private censorship”, there are thousands of articles discussing the meaning and existence of it. Perhaps, in a pure, back to the roots of language, semantic sense, Censorship was limited to state action. But it has come to mean something different, just as people use “decimated” to mean substantially destroyed rather than the original definition “reduced by 10%”.

  3. “By definition, Twitter can’t violate the First Amendment rights of the president, members of Congress, or anyone else.”

    As I said yesterday when this started: I totally agree that the private companies should not have their speech and “neutral moderation” regulated and overseen by the government. But when it happens next year, Twitter and Facebook will have deserved it.

    They have gone all in. In a sane world, 50% of the country would punish them for this bullshit by going to alternative sites. Instead, everyone will go clamoring to the government to save them from the companies.

    1. Since I work in and among these tech companies, I have watched this metastasizing for some time. Believe it or not, these companies aren’t conspiring at high levels with the Democrats. They have just allowed their company to be dominated by group think and a lack of self awareness that they are becoming the bad guys.

      The pandemic has made this worse. At its base you have young, low level people rating, sorting and moderating content. In a sane world, those people would be in an office where they at least have a moment of discussion and introspection before wielding the ban hammer. But now everyone is remote, sitting in their home- they have twenty browser windows open to HuffPost and Vox. As the signal fires began going off, liberals started sending multiple signals- “uh…old news”- “wait…personal info!” – “no can’t be true!”.

      As those signals circulate, some get discarded and others amplified until everyone, like a flock of birds, moves in the same direction. And these 20 somethings are perfectly suited to turn that sentiment into action with their administration tools.

      1. I agree with you that, functionally, this is likely what happened here–a bunch of hyper-partisan tech-heads surfing the net and messing with the algorithms saw this story trending, and started suppressing it.

        Unfortunately, someone or some department went WAY off the reservation and started outright banhammering accounts making mention of this. Whether it was individually or in the algorithm, it began hitting people who could legitimately make a lot of problems for them.

        Whether it’s “legal” or not or a violation of the 1A is academic at this point–the perception is now baked-in that Big Tech and the Biden campaign are colluding to take control of the government. It didn’t help that Twitter put out an explanation that “hacked material” can’t be shown on the site. That effectively mitigates any post hoc efforts to call this fake news. Nor does it help that Twitter’s former public policy chief joined the Biden campaign less than a month ago.

        Like I said last night, if Biden was actually up by 10 points, they wouldn’t be acting like this. They’re going all-in on declaring that anything that could legitimately hurt the left-wing political team is going to be suppressed, and they are going to shut down anyone trying to spread that information. It’s completely in opposition to the spirit of opening up the internet to the public to begin with.

        I don’t think this is going to be the end of Section 230 in whole–but regardless of who wins, expect there to be SIGNIFICANT revisions. If Biden wins, expect them to continue suppressing non-leftist communications–only it won’t be through shadow-bans and coyly tweaking algorithms, it will be outright, blatant censorship, using the philosophical framework laid out by Sarah Jeong in The Internet of Garbage. If Trump wins, if he doesn’t burn these companies to the ground under anti-trust, it will be through “Fairness Doctrine” provisions.

        Really, of all the hills for these companies to die on, Joe Biden’s crackhead, deadbeat dad, brother’s widow-banging son is the last one I would have expected.

        1. “Unfortunately, someone or some department went WAY off the reservation and started outright banhammering accounts making mention of this”

          That’s what I mean when I say that the Pandemic has made this worse. One person reads vox and then sees that this is going out of control, and they think it is their job to fix it. By the time the CEO finds out what is going on, that person has ban-hammered the company into a PR nightmare.

          “I don’t think this is going to be the end of Section 230 in whole–but regardless of who wins, expect there to be SIGNIFICANT revisions”

          Yup. I will argue against it ALL the time, because it is anti-liberty and will ultimately give the left what it wants, but it will happen. Facebook and Twitter just guaranteed it.

          1. The one thing I’d say in response to that is this ban-hammering might have been inevitable regardless. These companies were thoroughly traumatized by the notion that their platforms led to Trump getting elected. That’s why you had staff meetings where upper management was saying “we can’t let this happen again.” About a week after the election, a shit-ton of notable alt-right accounts were completely obliterated, particularly the ones that had been identified as prominent influencers by the MSM.

            They’ve been building up to this for a while, it’s just that they completely revealed their powerlevel on this instead of doing the normal shadowban and “fact-checking” reindeer games. Now they’re even banning photos of the NY Post front page.

            Like I said last night, they better pray that Biden wins, because if Trump gets a second term, he’s going to devote all his energy to pushing their shit in, whether it be through anti-trust or taxing them into oblivion.

            Turns out it wasn’t Net Neutrality that will kill the internet, it’s going to be a bunch of mentally ill shut-ins in Silicon Valley who thought those “nerds win in the end” movies were supposed to be real.

            1. At some point, Americans are going to designate silicon Valley drones as legitimate combat targets.
              Probably should’ve come out forcefully against blmantifa’s doxing and assaults

              1. I said yesterday, shit like this is why you get someone like Franco in charge–or, if the Red Bolsheviks end up winning, Lenin and Stalin.

                The left is now openly pursuing and flaunting power simply because they think they can, and they have the backing of major global megacorps and billionaires to do so. It’s only the barest dedication to checks and balances that’s keeping things from fraying apart. Regardless of what happens after this election, whatever niceties that have been in place since the end of the Civil War are going to be at an end.

              2. “Americans are going to designate silicon Valley drones as legitimate combat targets.”

                You’d think they’d have started already with political leaders that have been fucking everyone over for the last six months, yet Whitmer, Brown, et al still have the same number of holes in their heads that God gave ’em. It’s inexplicable to me, but then I’ve expected Trump to have been quietly killed for two-three years now, and that hasn’t happened either. Thank God.

                So maybe no one will meaningfully, violently resist, and the US can look forward to declining into a combination of Sweden, Brazil, and Idiocracy. Shrug. My crystal ball is usually cloudy.

              3. We need to designate all militant progressives as legitimate combat targets. They’re already targeting us.

    2. And FB will get exactly what they want, regulations. Those regs will protect them for years.

      I don’t think private companies should make so many decisions alone when they touch on fundamental democratic values. That is why last year I called for regulation in four areas: elections, harmful content, privacy and data portability.

      – Mark Zuckerberg

      1. Exactly. Zuckerberg has been playing ball with the government to secure terms favorable to himself, which prevent any meaningful competition. Any regulations this spawns will apply to every new entrant in the market, and it won’t be Facebook that suffers. It’ll be the people.

      2. Yup. And this is the main reason I have consistently called on people on the right to stop giving the left what they want. The right gave Obama and Hillary the Patriot Act, which he used to almost depose Trump. And yet these same people think that the final legislation “tweaking” 230 won’t end with Facebook and a democrat president locking down the information flow in this country.

        I would, begrudgingly, perhaps, concede to using antitrust to break up Alphabet and Facebook- though the latter and Twitter would be difficult to meet legal muster. I would only consider it because these tech companies have gone all in, and the right is going to get its pound of flesh one way or the other, and I would rather it be using old laws than creating new laws.

        1. “tech companies have gone all in”

          This. They have gone all in as drivers of political/social change, so much so that they are grossly pushing the scales of the political process. We can argue about legality, freedom, etc, but the core issue is that they wield too much power relative to our current political system. The same system that was designed to mitigate violent revolution as the solution to political strife and create extensive checks and balances from local to national level that gave the perception of a voice to all parties. It has worked better then almost any other system globally.
          Arguing about constitutionality is naive. Because the Constitution only holds sway if our system is working and the people have trust in it. History is very very clear about what happens to societies when things stop working and the people lose faith and trust in the system.

        2. Section 230 is regulation

        3. The answer is not more regulations, this will only help the big companies at the expense of the smaller and startups. They are also not worried about 230 being abolished even if the Republicans retake the house, keep the Senate and the White House as there would not be enough to get cloture on a repeal. The answer is hit them in the wallet, a progressive tax on income based on advertising income. This is something a bare majority can pass. Currently the boards of directors and large investors have stayed out of the operations of these companies because the dividends have been rolling in, if those big checks become threatened you will see Dorsey, Zuckerberg etc. lose a lot of their power over the companies if not completely forced out like Steve Jobs was at Apple. Then they will come hat in hand asking congress what can we do to lower these taxes. Right now they think they hold all the cards.

          1. I am not interested in punishing people with taxes. That is what leftists do. It is Europe’s model, and I have no desire to live there.

            It also entrenches these companies. Who has big margins that can afford higher taxes? Large companies. The small competition that could supplant them will pay the same taxes and be at a disadvantage.

          2. “progressive tax on income based on advertising income.”

            I have been favor of just this going on a decade now

    3. “50% of the country”

      To keep things in perspective, in a country of over 300 million, about 30 million visit Twitter daily. Some subset of those 30 million, it is hard to know how big, would have been following topics or people that would even expose them to the Hunter Biden laptop story.

      1. Twitter has over 300 million users. That 30 million visit it daily doesn’t change the fact that over a month they have many more unique users.

        But that is irrelevant to my point. 40 – 50% of the people using Twitter are on the right and are outraged by what twitter is doing. In a sane world those people would be moving to Parler. However the prevailing cultural zeitgeist tells us we can have our cake and eat it too- we can stay on twitter where the public is, and just have government force them to do the things we like. And so, instead of getting on with their lives and moving to a different platform, people are patiently waiting for uncle sam to save them.

        If Trump were smart, he would announce a new account on Parler. He would always post his messages there first, and then to twitter 10 – 30 minutes later. His followers and press would eventually move over there to get the scoops, and he could end his relationship with Dorsey. Instead, Trump is just as enamored with a government that fixes all as the left is.

        1. “40 – 50% of the people using Twitter are on the right”

          You think? I don’t.

        2. Don’t disagree with anything you said.

        3. But that is irrelevant to my point. 40 – 50% of the people using Twitter are on the right and are outraged by what twitter is doing.

          Wasn’t there a study that showed the vast majority of Twitter posts and traffic were being done by left-leaning accounts? Twitter’s more of a thought bubble than anything else, the fuckup here was that it’s the platform of choice for journalists (these people are CONSTANTLY on the damn thing, tweeting and re-tweeting), and they brought the banhammer down on a non-left journalistic outfit.

    4. Facebook and Twitter will be fine, it is us smaller companies that will be burdened by whatever insane rules the government comes up with in cahoots with the big players, as usual. Libertarians usually understand this, but there appears to be a blind spot for some people when it comes to Internet regulation.

      1. Section 230 is regulation.

        1. Yup, but it is also an example of well-designed, simple, lightweight regulation. Exactly the kind of regulation a free market nation should have.

          1. “Exactly the kind of regulation a free market nation should have”

            So libertarian.

            1. Yes. Well-crafted regulation supporting a free market is part of classical liberalism.

              1. “regulation”

                Super free market.

                1. You will know a free market by its regulations.

                  1. Are you an anarchist? For classical liberals and non-anarchist, non-purist libertarians it isn’t a controversial idea to have a lightweight framework of well-crafted regulation to act as a scaffolding for free market to thrive in. It’s like, you know, building some roads.

                    1. Now do foreign trade.

      2. It’s the same with healthcare. Many people thought Obamacare was somehow taking on the health insurance companies, when it was actually permanently installing the big, established companies.

        1. “Many people thought Obamacare was somehow taking on the health insurance companies”

          lol

  4. “The latest round of redefinition comes in response to Facebook saying it would “limit distribution” of a New York Post article…”

    You mean, “censor”?

    1. At this point, temporarily until it is fact checked. That seems like a reasonable thing for Facebook to do.

      Everyone could wait for them to complete that step, then react.

      1. What was the common sense waiting period for the Trump tax return story?

        1. Defamatory statements of fallen soldiers?

        2. That is a valid criticism. They did not apply the same standard to that anonymously sourced story.

          1. Just the one right? You know how pathetic you sound defending this right?

          2. This story is’t anonymously sourced. We know who provided the information, how it was provided and what circumstances under which it was provided.

            If we’re going to play this game, then the Russia-gate (now confirmed debunked) never should have seen the light of day. Ever.

            1. Which bolsters the case for Facebook and others verifying that the story is true: there are aspects to the story that can be easily verified.

              1. But why that standard for this one story? They had no problem with running numerous stories that were utterly false. Still do.

              2. Bullshit! That’s just your excuse to censor this information. If it had been detrimental to a Republican you’d be arguing it is too important to hide and the electorate should be informed.

              3. Which is fine, which means that the tech companies are now part of the story process, and are therefore publishers. They are not neutral arbiters of information shared by their users.

      2. It is not reasonable at all, given the fact that numerous, numerous other articles full of spurious, unverifiable allegations have been published without restraint on Facebook before.

        The only reason it is “reasonable” to you for a Facebook executive and a former Clinton operative to gleefully announce that he is preventing the sharing of information is that it happens to be information you don’t particularly care for.

        Facebook is, of course, free to do what they want. But for apologists like yourself to label this “reasonable” shows just how far down the rabbit hole you are. The fact that government moderating Facebook’s free expression is far worse, doesn’t change the fact that facebook using its market power to interfere in free expression is ALSO bad.

        1. That’s a good point.

          I still stand by that there is nothing unreasonable about fact checking this story, but in the larger context of all the stories they haven’t fact checked it is unreasonable.

          1. Fact checked by who? The New York Post is standing behind the story. They verified the story. They even told you what their data and sources were.

            unlike the Atlantic, which claimed multiple anonymous sources, but subsequent attempts by pretty much every media outlet to find anyone who was actually there who would confirm the story failed. In other words, it was completely made up out of whole cloth.

            And it was pretty obvious that it was made up from the jump. It did not have any continuity with reality. they the Atlantic version of their confirmation process was basically to confirm that the person who said they heard a rumor told someone else that they heard the rumor. That is not independent sources, as any half intelligent person would know. So just by reading the story there were several red flags.

            This story confirms something that we already know. We already know that Biden was involved in firing the Ukrainian prosecutor. He bragged about it in public. He thought it was a major achievement. So that part is indisputable. We also know that Hunter Biden had a high paying job at a company that had great interest in getting rid of that prosecutor. It was a high paying job that no rational human being thinks he was in any way qualified for. But it paid him many millions of dollars. These two rather large bread crumbs are indisputed. This story merely put some meat on the bones. It provided a context of communications back and forth about meetings. It is additional detail, but it is not really required for the story.

            So proclaiming that this is some outrageous claim that requires extra fact checking is kind of silly. The New York Post has plenty of backup for what their source was, it fits well with independent facts. And they disclose the nature of their sources, who are politically connected.

            What is there to fact check? Are we going to wait for an FBI analysis? Are we waiting for Biden to deny it so that we can claim its debunked? Is there any possible fact check that can be done on this beyond what the New Yorker has done, outside of counter claims from the Biden camp?

            no, it is obvious what is being done here. It has nothing to do with killing disinformation. nobody even remotely suspects that there is anything fake about this story. Everyone who says they do is lying either to themselves or to you. It perfectly fits the pattern of facts and really ads almost nothing to the story. If you are going to fake something, you would have it be a little more informative, like having details of instructions of what we want done and how much we will pay for it.

            1. “the Atlantic version of their confirmation process was basically to confirm that the person who said they heard a rumor told someone else that they heard the rumor.”

              If it’s good enough for the FBI in The FISA court, it should be good enough for the Atlantic.

            2. Are we going to wait for an FBI analysis?

              The FBI has made it glaringly clear on the record that they are stumping for one side and not the other.

            3. We also know that Hunter Biden had a high paying job at a company that had great interest in getting rid of that prosecutor. It was a high paying job that no rational human being thinks he was in any way qualified for.

              Not just that, but one of the emails indicate that he was kicking back half his earnings to Joe.

              You know what would be hilarious? If this was actually some sort of FBI or radical left troll gayop to embarrass Guiliani, and Twitter/Facebook blew it all up by going Full Ministry of Truth.

            4. There are many aspects of the story that can be checked out further:
              – interviewing the repair shop owner. See my comment above linking to an interview.
              – confirmation by the FBI, or is it a state-level attorney, that they have possession of the laptop
              – ask for a statement from Giuliani
              – etc

              1. TWK….You were just destroyed by Cyto.

            5. The literal answer is that Facebook claims they employ independent fact checkers. I have no idea exactly what that means.

              Some highly-skilled team of investigators. Some guy with an Internet browser. Have no idea.

              1. We already know from the stossle article their third party fact checkers are radical progressive and socialist activists who make stuff up. They said their scientists reviewed the stossle video, and the 2 they mentioned never saw it. When they did see it they said it was correct,

                1. Can you provide some more context? I’m not familiar with the “stossle article”.

                  1. He gave you a fucking name. John stossel is kind of well known here. He even has a main link.

                    God youre pathetic.

              2. No Facebook does not claim that you fucking retarded shit.

                https://www.facebook.com/journalismproject/programs/third-party-fact-checking?_rdr

                The majority of the third party checkers are news media you retarded shit.

                They do not use private investigative services.

                How are you so wrong about so much?

            6. “nobody even remotely suspects that there is anything fake about this story.”

              I’ll disagree with you here.

              I think there are plenty of people who think it is fake disinformation. I read an Ars Technica article discussing it yesterday. Hoo boy. I thought the Zero Hedge folks were capable of wrapping a fallacy in a conspiracy in a run on sentence, but these guys are nuts.

              Anyway, I think that is the point. You are going to believe what you are going to believe. You are right that there is no “Fact Check” that could change this. The only point of this was to slow the spread of information so that the flat-footed liberals could get their counterpoints prepared for whenever the media was FORCED to report on it.

              This is how Swift Boating would have played out back in 2004.

              1. I think it could be disinformation channeled through Guiliani. I am waiting for more verification of the story. For example, has the FBI verified that they (or someone) has possession of the laptops or hard drives?

          2. Fact checkers are just another way of saying ministry of truth retard.

            1. He has all but admitted he takes all media narratives as fact.

              1. The Post is a media outlet. Do you believe their story? If so, then you are believing a media narrative as fact.

                On this story, I am reserving judgement on whether it is true or not until more facts come out. Because Giuliani is the source, which casts some doubt on the story.

                1. So you filter your media sources though your own independent biases. That is cognitive bias. Here they have a hard drive with new pictures and videos. They are not even accessed on being a deep fake. They have shown the archive files, number of emails, etc.

                  And yet you don’t believe it. Yet you believed the media immediately when they told you what wisconsin gun laws were and continued to believe the media even after I linked you the story.

                  Youre a partisan dumbass with a heavy case of cognitive bias.

            2. Astounding. You are that afraid of fact checking.

              1. Thanks for pointing out your ignorance of what has been passing for fact checking.

          3. The ‘fact checking’ game is an impossible standard for the tech companies. The fact that they’re willing to play the game tells me everything I need to know about HOW fact checking will be utilized.

            1. Exactly. “Fact-checking” shouldn’t be the purview of these companies because that’s not their job. There are plenty of places to go to “fact-check” stuff.

              They’re doing this because they are colluding with the Democrats in an Orwellian effort to establish one-party rule, forever.

              1. It’s not even possible. The only way to ‘fact’ check is if they become journalistic outfits… ie publishers. They’ve put themselves in an absolutely retarded position and I have zero sympathy for them.

                If they claim that their platforms can no longer be used to publish non-factual stories, and the tech companies themselves create the infrastructure to fact-check said stories, then they are now “part” of the story process, not just neutral parties facilitating the sharing and transfer of information.

                They are publishers.

                And I say that as someone who doesn’t think section 230 should be abolished.

              2. And it’s fundamentally disrespectful to the audience, infantilizing users.
                I can determine the plausibility of information for myself. So can others.
                Educate: to bring forth from within.
                You never really know something you don’t figure out for yourself.

              3. The social media companies getting involved in fact checking isn’t happening in a vacuum. Ever since the 2016 election, everything they do is highly scrutinized.

                1. Well, their actions and motivations certainly became clear for everyone to see in the last 24 hours.

      3. All news should wait for Facebook to fact check it. I wonder who at Facebook checks the facts?

        1. Talk about straw men. Nobody said all media should wait on Facebook.

          1. Your exact words above:

            “At this point, temporarily until it is fact checked. That seems like a reasonable thing for Facebook to do.

            Everyone could wait for them to complete that step, then react.”

            1. So yes, she has descended completely into Lying Jeffy territory.

            2. I’ll clarify, despite your being disingenuous: by “everyone”, I meant everyone here (i.e. the commentariat). I didn’t mean that other social sites, and media should wait on Facebook. Hope that clears things up.

          2. Right, just media unfavorable to Democrats. Thanks for that

      4. I think we all expected you to come down on the side of censorship because it’s the progs doing. Still you could hacee not been an evil piece of shit. Too late now.

        And no fuckstick, the reasonable thing is for them to tell people to educate themselves because it isn’t Facebook’s job.

      5. Sure, if they did that with every unverified story you might have a point, but funnily enough out of the dozen or so unverified stories targeting Trump, they never once felt the need to do so.

        1. Not one single fucking time in over four years.

        2. That is a valid criticism of Facebook.

          1. And yet it will have no bearing on any of your thoughts or statements going forward.

            1. I’d say the criticism, then, should be that they should fact check more stories, not fewer. Which means what they are doing in this case is still a reasonable thing to do.

              The bigger context you are losing site of is there are plenty of other ways to get news, including negative stories about Joe Biden, from other sources.

              1. Why are you assuming I’ve lost site of the bigger context? This is a discussion about Facebook and Twitter.

              2. You want even more filtered content so you don’t have to ever inspect anything for yourself. Youre a dumb person.

              3. “Libertarian” for filtering all news through Top Men

      6. wait? wait for how long, until the election is over, thats typical Bs just like we have to vote on it to see whats in it or like with Biden “i wont tell you what i’ll do until you elect me. thats BS

        1. IF Facebook takes that long to fact check the story while “temporarily” censoring it, call them out on it. But wait for them to actually do that. It’s only been, what, a day?

          1. Yeah, wait until after the election to criticize. That sounds reasonable.

            1. Sure, because that’s literally what I said. Right.

              1. It is literally what you said. Here’s the exchange:

                Ron: “wait? wait for how long, until the election is over, thats typical Bs

                WK: “IF Facebook takes that long . . . But wait for them to actually do that.

                1. Dee has reached the point where she has spewed so much bullshit she can’t even keep it straight.

      7. Right around Nov 4 it should be approved

        GFY

  5. While it is certainly correct that Twitter is not violating the Constitution, they are certainly violating their contract with their customers, perhaps even constituting fraud. Considering the nature of the violation, its impact on national elections, and the size of the company, I can see why some are calling for government intervention. I am not sure it is warranted, but I am not conversant with the applicable laws for interstate fraud.

    1. They are also “in kind contributors” under current (bogus) election law

    2. This is really the issue. Twitter, FB, and the like essentially have monopolies on social media. While they probably can’t be legally described as monopolies, they are, for all practical purposes, because there aren’t really any reasonable substitutes, and they have enormous reach. They have the ability to set the agenda for billions of people.

      I’m not conversant in the laws either, but I wonder if a case could be made that once they began actively exercising editorial control over content (ie, fact checking, deleting posts, establishing “community standards” etc), they stopped being a “platform” and became a “publisher,” so they lost any claim to protection.

      1. Gab seems to be a viable alternative.

        Sure, you get fascists, racists, nazis, and supremacists of every variety spewing their theories and meming people into oblivion. Some of it is actually quite funny. Stupid, but funny.

        But, you can also ignore all of this noise, and take it in good humor, and move on with your life.

        The single largest knot in most people’s throats these days is the inability to simply move on with their life when confronted with something objectionable. I have no idea how so many people became so thin skinned, so quickly.

        1. Apple and Google stores removed gab, making it much more difficult for your average user. Some would see this as anti free market. But not the leftitarians here.

          1. Well, then Gab should just start their own smartphone company. And search engine. And finance company. What am I missing here?

            1. Operating system and cell phone network. They’ll probably need to eventually make their own silicon because ARM will stop selling them chips if they get that far.

              1. If they need a whole infrastructure, they could always partner with Huawei and AliBaba. That would show Facebook and Twitter.

                1. The much easier way to show Facebook and Twitter would be to use “Magic Underwear” to communicate with, with MUCH better fidelity and bandwidth, and bypass Facebook and Twitter entirely!

                  The Angel Moroni, Bumoni, Spumoni, BALONEY, Goo-goney, Gah-GOONI, will show us the way! SHOW us the WAY to the Angel Moroni, Bumoni, Spumoni, BALONEY, Goo-goney, Gah-GOONI, PLEASE, Chuckles the Snarky Piglet!

            2. Political bribes?

            3. Universe for radio waves.

            4. The host provider, programming language, bank, credit processor…

          2. I find that an app is not needed to use Gab. The site is glitchy from time to time, but still runs sufficiently well through a desktop or phone browser. It does seem like more people are starting to migrate to Gab, notwithstanding the limitations. I do not think it will be so long before Twitter and Facebook collapse.

        2. Sure, there are alternatives, but none with the reach of the major companies. Social media is the new “public square,” and they control it, and when they start picking and choosing who gets a platform and who doesn’t, the control the free flow of information.

          As far as ignoring bullshit, yes, you can. It’s super easy. I scroll directly thru SQRLSY and White Knight’s posts every day.

          1. “Sure, there are alternatives, but none with the reach of the major companies.”

            So what? 30 years ago, you could say the same thing about Blockbuster video. In fact, many did. They complained that Blockbuster’s virtual monopoly on video rentals allowed them to dictate “decency standards” (aka the Blockbuster Cut) on studios. It took about 10 years for netflix to destroy Blockbuster, but the entire time before it was obvious, people were calling for government intervention.

            These companies can be deposed, but the first step is for the populace to realize that they shouldn’t go running to Big Government to solve for every market outcome they dislike.

            1. When did blockbuster collude with movie companies to disallow movies to other vendors? We have seen collusion with FB and Twitter.

            2. Part of the issue with your comparison is that Blockbuster never had the reach within one of the two major political parties that BigTech does. Many of their employees worked on the Obama campaigns, and their upper management guys are being hired for positions on the current one. Netflix is also in thick with the Democrats and was a key driver behind the Net Neutrality policies that Obama’s FCC implemented before Pai ended them.

              The big problem here is that the Democrats are blatantly attempting to implement a system of government where businesses and corporations operate in the interest of a single political party.

              1. e.g. Fascism. Literally, not figuratively. Almost word for word the textbook definition of Fascism (minus the revisionist history addition of Fascism as a right wing ideology).

          2. Yep.
            The one feature added here that I embrace is the little vertical dashes that make it simple to scroll past certain of “those people” to the next post.

          3. “Sure, there are alternatives, but none with the reach of the major companies.”

            Have you considered that maybe smaller is better–especially when it comes to connecting with friends and family.

            Start a Slack instance for friends and family.. I still think Slack is superior to Facebook–especially because of the way it interfaces with third party apps. It’s not a good way to interact with strangers, but maybe separating strangers out from friends and family in a separate app is a good thing.

            1. P.S. MeWe obviously isn’t as big as Facebook, and they’ll be subject to the law of declining returns eventually–but I understand they had some 6 million users as of 2019 and were showing tremendous growth.

      2. Facebook, arguably, although you might ha e a hard time arguing it is a monopoly with people under, say, 25 years of age.

        Twitter, a monopoly? Nah. There’s no big moat or lock-in around a business model that lets you post short messages.

        1. As you said below, Facebook and Twitter’s customers are not the people who post content. It’s advertisers. They make their money through ads.

          No other platform has the global reach or amount of subscribers that Facebook and Twitter have, which makes them a far less desireable option for advertising that the major companies. That gives them enormous advantage over other platforms, as well as preventing entry into the marketplace. If you can’t get ads, you can’t make money. If you can’t make money, you can’t keep the lights on, AND you don’t get invited to testify before Congress and structure regulations to your own benefit.

          Is it a legal monopoly? Probably not. I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not an expert there. Is it a de facto monopoly in that it has the market pretty much cornered, so much so that there’s no significant competition? Yes.

          1. A monopoly is defined as “any company the federal government wants to go after”.

          2. Conservatives, who are a sizable chunk of the people in this country, are not powerless in this matter. For example, they could organize a boycott or migration away from Twitter. Move over to Parler; they provide the same service as Twitter.

    3. Facebook’s customers are advertisers, not the people who post content. You can go look for yourself, but their terms of use for accounts do not in any way guarantee they will post anything you want to post.

      I looked up all the user agreements for the popular social platforms and posted exact language here in a comment. I’ll try to find the comment and re-post it.

      1. “do not in any way guarantee they will post anything you want to post.”

        And since no one said they DO, you’re a fucking cunt.

      2. Facebook’s customers are advertisers, not the people who post content.

        Um, what the fuck are you going on about? That is, without question, factually incorrect. You are usually wandering around out in right field with your logic, but today you are drooling in the parking lot.

        The rest of what you said is garbage too. There is no such thing as a one-sided contract. By law, to be valid, a contract must benefit both parties. The company can and should be held to the TOS. If a post is factual and they block it, the company is violating the TOS. As was stated elsewhere, the Post substantiated the story.

        1. Do you think people who have accounts on Facebook and post user content are Facebook’s customers?

          1. If they are not customers, why the fuck is there a TOS? Again, a contract has to benefit both parties or it is not valid. If the TOS is a contract, there is a customer.

            Facebook users are customers that pay Facebook in clicks.

        2. Facebook’s Terms of Service:

          https://www.facebook.com/terms.php

          “If we remove content that you have shared in violation of our Community Standards, we’ll let you know and explain any options you have to request another review, unless you seriously or repeatedly violate these Terms or if doing so may expose us or others to legal liability; harm our community of users; compromise or interfere with the integrity or operation of any of our services, systems or Products; where we are restricted due to technical limitations; or where we are prohibited from doing so for legal reasons.”

          That clause that says “of if doing so may expose us or others to legal liability” is Facebook’s lawyers’ clause that basically says Facebook can remove your content and give you no explanation or recourse.

          1. basically says Facebook can remove your content and give you no explanation or recourse.

            No it doesn’t. Legal liability is an actual thing. If they are not exposed to actual legal liability, they can’t use that as an excuse.

            1. Dee is taking a pummeling today.

  6. “Twitter also temporarily blocked users from sharing the article,”

    You mean, “censor”?

  7. “Today is the final day of the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings.”

    If the “preference” bombshell didn’t ruin her chances, this surely will. Legendary journalist Dan Rather tweeted a devastating takedown of the absurd philosophy called originalism.

    If you want to be an “originalist” in law, maybe you should go all the way. Cooking on a hearth. Leeches for medicine. An old mule for transportation. Or maybe you can recognize that the world changes.

    I mean, this is just brilliant stuff. No way she recovers from this.

    #StopBarrett

    1. Gun owners can only have flintlock blunderbusses.

    2. I’m sure every powerful person quakes with fear at the mere mention of the name “Dan Rather.”

      1. I was too young to follow politics when he was forced out of his old job for completely illegitimate reasons. I’m nevertheless quite familiar with his reputation as a giant in the field of journalism.

        #LibertariansForRather

    3. It would be amusing to see how many people in the Twitterverse could tell you who Dan Rather is without googling it.

      1. What are msnbc’s ratings?

        1. Whatever Twitter says they are?

        2. Somewhere between zero and zip point shit.

    4. “Maybe you should go all the way. Cooking in a hearth. Leeches for medicine”

      Anyone who reads the law as written should move to a communist shithole country? I think the communists are actually trying to get rid of those people, not add more

    5. “Or maybe you can recognize that the world changes.”

      Like our Founding Fathers did when they put an explicit clause in the Constitution allowing for changing the Constitution as the world changed? Or do you mean as the world changes into one where nobody gives a shit about the Constitution? Because if I were Dan Rather I might be a little hesitant to endorse the position that we’re all free to interpret the law as we see fit, unless he’s decided he can now answer the question of what’s the frequency, Kenneth.

      1. Great reference!

        Dan Rather made himself irrelevant when he lied. The fact that the rest of media can’t see that they have gone just as batshit crazy is only because they are all self-referencing these days.

      2. I wonder how Rather would respond if someone violated the terms of a contract with him, and when he sued the judge said, “Sorry Mr Rather but it’s a living contract”.

  8. I call for a total boycott of twitter and Facebook, and any company that advertises on their platforms!
    Anarchist of the world, unite!!

    1. Done! But I never had an account with them anyway. Also I’m not an anarchist.

      1. You are an anarchist if you do not fully support global socialism.
        Twitter and Facebook say so; therefore it must be true.

        1. I will start a Facebook group for Boycott FB and Twitter. Then tweet the meeting place for the mostly peaceful Anarchistic protests!

          1. 1 Hacker Way in Menlo Park, CA 94025

            1355 Market St. Ste. 900 San Francisco, CA 94103

  9. “Doing so also opened Twitter and Facebook up to allegations of suppressing information critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden ”

    Suppressing. You mean “censor”?

  10. “Parler, a social media platform for conservative refugees of Twitter and Facebook, could ban anyone questioning the New York Post story.”

    BTW: This is an odious bit of claptrap from ENB. Just because Parler is a place where conservatives have retreated to after being banned, doesn’t make them a Conservative platform. It is telling that Parler has specifically dedicated itself to free expression, and yet ENB sees them as part of the ideological divide between the left and right. It is telling because it shows just how far gone libertarians like her really are.

      1. Not even with Tony’s diseased little phallus.

    1. Just because Parler is a place where conservatives have retreated to after being banned, doesn’t make them a Conservative platform

      It’s like saying the Poles were already commies because they retreated east from the panzer divisions that were wiping them out.

      1. The reason this is so odious is that ENB was *trying* someway, somehow to find an example of a Conservative website moderating for viewpoint. And she couldn’t think of one. Not one. So she just cast about for the evil place that she knows the fringe right hangs out.

  11. “Facebook could decide to ban any content critical of Biden.”

    You mean “censor”?

  12. “By definition, Twitter can’t violate the First Amendment rights of the president, members of Congress, or anyone else.”

    The Second Circuit disagrees.

  13. By definition, Twitter can’t violate the First Amendment rights of the president, members of Congress, or anyone else

    Wasn’t there a court case about this a couple of years back where the judge ruled the exact opposite of this statement?

    1. Found it: https://nypost.com/2019/07/09/us-court-rules-trump-cant-block-critics-on-twitter/

      Writing for a three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan, Judge Barrington Parker said that the president’s @realDonaldTrump account on Twitter is indeed a public forum and that “once the President has chosen a platform and opened up its interactive space to millions of users and participants, he may not selectively exclude those whose views he disagrees with.”

      1. Trump can’t block people on Twitter, but Twitter can block them or even censor his account at any time.

        1. Twitter is blocking people from Trump’s Twitter account. They’re blocking people from a legally protected public forum. I’m sure this will be different somehow from me bulldozing a legally protected wetland on my property because ORANGE MAN BAD, but surely you can see how absurd that reasoning would be.

  14. In regards to Twitter and Hunter Biden, I don’t see this as a Section 230 issue–and I think there is legitimate question to be asked about whether Twitter and others are actively suppressing the speech of its users in fear of what Joe Biden and the Democrats will do to them if they win both the White House and the Senate in November.

    “A chilling effect is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction.[1] The right that is most often described as being suppressed by a chilling effect is the US constitutional right to free speech. A chilling effect may be caused by legal actions such as the passing of a law, the decision of a court, or the threat of a lawsuit; any legal action that would cause people to hesitate to exercise a legitimate right (freedom of speech or otherwise) for fear of legal repercussions.”

    —-Chilling Effect

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect

    Isn’t that what we’re talking about here?

    The Democrats have been trying to intimidate social media into suppressing speech that they don’t like since President Trump won the election of 2016, and it’s working! If Section 230 enters into the discussion here, it’s as a means for the left to threaten social media into cracking down on speech that the Democrats don’t like.

    1. The Democrats have been trying to intimidate social media into suppressing speech that they don’t like

      While I can’t argue with this statement, the Democrats are hardly alone. The whole discussion about Section 230 being raised by the Republicans is nothing more than a cudgel to intimidate social media into hosting speech that they do like.

      1. Its actually about removing excess legal protections from companies that don’t agree with free speech. It makes them like every other non internet company. The God damn horror of it all.

      2. Two points:

        1) This is in response to a specific incident regarding Hunter Biden. We’re talking about this because of Hunter Biden.

        2) Supporting the government suppression of hate speech is a generally accepted principle on the left, but the right is still reachable on the issue of free speech. They don’t realize they’re playing into the hands of the left on this, so they can be reached.

        Point out to the right that what they’re doing violates the First Amendment, and it gives them pause. Pointing out to progressives that what they’re doing violates the First Amendment, and it makes them horny. Using the coercive power of government to inflict their idea of the common good on those who oppose it is what it means to be a progressive.

        1. Do you disagree with the following statement?
          “The whole discussion about Section 230 being raised by the Republicans is nothing more than a cudgel to intimidate social media into hosting speech that they do like.”

          1. No. It is a crudgel to force the social media companies to either stop censoring content or take responsibility for the content they claim to control. If they don’t want to host content they don’t like, good for them. That makes that content their own, because they control it.

            1. Either host this content you object to or subject yourself to countless lawsuits under your current business model.

              It’s the same approach left or right. It’s essentially a protection racket that the government is using to influence social media.

              1. “Either host this content you object to”

                When you only publish things you agree with or approve of you’ve become a curator, and it is reasonable to discuss the implications of that.

                1. Reason.com removes content like spam ads from their comments section. I assume because of these actions, they don’t approve of that content. Should they be responsible, legally, for your posts because of that?

                  1. You tell me what you think. I am undecided but lean towards no.

                    1. I believe that Section 230 is good law. The internet is fundamentally different than a newspaper, and comments sections like this one do provide a value to society. Reason shouldn’t be legally responsible for my comments just because they both host them and occasionally delete some comments.

                  2. I think cleaning litter off the side of the road is fundamentally different from removing campaign signs.

                    1. I don’t have faith that courts can tell the difference.

                    2. And leo reveals his fundamentally progressive belief that the rubes serving on juries are too stupid to come to the correct conclusions

                    3. Forget juries, I don’t even trust judges. And neither should you.

                    4. I don’t necessarily disagree…

                    5. You’re trusting judges right now.
                      That’s exactly who 230 gives the power to, unchecked.

                  3. When did they start removing spam comments? I hadn’t noticed.

              2. I know. It is almostike stores would be held liable if they didn’t pull recalled goods from their store shelves. Thank God we don’t require that as law. It would open them up to lawsuits galore.

                1. Is there an obvious distinction similar to a “recall” with respect to speech? I’m not aware of such a thing.

                  1. Your entire example of opening them up to legal liabilities.

                    It is fine if you like some industries over others. But don’t pretend it is some sort of pure motive to grant one excess protections over others.

          2. “The whole discussion about Section 230 being raised by the Republicans is nothing more than a cudgel to intimidate social media into hosting speech that they do like.”

            I think that is only part of it.

            I think another part is the Democrats’ attempt to intimidate social media.

            I think another part is conservatives sick of being treated like shit.

      3. “While I can’t argue with this statement”

        You WILL immediately play “what about them!!!” because you’re garbage.

    2. this reminds me of someone who tried not to bake a cake for some thing they disapproved of. if the government can force someone to bake a cake then they can force someone to publish something. Neither of which I agree with however there is no equal to facebook but there are plenty of bakers.

      1. One of my worries is that this gets back to the equal time on radio thing that the left has been trying to reinstate to silence Rush Limbaugh. If republicans make a law to force Fb/Twitter to show their rambling then its a step to radio and tv being required to give equal time to all parties which would have to be monitored by the government. Let Fakebook and twitter die on their own when people get bored with sharing with friends on line instead of calling them and saying guess what we did today .

        1. ^ This

          “Publish that article” is absolutely no different than “bake that cake.”

          1. Yea you’re a genius all this kerfluffle is because Facebook and Twitter won’t “publish an article”.

          2. God what a stupid comparison. The baker takes individual customers and orders. If you at least tried for a rental kitchen disallowing kosher food to be prepared you’d be on the same level.

            But your reduction of fb to being an individualized contract with a user is just white knight level of dumb.

            1. There are people right on this page, on your side of this issue, making the argument that precisely what Facebook is doing wrong is violating their contact with an individual user.

              I’m pretty sure I’ve seen you make that argument.

              1. Facebook doesn’t have individualized contracts like a baker does you fucking idiot. They do with advertisers but not users.

                God youre dumb.

                1. Tell that to the people making the argument that Facebook is making breeches of contract.

                  The idea is that the violation is of an individuals rights to contract although it’s a blanket, group contract boilerplate. Anyway, it’s not my argument; to one your allies are making, so go argue with them.

          3. So … they are publishers?

            1. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet

              1. Is that a yes?

                1. It doesn’t matter what you call them. What they do is what they do.

    3. “—-Chilling Effect”

      It is also noteworthy that Facebook has been the target of an advertiser boycott among lefty companies, calling on them to “stop spreading articles of hate”- i.e. articles that the left disagrees with.

      On the one hand, Facebook is a victim here. But on the other hand, they started this by demonstrating their willingness to pick and choose “appropriate content” for their platform. *shrug*

      1. If it were only about Facebook, that might be one thing.

        The laws they make for Facebook are likely to apply to everyone else, too.

  15. After listening to Gillespie’s interview with Ira Glaser, I’m more skeptical of the “private companies can enforce any speech restrictions they want because they are private” line of reasoning. I think the critique of libertarians for questioning government power (and abuses) but being 100% ok with corporate power (and abuses) has some validity. I like to hope that if Facebook and Twitter were actively policing liberal speech rather than conservative I would still have the same concern.

    1. We are a half step from Actual Fascism. The majority of large Corporations in this country have rallied around an approved Agenda for the rest of us, are suppressing anything else as “hate” or “misinformation”, and are actively colluding with a party that will pack the courts and the legislature banana republic-style and codify their status.

      But that’s OK with Reason, because corporations are doing it to us before the one party government arrives.

      1. And the entire conservative population of the country has no agency to do business with different corporations? They cannot switch from Twitter to Parker? They cannot watch Fox News instead of CNN?

        1. Do you have a link to Parker?

          1. So, you are going to avoid the discussion by dwelling on my iPhone’s replacing “Parler” with “Parker”. OK, it indicates you have no real response.

        2. No acrually, they can’t switch from Twitter to Parker.

        3. Im not talking just about Social Media, but GFY nonetheless

          1. OK, that’s a different conversation. There are worrisome trends in politically-correct thinking that affect people working for big corporations. I’m concerned about that, too.

        4. We get it. You support corporate censorship and abuse.

        5. Disingenuous argument. The alternatives tend to be small or only marginally more acceptable. Corporate regulatory capture insures this remains the case. Deregulation would be the best option but they least likely. The start your own business or use alternatives is becoming more and more a false argument. Making that argument as a counterpoint to arguments in favor of ending section 230 is nearing a logical fallacy. It is equivalent to calling for judicial reform without wanting to decrease the number of criminal codes.
          No ending section 230 is not the answer but pretending that those upset and wanting to end social medias blatant bias as wanting to force social media to publish stuff they don’t want to, while also claiming they are not publishers is inconsistent. The best argument for conservatives and libertarians should be that we need less regulations to improve competition. Unfortunately that seems also the least likely to occur outcome. I wish self proclaimed libertarians would stop the use an alternative if you don’t like it argument, or at least acknowledge how difficult that really is.

          1. The point is stronger with Facebook, where there is a strong social network that very likely includes a lot of your family and friends.

            Not so strong for Twitter, which is just a site where people post short posts. There’s no moat around that. It’s a service anyone could provide, and it’s low cost to switch to another platform.

            Going back to Facebook, though. Why is it important that Facebook be a place for political discussion? One can use it to post pictures of your kids and cats, and what you ate for dinner, and discuss politics somewhere else. In other words, the primary social function of Facebook’s strong social network is right there for any person to take advantage of, as long as they avoid discussing controversial topics.

            1. As long as certain people avoid discussing certain controversial subjects from certain views. Fix that for you.

              1. Maybe so, but keep this in perspective: Facebook is not a platform where serious political discussion takes place. It’s a place where people post pictures of their cats and selfies — and get in stupid political arguments with their uncle who re-posts political memes.

                Everyone has lost their damn minds arguing over this.

                It’s as stupid as when Facebook was accused of not guarding against Russian bots posting disinformation. If you saw examples of what the Russians were posting it was cartoonish stuff that would only influence people with moronic intelligence.

    2. This.

      Also, there is a huge difference between “The government should come in with guns and force them to allow my preferred speech” and not complaining about it and thinking that it is just fine.

      Reason seems to want me to be okay with the take that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. I cannot get with that program. There are plenty of things that are wrong that should not be illegal. that is something libertarians are generally quite comfortable with.

      this happens to be something that is not only wrong, it is dangerous to society. The far left has been working hard on this for many years. they periodically use the government cudgel to get what they want with this control of information flow, but generally they use more of a non-governmental approach. That does not make it all warm and fuzzy and love and puppies.

      There is a reason that totalitarian regimes control the flow of information. With that, they control the people.

      why do you think these people want to control the flow of information. it is not because they are concerned about Russian trolls. They are trying to control the government. You know, that entity that has a monopoly on force?

      Remember when we used to stand up for the right of idiots we disagree with to speak in the public square? Yeah, that was based on a principle.

      That principle is more important than your personal disdain for Donald Trump. History has shown that once you lose the power to communicate freely, getting it back is extremely difficult and costly.

      1. Excellent.

      2. “Reason seems to want me to be okay with the take that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.”

        Have you seen Gullespie’s tweets about this? (I know that’s ironic. And so does he.) He is very critical of Facebook and Twitter on this one.

        ENB says in the blog post we are commenting on that she considers it a “bad move”.

        1. And then she tells us how she really feels by writing this article.

          1. The “bad move” quote is from this article.

        2. She also redefined “censorship” while falsely accusing others of redefining “censorship”. Multitasker extraordinaire.

          1. When lefties do this, the question is always: ignorance or dishonesty?

            1. And the answer is always: ‘yes’.

          2. It’s funny how all of the CACLLs are repeating the same right-wing talking point about the true meaning of the word, censorship, encompassing private as well as government acts.

            It is not uncommon to mean government censorship when one uses the term, but you all are pretending like it’s some bizarre take to do so.

            1. Sure. Idiots say a lot of stupid things and don’t know what words mean. Keep defending your lack of education.

    3. Take your line of thought one step further. How would you remedy Facebook or Twitter’s “censorship”? What could possibly go wrong with making the Federal government the judge of whether big social media platforms are being fair or not?

      1. It’s funny how you assume the conclusion there.

        1. But she’s careful to do it as questions, so she can pretend she’s not making any statements.

          Who’s the dumbest commentator on Reason? Why would it be Dee?

          1. Here’s a statement: I think it’s a bad idea to get the government involved in making social media fair and unbiased. I think it would end badly.

            1. So get rid of 230 then?

              1. Nope, because that’s not what Section 230 does.

                1. Section 230 doesn’t affect internet companies?

                  1. It is not trying to make them fair and unbiased.

        2. It’s funny how you assume the conclusion there.

          Upthread he was trying to undermine an argument by calling it a logical fallacy when it wasn’t. Not surprising he doesn’t see the fallacy here.

        3. It’s a tradition among libertarians to try to look ahead to what might go wrong with government intervention.

            1. Right, sure, whatever. Libertarians never think about the unintended consequences of government policies. Never happens.

                1. It’s cool. I understand that you don’t know much about libertarianism.

      2. How would you remedy Facebook or Twitter’s “censorship”?

        Simple full disclosure requirements for all Terms of Service.
        When a media platform removes or in any way interferes with a post or whatever, they must specify the precise words, images, or phrases that violate the ToS, not some vague, generic “see our rules” bullshit.
        If their terms of service say they won’t discriminate on political grounds (or their head man say so under oath) then each separate suppression becomes a contract violation subject to civil suits.
        They could title the legislation “The lawyers and bureaucrats full employment act of 2020”.

        1. Don’t remember which account it was, but for one of the posts yesterday they used the alert indicating the link might have malware in it.

          That’s straight fraud.

          1. No, they were completely truthful. They said the link might be “dangerous”. OOOOH.

            1. The one I’m thinking of literally had the word malware in it.

        2. You are acting as if it is easy for a company to just specify what is within or out of bounds when they start moderating based on whatever. That is never going to be enforceable in court. It is a law that cannot be enforced.

          The way to fix this is to encourage your friends and family to see why moderating for politics is bad- whether you are lefty or right. And go somewhere else.

    4. I’ll reiterate, if those companies are blatantly colluding with one of the two major political parties to suppress the First Amendment in the public square (and there has to be a concession that random shitposting is a different kettle of fish from a long-established press outfit), it calls into question as to what, if any, limits there should be on that sort of activity.

      If Twitter and Facebook can openly work with the Democrats to suppress information that’s damning to party politicians, can Republicans work with party-friendly corporations to do the same?

  16. Twitter has now also blocked the trump campaign account.

    Censorship done by private industry is still censorship. What the fuck has reason become on speech.

    Likewise ENB apparently thinks contracts are not worthwhile to enforce. The post article is in no violation of any Twitter rule. The drive was not hacked. And even under the guise it was, the rule was not enforced in hundreds of other examples so the contract terms would be considered void under arbitrary enforcement.

    God reason is a joke these days on speech. At one point they attacked these actions, not defended them.

    1. recast censorship as something private companies can do

      Censorship is something private companies can do you feckless cunt. You fucked up your own strawman argument.

      1. Yes! That is a great idea!

        We should all support censorship by private companies!

        In fact, I have no idea what the rest of our communications industry is doing. Where the hell is Cisco on this? What the hell is wrong with AT&t?

        These telecommunication giants are on top of it in China. they know how to block all of this stuff. Google is outstanding it blocking things that should not be seen.

        If we had competent companies, there would be no problems with dissent. All of this crap could be blocked without the need for any government intervention.

      2. Censorship is something private companies can do”

        Actually thats not True a medicine company can not censor test showing harm caused by their product or like when Ford got in trouble for censoring the bad test on Pintos.

        1. You’re an imbecile.

    2. Twitter and Facebook, could ban anyone questioning the New York Post story. Twitter could disallow all election content and Reddit can nix any posts about narwhals or sloths.

      Not based on the current terms of service, a contract you fucking dumbass.

      Enb is fucking worthless.

      1. Breaking your contact with the consumer is okay because something, something, it’s only censorship if the government does it.

      2. “Not based on the current terms of service, a contract you fucking dumbass.”

        Their TOS absolutely allows them to moderate content they feel is objectionable, or otherwise harms the proper discourse of the site as they see fit. They do not promise anywhere in their TOS to be viewpoint neutral.

        Trying to pin this down to contract terms is a losing cause.

    3. Without Section 230, however, companies would be forced to constantly defend their constitutional rights in court—which is expensive and time-consuming.

      And ending net neutrality ended the internet.

    4. Twitter has now also blocked the trump campaign account.

      Alright, now that is a violation of the 1st amendment, as current jurisprudence holds that the President’s Twitter account is a public forum: https://nypost.com/2019/07/09/us-court-rules-trump-cant-block-critics-on-twitter/

      When can we sue Twitter into oblivion?

      1. I have a feeling that this is a position in the court only holds when it cuts in one direction.

      2. The president isn’t allowed to block people. Twitter isn’t the president.

        1. But Twitter is blocking people from the President’s Twitter account. They’re closing a legally protected public forum.

          1. There is no legal protection.

            First of all, this is the Campaign account, not the president’s account. If Trump wanted to cancel his account right now, he could. It is just that he cannot have a forum where he is discussing things and refuse to let others participate.

  17. NICE JOB FOR EVERY ONE CHEK DETAIL OPEN THIS LINK……… Check my site.

  18. More bad economic news.

    Reason.com’s benefactor Charles Koch only earned $333,000,000 yesterday.

    Which means he’s still barely in the global top 20.

    Open. The. Borders. NOW!!!!!!

    #HowLongMustCharlesKochSuffer?

  19. “Must be done by the government” is not part of the definition of “censorship”

    Censorship is not any less objectionable because an individual or private entity engage in it, especially when they are deliberately stifling the ability of millions of people to access information for political purposes.

    This seems to be quite a blind spot for libertarians.

    1. Not for libertarinas, just the wannabe Cosmotarian Proggies that work here

      1. Perhaps you are right.

    2. I’d prefer that all speech is hosted on the internet. More speech is always better. But I don’t pretend that the government has any moral authority to push this onto private companies. Property rights are as important as speech rights, after all.

      1. “I’d prefer that all speech is hosted on the internet.”

        Explain.

      2. What does your comment have to do with his?

        1. Censorship is not any less objectionable because an individual or private entity engage in it

          That statement is false. Property rights are as important as speech rights. Censorship by private parties is not necessarily objectionable just because it is censorship. Censorship by the government is always objectionable, and illegal. There is an important distinction between the two.

          1. “This statement is false.”

            Just because you disagree with it, does not make it a false statement. You are attempting to nullify my opinion as though it was an expression of falsifiable fact. It was not.

            For example, in many states, people have the right to shoot other people dead on the spot for property crimes. This does not mean, however, that killing somebody for trying to steal your car in the middle of the night is less objectionable simply because you had the legal right to do so. An argument can be made that such a killing is no less objectionable than any other murder. Arguing that a subjective claim with respect to the propriety of taking of human life is false because property rights happen to be implicated is nothing more than the expression of another opinion.

            You are free to disagree, but recognize the the basis for your disagreement is your opinion.

            1. Just because you disagree with it, does not make it a false statement. You are attempting to nullify my opinion as though it was an expression of falsifiable fact. It was not.

              Fair enough. The word “false” was a poor choice of words.

              1. So was your argument.

                1. Which part do you disagree with? That property rights are as important as speech rights, or that private actors are different than government and should be treated as such?

                  1. Because we aren’t arguing about property rights. You keep ignoring the fact that the argument is over extra legal protections, not property rights.

                    Because you’re completely dishonest on this topic.

      3. “Property rights are as important as speech rights, after all.”

        Oh yeah?
        Try putting up a free speech sign in you business that freely says “No blacks or homosexuals or democrats will be served”.
        See what kind of property rights you actually have.

        1. Well, we hardly live in a libertarian society, that is clear.

          But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be the goal. One violation of property rights doesn’t deserve another.

    3. the problem is forcing entities to not censor will need laws that can be applied to every day life and will require more government larges and interference in every day life. Of course if they just followed section 230 and allowed everything we wouldn’t be here looking at this issue

  20. Holy crap! That is your initial take on this Biden email story?

    The big story here is that burying a story and preventing people from talking about it on social media doesn’t violate the first amendment? That is the important take home here?

    I can’t even with these people. Can you even? Because I can’t even.

    1. Literally shaking.

    2. The initial take was robbie heavily implying the drive filled with pictures, video, and emails was fake because Bannon and Giuliani were involved.

      1. At least he had the nads to call out people who were suppressing the story. Even if it was week tea, he was on the right side of the censorship issue.

        Unfortunately, he seems to be standing alone on the right side. That is shocking to me.

    3. Unfortunately, I can even.

    4. That’s what I’ve noticed, Cyto. The Bidens are basically caught red handed and the headlines the next morning are about……media censorship? This is the spin. Don’t make it about corrupt elites! It’s a culture war issue! Divide and conqueror. Fight about which side gets to control the giant censorship machines, plebs. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

      1. It would have been about “corrupt elites” and swept under the rug if Twitter and Facebook hadn’t gone Full Ministry of Truth in one fell swoop. They’re locking down the accounts of not only established media organs, but members of the Republican judiciary committee, the Trump campaign, and the White House press secretary.

        If Zuck and Dorsey don’t tard-wrangle their tranny IT force, they’re going to be staring down the barrel of federal election tampering charges.

        1. Only if Trump wins, Red. Doubt DoJ files charges before November 3rd.

          1. Sure. And we need to look at the medium-term here as well.

            We just finished up a census that will determine voting districts for the next ten years. Whoever controls the state legislatures controls how those will be parceled out. You know it, I know it, so we need to just accept that.

            The incumbent party typically loses seats in the mid-terms. If Biden wins, the battle royale in 2022 is going to be off the charts.

    5. Reason hasn’t covered anything in this area of news since Trump was acquitted by the senate, so I’m not surprised.

  21. So let me get this straight. Twitter and Facebook are actively working to ban and otherwise make unavailable to its users news that puts one of the candidates in an electoral race in a bad light, potentially violating campaign finance regulations in the process, but this isn’t censorship, election interference or illegal. Is this the section 230 exemption at work?

    1. If you bill yourself as a public utility you should behave as such. If you want to act like a publisher you should be treated as such.

    2. “Congress shall make no law”, that’s the beginning of the First Amendment.

      You are absolutely correct that what Twitter did was censorship.

      ENB is incorrect to say that it isn’t censorship when Twitter suppresses the speech of its users. By every standard use of the word “censorship” by average Americans, censorship is suppressing other people’s speech. It violates the First Amendment when the government does it, but most people still understand it as censorship even when their boss does it to them in the company chat room.

      The other reason ENB is wrong about this is, as I say above, the ultimate cause of Twitter engaging in this is related to the threats of the Democrats to remove their Section 230 protections if the social media companies don’t crack down on the speech of their users. The Democrats have been screaming at the social media companies for four years about what they would do to them if they didn’t restrict the speech of its users–and it’s working!

      When the social media companies start buckling to the demands of the government out of fear of what the government will do to them if they don’t restrict the speech of their users, that’s censorship–even by ENB’s definition.

      1. But both sides!

        Republicans are threatening them if they don’t allow people the right to speak! That’s exactly the same thing! Demanding that they not censor political speech that the left disagrees with is exactly the same thing as demanding that they do sensor political speech that the left disagrees with!!!

        1. Republicans are threatening them if they don’t allow people the right to speak!

          The problem is that you don’t have a right to speak on Twitter. That’s the distinction.

          And what of Twitter’s property rights? Do you not care about that?

          1. “The problem is that you don’t have a right to speak on Twitter”

            The Second Circuit disagrees.

          2. I might add that the other problem is that the right is selling the repeal of Section 230 as if it will somehow make social media stop discriminating against them–when the opposite is true.

            The government will use liability protection as a means to take over and regulate the industry–much like they did with the studio system and the tobacco industry.

            And no one anywhere in government, except for Donald Trump, will ever stick their necks out to give conservatives free reign on social media. The whole point of regulation will be to purge conservative voices from social media.

            The right is carrying wood for the Democrats with their opposition to Section 230–and the Democrats are using that wood to build a gallows from which to hang conservative speech online.

            When the Democrats tell the social media companies that hate speech will no longer be tolerated by regulators, opposition to BLM and affirmative action will no longer be tolerated on social media–and that’s just one example.

            Shortly after Section 230 is repealed, the social media companies will enter into a consent decree to protect them from liability, just like the studio system and the tobacco industry, and “All Lives Matter” will become hate speech–just like advertising tobacco became verboten in the wake of the government’s settlement with the tobacco industry despite the First Amendment.

            1. You said it best Ken and the GOP is all in, that said i think many of teh RINOs are happily carrying that wood because they know the result will be just as you say and only the correct Democrat approved Republicans will be able to run for office ever again. the whole country will be like California, a two party system in name only

              1. There is something to that.

                Marine Le Pen couldn’t get any traction in French politics because every time it looked like the National Front might do well, someone would stick a microphone in her father’s face (or some other old line party official)–and he would say something embarrassing about holocaust denial, etc.

                There was no greater favor the left could have done for Marine Le Pen than to pass laws against hate speech and holocaust denial. Almost as soon as the government made it illegal and expensive for the National Front to say idiotic and awful things about the holocaust, the National Front’s popularity started skyrocketing.

                Without France prohibiting hate speech and holocaust denial, it is extremely unlikely that Marine Le Pen could have come in second to be the Prime Minister of France.

                It is entirely possible that the Republican leadership is being cynical, but I think it’s more likely that there are so many conservatives who have legitimately been discriminated against by social media, that their grievances are real–and they just want to strike back at social media for the way they’ve been treated with anything they have at hand. Section 230 just happens to be blunt instrument to them, and that’s how they think they’re using it.

                It’s a cursed sword.

                P.S. The best way to fight racism in this country isn’t through hate speech laws. There is no better way to discredit racists than to put a camera on them and stick in microphone in their faces. They want to say their stupid things so badly. They’re like the Westboro Baptist Church–all the world over. If they stayed up all night trying to think of a better way to disgrace themselves in the eyes of the public, they couldn’t come up with anything better than saying the stupid shit they say when they get a chance. Free speech gives them that chance. If you make it impossible for them to say stupid shit with hate speech laws, how will you discredit them when they no longer have the means to discredit themselves?

                1. Honestly, ken, shut the fuck up about this “free speech exposes racism best” bullshit.
                  Your eagerness to immediately concede defeat then act like negotiating your surrender is noble is bullshit.
                  Traditional racism isn’t a mainstream issue anymore. Full stop.
                  The best way to defeat racism is to stop capitulation to leftist propaganda, get over historical grievances, correctly identify the racism of leftist ideas (like critical race theory), and emphasize that all of us are Americans first.
                  I don’t think your attempt to smear the right by analogy to Le Pen is malicious. It’s cowardly.

                2. “The best way to fight racism in this country isn’t through hate speech laws. There is no better way to discredit racists than to put a camera on them and stick in microphone in their faces.”

                  Literally the worst argument you could possibly make against hate speech laws.
                  “Your bullshit is totally right, but a more moderate approach is better” isn’t taking a stand, it’s begging your attacker for mercy.

          3. Twitter operates on a terms of service. They are held to those terms.

            All youre doing is defending censorship here Leo.

            1. Sue them for violation of TOS.

              1. +1.

                That’s a contract issue.

              2. When people have tried, the courts have thrown those suits out citing section 230.

                1. Contract violations aren’t covered by Section 230.

                  1. California judges disagree.

                    1. Show me a link.

                      Section 230 doesn’t protect against being sued for contract violations.

                      It doesn’t protect them from being sued for drunk driving accidents either.

                    2. See below. The legal reasoning of the day is that section 230 protects tech companies from any suit against their moderation, regardless of their terms of service.

                    3. Megan Murphy lawsuit ken.

                2. You have to be specific about which cases here. If there are cases seeking damages from Twitter for the speech of @RandomUser1 then those frivolous cases should absolutely be thrown out.

                  Those types of cases have nothing to do with TOS.

                  1. Section 230 is about them not being liable for things that are done by third parties–and protects them from suits that allege this.

                    It does nothing in cases of contract violations.

                    If they removed your content in violation of a unilateral contract, a bilateral contract, or the TOS, you have a case against them for violating their contract.

                    It’s also absurd that we’re talking about Section 230 in terms of antitrust. Antitrust is about protecting consumers from things like collusion on pricing and monopoly rent. It’s absurd to talk about social media in that context–since the average user isn’t even paying for the service.

                    1. Back to my earlier point, Ken. The political right is only using Section 230 as a cudgel to force social media to bend their direction. Publish right-wing content or we’ll make you suffer extraneous lawsuits.

                      It might be different than what the political left is doing with respect to Section 230 and hate speech, but it’s not any better.

                    2. I think it is better in some ways.

                      If a society in which everyone can speak their minds is better, then fighting to be heard is fundamentally better than suppressing other people’s speech.

                      It isn’t right.

                      Forcing other people to do what you want with their property is wrong–but just because both of them are wrong doesn’t mean one isn’t better than the other.

                      And like I said, the right is reachable on this point. The right is reacting to being discriminated against unfairly. They aren’t doing this because they are fundamentally opposed to free speech.

                      I think the left is fundamentally opposed to free speech. To some extent, they’re reacting to Russian interference, conspiracy theories, racist trolls, etc., but they are also fundamentally hostile to the idea that Nazis have speech rights–are they not?

                    3. . . . or I might have written it better: The left is fundamentally hostile to the idea that Nazis have speech rights–that should be respected by government.

                  2. https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3037&context=historical

                    King filed this action to “hold FB accountable to its TOS contractual arrangements.” Id.at 1. Facebook has a contractual, adhesive set of Terms of Service (“ToS”) for its users, which King claims includes provisions that protect minority users from being punished for using certain terms in a “self-referential” or “empowering way.” Id. ¶ 15. He alleges that Facebook removed his access to the service or blocked content he posted on several occasions in 2018 for reasons it labeled as violations of the ToS. In Spring 2018, he“was banned” by Facebook when he posted a complaint regarding a confrontation he had with an attorney where he commented that he “feels like he is being treated like a nigger and cannot fight back physically or he will be at fault.” Id.¶30. On November 2, 2018, Facebook “banned” him again for violating its ToS after plaintiff posted about an argument with a “white male” who “got in his face and dropped 5 F-Bombs.”Id.¶31. King posted the sheriff’s report of the incident on Facebook, describing the report as biased and pointing out the race of the witnesses juxtaposed with his own race. Id.He was“banned” four to five more times for posting about this incident, including when he uploaded photos of the confrontation and the following text:…

                    Each of King’s claims against Facebook seeks to hold it liable as a publisher for either removing his posts,blocking his content, or suspending his accounts. These types of acts are barred by the immunity provided under Section 230 of the CDA. As the Ninth Circuit has explained, Section 230 of the CDA“immunizes providers of interactive computer services against liability arising from content created by third parties.” Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC(“Roommates”), 521 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Under Section230(c)(1), “providers or user of an interactive computer service shall not be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).

                    I managed to find a couple of quick examples, but this one with the actual decision in a convenient PDF essentially shows the pattern. The TOS is violated by the tech company (often more blatantly than this), and the court rules it’s irrelevant because section 230 insulates tech companies from facing lawsuits over their moderation.

                    1. “Because each cause of action accuses Facebook of wrongful acts it took as a publisher, none survives the application of Section 230(c)(1) of the CDA, and Facebook’s motion to dismiss is granted.”

                      IF IF IF they’re saying that Facebook violating the TOS (or whatever contract being violated) is okay because of Section 230, then I’m arguing that is a terrible misapplication of the law. The courts sometimes make big mistakes, and that appears to be an example of one. Regardless, if the law was misapplied in that instance, that doesn’t mean the law should be repealed–or that Facebook should be forced to answer in court for things Facebook didn’t say. It just means that verdict should be overturned on appeal.

                      If there needs to be a revision of the law that exempts contract violations, I’d be surprised. I don’t see anything in the law that suggests Section 230 should apply to breach of contract between two parties in a dispute. It’s supposed to be about not being responsible for what third parties parties–not the parties themselves breaching a contract.

                      P.S. This plaintiff was also making a charge of racism. It seems to me that the ruling may be more about whether Facebook can delete comments on its site rather than whether Facebook is protected from contract breaches by Section 230. I can’t help but wonder if the verdict might have been different if Facebook had terminated the user’s account rather than just suspended it.

                    2. This case in particular the plaintiff claimed that his use of the N word led to suspension or ban, but should have been fine by Facebook’s TOS (he cites the specific exemption for using certain terms in a “self-referential” or “empowering way”), and neither Facebook nor the judge seemed to dispute that. This is just one example, and most of them claim some sort of bias on the tech corporations’ part for obvious reasons. The judge’s ruling is virtually the same in every case; section 230 protects the tech company from any sort of legal action relating to their site moderation, including bans, shadow bans, demonetization, etc. and Terms of Service don’t matter. They’re like points on Who’s Line Is It Anyway.

                      I agree that it’s a terrible misapplication of the law, but it’s one that’s been allowed to occur for years now. Perhaps the proper way to fix section 230 is to clarify that it doesn’t absolve tech companies from any and every legal responsibility, because right now Mark Zuckerberg can livestream himself murdering a baby on Facebook and not face any charges because section 230.

              3. They have. Megan Murphy. The judge wrapped the contract issues under 230. I’ve told you this before. What the fuck?

          4. It is amazing how you still ignore the contractual nature that the business model of Twitter is based on.

            Your arguments never even consider contractual issues. You just think corporations can do whatever the fuck pleases them.

      2. I don’t think it’s big tech buckling to Democrat threats, I think they’re actually in on it. Most of the employees and leadership seem to be ideologically leftist, and the largest big tech corporations seem to be begging for Democrats to regulate them more (probably to stifle any competition).

        To me it seems that they’re in bed with each other.

        1. “I don’t think it’s big tech buckling to Democrat threats, I think they’re actually in on it.”

          I don’t disagree that they’re censoring with enthusiasm–especially the lower tiers of the company. The distinction I’m drawing is between violating the First Amendment and not violating the First Amendment.

          If Twitter is suppressing the speech of conservatives because they hate conservatives, that is perfectly in harmony with the First Amendment.

          If Twitter is suppressing the speech of conservatives because they take the threats that Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats have made against them in regards to what Congress will do to them if and when the Democrats take both the Senate and the White House, that probably isn’t acceptable according to the First Amendment. The First Amendment is supposed to protect our speech from those kinds of threats by politicians and the government.

          1. Okay, but assuming that’s the case, can anything be legally done about it? I don’t think that politicians can be prosecuted for making campaign promises, but I may be wrong.

            1. 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action if a government actor, or a private actor acting at the behest of the government, violates somebody’s constitutional rights. Both the private actor and the government can be held liable under this theory.

              The legal question is interesting. Are threats by government officials directed at a private entity, where the entity acquiesces to the threats and engages in conduct that would otherwise be prohibited had the government engaged in it directly, sufficient to demonstrate that the private actor has conspired with the government to deprive someone of their rights?

              I think the answer is most likely “no.” But, it is an interesting theory.

              1. Facebook taking down protest organizers back in May at the behest of governors and mayors was a much more direct example of this. If DOJ can’t do anything based on that, then there’s no chance of getting anything from maybe the Democrats saying they’ll repeal section 230 scared the tech companies into enforcing an open-secret woke censorship agenda.

                1. I agree that such a case is more likely to survive. How much more likely? Probably not much. The nexus between the government command and the private actor’s acquiescence must be fairly direct, and the constitutional violation must be clear. There is definitely room for an enterprising attorney or legal organization to explore such arguments.

            2. You can refuse to use their service.

              You can use a competing or different service. You can use Mastodon, which lets you set your own policies.

              You can use Parler.

              Victim of collision on the open sea
              Nobody ever said
              life was free
              Sink?
              Swim?
              Go down with the ship?
              Use your freedom of choice!

    3. Yes, this is how section 230 looks like. And some people here are still defending it…

  22. koch reason editors doubling down on their stupid assertions that a monopoly silicon valley powerful cabal of billionaires cannot affect the election results.

    I know it’s sad that ENB gets ALL her news from Twitter these days.

    1. Saves a lot of shoe-resoling.

    2. Pretty soon Twitter will be much happier with only vox, nyt, and atlantic content.

  23. Facebook, Twitter and Google have become left wing Democrat Party activists and operatives, and should be regulated as the partisan political organizations they’ve become.

    1. In 2015 Google chairman Schmidt formed a company called The groundwork. this company was designed to interface with the back end of social media and internet companies in order to benefit Democrat candidates, specifically Hillary Clinton. The entire plan was to control messaging that was either beneficial or harmful to Democrat candidates. this has been at the top of the agenda for many years now.

      It did not work terribly effectively in 2016. You have seen much public gnashing of teeth over this failure during the four years of the Trump administration.

      Well, this is the fruition of all of that work. They have put together quite the network of messaging control mechanisms. It is still far too leaky for their taste, but it might be enough to put an end to the American experiment

      1. Keep in mind that Google also controls about 90% of the internet ad market. “Just use a different service!” doesn’t apply with that kind of market domination.

        1. Especially when they can use their power to convince banks and credit card companies to cut off your funding.

          BigTech needs to be squashed. Section 230 is not the way to go about it, but that’s going to be the tool because it’s the easiest. Using existing anti-trust laws would be the better approach.

  24. Hey everyone,
    I think that some of us got off on the wrong foot the past couple days. I was considering just stopping commenting here, but I thought instead I’d give you all a second chance and a chance to apologize. These past two days I’ve been insulted repeatedly because of my homosexuality. People called me ‘fag’ and ‘queer’ and some even shouted ‘go home queer’. It was surreal to say the least. Me and my husband are tough and can handle quite a lot so we’re not going to let this ruin our lives, but we are afraid and slightly demoralized. I’ve seen this kind of stuff on TV but never expected it to happen to me. I literally couldn’t fall asleep for more than 20 minutes at a time last night and my husband, Brian, was having night terrors.

    I would also like to issue an apology on my part. I am sorry if my homosexuality made any of you uncomfortable. I’m sure that you’re not used to interacting with a gay man and I can understand why so many of you reacted the way you did. You don’t know any better. I understand that most of you are uncultured ‘rednecks’ (I use that term endearingly, I have an aunt and uncle who are blue collar) and have never thought about how to talk to a gay man. I’m sure in time you’ll get used to me and if you have any questions for me, please feel free to ask. Hopefully going forward we can all get along. Please reply with your apology, those of you who owe me an apology. (you know who you are)

    Thanks,

    Stephen

    (AKA Liberals Are People Too)

    1. Never apologize.

    2. This is the gayest shit I’ve ever read.

      1. It’s also made up.
        It’s a biography for Buttplug’s new sock.

        1. Buttplug is gay???? I thought he was in a monogamous relationship with Palin’s anus.

          1. Buttplug’s a pedo.
            The gay backstory is part of the character description for this new sock.

            1. This is the weirdest comment section I have ever seen for a website of this stature.

              1. Reason has stature? I’m learning all sorts of things this morning. I feel like I’ve been so naive.

                1. Well, it is not exactly Craigslist … yet.

                  1. I’ve got some baby rabbits for sale…

                    1. And I am selling some rabid babies.

                    2. I’ll take one of each. I assume you guys take crypto?

                    3. I’d take some fence posts in trade.

                    4. To nail the babies to?

                    5. Well duh. How else do you expect me to scare off all the rabbits fucking in my yard?

          2. Just so you know, I’ve been commenting here for two days now, I only learned that there is a commenter called ‘Buttplug’ last night. Why
            ‘Mother’s Lament’ has been accusing me of being that commenter is beyond me. He’s been harrassing me nonstop.

            1. It probably has something with you being gay.

              1. Are you accusing Mother’s Lament of being a closet homo?

                1. As someone with excellent gaydar, I would say there’s a 100% chance he’s gay.

                  1. The term “100% chance” is an oxymoron, just like “gay marriage.”

                    1. And “liberal people”

    3. “But I thought instead I’d give you all a second chance and a chance to apologize.”

      Lol. This is how you troll

      1. Much improved with that post

    4. This reads like someone with a dick in their ass. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

      1. Depends on what they are doing.

    5. That wasn’t an apology. It as the typical ‘ I’m sorry your too stupid to agree with me ‘ line. Although, I don’t like the name calling and never use that here or anywhere to make a point. I am a liberal, a classical one. The true meaning. I assume your actually a progressive by calling many of us redneck.

    6. Well, Stephan, I hate to break it to you, but probably around five percent of the commenters here actually even want to “get along.” That being said, a certain level of “civility” would be nice. But, with that being said, it is also good to know how people actually feel about a given subject, and “civility” often means self-censoring. Frankly, I will take the “uncivil” over the “civil.” It’s more revealing (and, if you don’t take it too seriously, also more entertaining).

      1. Don’t worry about it. “Stephan” and his story are completely made up.

        1. OKAY 1, it’s STEPHEN with an E, asshole. Can you even read? 2, you know you owe me a big apology for yesterday, saying it’s made up doesn’t make it go away. I’m still waiting.

          1. Fuck off, Buttplug. You’re not fooling anyone you stupid asshole.

            1. You are paranoid and insane.

    7. What the fuck is this crap? Talk about addressing the wrong crowd.

      Then again, I haven’t been around so I don’t know what the cat brought home.

      I let Fist in charge TWO days and this is what we get?

      1. “I let Fist in charge TWO days and this is what we get?”

        Okay, That is funny!

    8. I don’t know who said it to you or what was said, but last I heard, there were plenty of gay commenters here–and their views are in no way uniform just because they’re gay. I also don’t know what you said, but if what you said was authoritarian, chances are that some of the people who criticized you may have been gay libertarians, whose views are reliably anti-authoritarian–even when the authoritarian ideas in question are pro-LGBTQI+. Are you sure the people who criticized you weren’t gay? The Bible says that fear of God is the beginning of all wisdom. I don’t know about that, but “Fuck off, slaver!” may be the beginning of all libertarianism. It’s kind of a standard feature. Were you acting like a slaver?

      1. As far as I know, nobody gives a crap who anybody sleeps with. Unless there’s a video. Then there are plenty of people around here who have an interest. But other than that, nobody cares. In fact, being only text, it is impossible to tell who you are having sex with. I could be having sex with my wife, Morgan Fairchild, at this very moment and you would not know the difference.

        1. Except pedos. We care about who they’re having sex with. And yes, I am having sex with Rihanna as I type this.

      2. Steve is exhibiting textbook predator-pedo behavior. Introduce talk about gay sex while pretending to be talking about something else. Gaslight the audience into thinking there is something wrong with them if they question why it is completely inappropriate.

        I know regular commenters have stated they are gay, and even Screaming Blue Tony never brings it up unless it has some relevance, because that is how normal people act.

        This isn’t a parody, this is a fucking monster.

    9. As an expression of tolerance I can apologize on behalf of myself only. Others will have to bend to your will in ways they are comfortable with.
      As an act of contrition for my lack of understanding of your Liberal lifestyle I ordered a cake for you and Brian to enjoy.
      Unfortunately, I could not find a bakery that would make it for me.

      1. Thank you Josey, I accept your apology.
        It’s okay about the cake, that’s unfortunately quite a common occurrence these days.

    10. >>I’d give you all a second chance and a chance to apologize.

      finally. A-

    11. Where’s is the judge of phoney outrage when you need him?

    12. Way too much effort. D+.

    13. I remember getting a phone call like this once before the internet gave the creeps a place to creep with absolute anonymity. It ends with, “can you keep talking until I finish masturbating?”

      Fuck you, Steve. Take your oppressed-homo fan-fiction to Reddit where people are looking for this sick shit.

    14. Okay guys, so I’ve only gotten 1 apology so far, and that was from someone who didn’t even do anything to me yesterday. I know some of you who offended me may not have seen the post yet which is fine, but I encourage you all of you to share this post throughout the day to bring attention to my goal of getting all the offenders from the last 2 days to apologize to me.

      Also this is probably off-topic, but how do you italicize and bold etc the text of your comments? Is there an options menu I’m not seeing? I’m on a mac, not sure if that matters or not.
      Thanks.

      1. Fuck off, monster.

        Oh, and, because I am not a monster, you have to use html tags to format comments.

        1. Thanks hun.

      2. Nobody here did anything to you ever

  25. As others here have said, yes they did censor it and it is their legal right. That said it makes them look like what many say they are.

  26. Boy, I bet Brett Kavanaugh wishes this new “total suppression of stories that haven’t been 100% solid-gold verified” standard had been in effect during his confirmation hearings.

    1. The media outlets that spent years breathlessly “reporting” on every bit of fabricated and uncorroborated garbage about President Trump colluding with Russia are now concerned with the veracity of a new detail in a story that’s always had more legs than the Russia nonsense.

  27. “Twitter Blocking a New York Post Article Was Dumb—but Not Illegal, Censorship, or Election Interference”

    Okay, I will give you not illegal.

    You’re redefinition of censorship as only being from the government is rejected out of hand. That is just dumb. Sure, government censorship is the one that we worry about, because they have guns. And censorship in the context of discussing effects on society is generally connotated as government censorship. But this is censorship. And it is coordinated across many entities constituting the majority of the American communication infrastructure. Claiming that water is not wet does not make it so. This is censorship, and claiming otherwise is just plain stupid

    And it is not election interference? Are you absolutely freaking high? Blocking anyone from speaking ill of one candidate while promoting one conspiracy theory after the other about another candidate is not election interference? What the hell is our definition of election interference? Russia, or more correctly some Russian company, putting out memes mocking Hillary Clinton counted as interference in everyone’s book. But a coordinated effort among a bunch of left-wing activists who are in control of most of the communication infrastructure of the United States to block information derogatory to their preferred candidate is not election interference?

    What in the ever loving hell would be election interference? Is it even possible for there to be election interference by American companies under this definition?

    This is some of the most idiotic rationalization reason has ever published.

    Reason stands for liberty. That’s the entire point. There’s no point in being a libertarian if you are not for liberty. And there’s no point in being a libertarian publication if you don’t stand up for liberty.

    The freedom to suppress speech of others is not freedom. This is not a case of forcing the New York times to publish a front page article of my liking. This is much closer to the phone company blocking phone calls to planned Parenthood because they don’t like abortion.

    1. Trump and his supporters sharing their thoughts, ideas, and policy perspectives on Twitter is, in itself, election interference. These thoughts, ideas, and policy proposals are so inherently dangerous that not censoring them is a dereliction of duty. It is not election interference to interfere with people attempting to interfere in the election.

      Voila!

    2. Reason prefers corporatism it seems.

    3. This is much closer to the phone company blocking phone calls to planned Parenthood because they don’t like abortion.

      Or monitoring a phone call and cutting it off when one of the speakers says something the phone company doesn’t approve of

      1. Stop crying about and just build your own alternative phone lines.

        1. I started to, but then the government came along and told me cease and desist your actions because the locally approved telephone monopoly complained about my actions.

          1. Read my lips. Free. Markets. Free. Minds.

    4. If these platforms are not cooperating willingly with the Democrats, then they surely have been influenced by the not so veiled threats the Democrats have come at them that printing criticism, including true facts, of Democrats is interfering in the political process that will be dealt with by law if the Tech platforms do not suppress such 8nformation. This is censorship by proxy.

    5. That is the great lie of the tech company defenders on here. On the one hand they want to claim it is their platform and therefore nothing they ever do is wrong or unethical because private property and all that. But then when it comes time to take responsibility for what is on their platform, then suddenly they are the phone company and it is not their content.

      You can’t have it both ways. Either you control the content and it effectively becomes yours or you don’t and you are avoid responsibility for it. Their arguments have gotten so absurd that Ken Shultz and others are now claiming no third party should ever be responsible for the content they publish. According to them a newspaper publishing a slander should not be responsible only the author personally.

      1. According to them a newspaper publishing a slander should not be responsible only the author personally.

        Maybe, just maybe, a website that allows real-time comments isn’t a newspaper and should be treated differently?

        1. If the website is censoring and exercising control over that content, it is publishing it. How is it not publishing it?

          You want these people to be treated like the phone companies but then have the freedom to censor content like a newspaper. Can’t you understand how hypocritical and inconsistent that is?

          Just be honest and admit you love the tech companies and don’t think the usual rules of consistency and rule of law should apply to them. That is your position. You are just not honest enough to admit it.

          1. If the website is censoring and exercising control over that content, it is publishing it. How is it not publishing it?

            I’ve explained this position to you multiple times. Here we go again.

            Twitter and Facebook allow their users to post content instantaneously. Let’s say that I post a defamation of you on Twitter. You take a screenshot of it immediately. Twitter finds the content 1 minute later and correctly takes it down. Did Twitter defame you? According to your logic, because Twitter took the content down they are a publisher and responsible for the very content they deleted.

            Section 230 simply codifies what is a common sense answer to the question above. Of course Twitter can’t be held responsible for the speech of thousands of users tweeting in real-time. Of course Twitter doesn’t have to allow any and all speech to deserve this protection that should otherwise be obvious.

            1. . Of course Twitter can’t be held responsible for the speech of thousands of users tweeting in real-time.

              Yes they can be. You are just assuming that they can’t be. There is no reason why they cannot be. Would that make their business model harder? Sure, but so what? Why is “it’s hard” some sort of a moral objection to the law? It is not.

              Section 230 was an understanding that it was hard. And it was written with the assumption that we would make an exception to the law by more or less treating them as common carriers. And in return, they would act like that and let everyone post. It was a trade. They were relieved of the responsibility of what was posted on there and in return they gave up the right to completely control the content on their boards.

              Now people like you come along and claim they have some sort of right to have it both ways. That because it is hard, they should be able to censor any content they want for any reason but still avoid any responsibility. Fuck you. That is not the deal that they made with Congress of the public when getting 230 and it is not a deal the public should ever agree to. If they want special treatment for content that traditionally they would be responsible for, they need to give up the right to censor. It is that simple.

              You don’t agree with that because you like them and think they deserve special treatment under the law. I don’t think they deserve special treatment. You just want a special carve out for an industry you worship.

              1. Excellent.

              2. But the law existed providing them protection. Now they’ve built their whole business model around it. Why should government pull the rug out from under Twitter now, just because it doesn’t like what it allowed to exist in the past?

                They don’t have any right to it. I’ve never said they have a right.
                Certainly it is within Congress’ power to repeal Section 230, nobody is arguing that. But in my opinion they shouldn’t.

                I won’t say that repealing Section 230 would necessarily cause Twitter and Facebook to fail. They’ve reached the status that maybe they could defend themselves. I do believe that it would make it nearly impossible for the next company to come along and compete. There’s a reason that Zuckerberg has been amenable to more regulation of social media. See: regulatory capture.

                You just want a special carve out for an industry you worship.

                LOL

                1. But the law existed providing them protection. Now they’ve built their whole business model around it. Why should government pull the rug out from under Twitter now, just because it doesn’t like what it allowed to exist in the past?

                  The law was always a special exemption to the law as it had been for hundreds of years. It was given on the assumption they wouldn’t engage in the behavior they are engaging in. Just because they got a special exemption doesn’t mean they are entitled to have it forever even when they behave in ways they promised not to when they got the exemption.

                  They don’t have any right to it. I’ve never said they have a right.
                  Certainly it is within Congress’ power to repeal Section 230, nobody is arguing that. But in my opinion they shouldn’t.

                  If your entire business model depends on a special exemption to the law, maybe hiring operatives from one political side to run your company and telling half the country to go fuck themselves we have the right to censor anything that is damaging to our preferred cause is a bad idea? Don’t you think?

                  You admit they are not owed 230. If they are going to use their market power granted by that to control the internet to make it a propaganda arm of the Democratic party, fuck them. They should lose it. They only got it because people assumed they wouldn’t take sides and censor. If they want to censor, then they shouldn’t get it.

                  And you don’t repeal 230. You just make the exemption contingent upon the provider not engaging in content censorship. They can still have their business, they just can’t act like publishers.

                  What is so unreasonable about that?

                  1. They only got it because people assumed they wouldn’t take sides and censor.

                    Then it should have been clarified better in the law. It wasn’t. Congress clarifying better what the law is supposed to protect and not protect would be a reasonable compromise. But I don’t have any faith that they won’t simply use the law to reward their political allies or biggest donors.

                    You just make the exemption contingent upon the provider not engaging in content censorship.

                    The devil would be in the details. Is anybody proposing this? (genuine question). Hawley and company seem to be more focused on full repeal, but I don’t follow their political positions daily.

                    The root of the discussion on both sides sure stinks of a partisan power grab. The left wants to shut down speech based on “hate” whatever that means. The right seems to want a platform no matter what. I have no faith that either wouldn’t use a rework of Section 230 to their political advantage. I think we’re better off as a society with what we have.

                    1. I think we’re better off as a society with what we have.

                      A society where a handful of corporations control the entire internet and 99% of the access to information you have is what you prefer. Why? Because the evil right wing might get a platform. That is fucking pathetic.

                      The root of the discussion on both sides sure stinks of a partisan power grab. The left wants to shut down speech based on “hate” whatever that means. The right seems to want a platform no matter what.

                      On the one side, we have the left that wants to shut everyone’s speech down that isn’t leftist. On the other side, the right wants a platform to speak. And you view both of those things as equal evils.

                      That is the position you have argued yourself into. Is that really your final answer? That we must keep 230 or else one side might get access to a platform for their message. Wow.

                    2. Thanks for admitted you are a fucking leftist terrified someone you don’t like might have a chance to get their message out.

                    3. Here I thought we could have a decent discussion. But as usual with you it turns into multiple strawmen and childish insults. I don’t say half the stuff you say I do.

                      On the other side, the right wants a platform to speak. And you view both of those things as equal evils.

                      One goes against speech, one goes against property. Yes… I value both. But in this case, specifically, I realize that I don’t have a right to free speech on a private platform. You might not like that result, but it’s the law and it’s consistent with libertarianism.

                      That we must keep 230 or else one side might get access to a platform for their message.

                      That’s your strawman. Not my words.

                      My argument is that we have more chance for free speech with Section 230 than we would likely have without it. Do you think Trump gets elected without Twitter? His appeal to the masses is largely because he can communicate without mainstream media distortion of his words. Hate them as much as you want, but social media has actually been a good outlet for right-wing thoughts. Would you rather the mainstream media has the monopoly on information? That’s a likely alternative if you shut down social media.

              3. Excellent indeed! Thanks for explaining this to the commentariat.

      2. “Their arguments have gotten so absurd that Ken Shultz and others are now claiming no third party should ever be responsible for the content they publish. “

        That’s incorrect.

        It could be incorrect for a number of reasons, but for one, you’re misidentifying a third party. If we were talking about comments appearing on Reason’s website, and you were upset about something I wrote about you, my argument is that Reason shouldn’t be responsible for what I write–because I am the third party. Reason did not write my comment, so Reason should not be responsible in court for what I–as a third party to the defamation suit–wrote. If John is suing Reason for what Ken Shultz wrote, then Ken Shultz is the third party.

        That does not mean Ken Shultz–as the third party–isn’t responsible for what Ken Shultz writes. If I slander or libel you on Reason’s website and you wish to sue Ken Shultz, your suit should be heard.

        But why should Reason need to respond for what Ken Shultz writes?

        It should be noted that this is fundamentally different from, say, being defamed by a journalist at the New York Times. Before the New York Times publishes a story written by its reporters, they have editors (and sometimes fact checkers) go over the story to see if there are any aspects that might give cause for someone to sue the New York Times. They generally only publish stories after someone in management has okayed publication. If you’re defamed by a reporter for the New York Times, you have legitimate standing to sue the New York Times–because that reporters was working on behalf of the New York Times and because the New York Times’ editor or editors willfully decided to print that story.

        I do not work for Reason magazine. My comments are not prescreened and subjected to editorial consideration or fact checking. There is no good reason why Reason should need to answer for my comments. I am a third party with regard to you and Reason. That does not mean I am not responsible for what I write. That means that Reason is not responsible for what I write. If you want to sue somebody for what I write, then you need to come after me–not Reason.

        Publishers are and should be responsible for what they and their reporters write. But why should they be responsible for what I write on their website?

  28. It’s obvious why Trump and other politicians cheer the downfall of Section 230, since that would make suppressing speech the government doesn’t like easier. It’s just not clear why private citizens and journalists keep cheering this on.

    We’re all on a team right now?

    1. Does the dumb fucking cunt not understand the very topic she’s writing on? That is the only explanation that makes any sense other than gaslighting progressive.

  29. “Without Section 230, however, companies would be forced to constantly defend their constitutional rights in court—which is expensive and time-consuming.”

    The government is already using that strategy to take away gun rights.
    1. Politicians make guns illegal
    2. Gun rights groups spend alot of money fighting the law in court
    3. Before court rules the law illegal the politicians drop the law.
    4. Repeat.

    The only difference is that the gun example I’d defending everyone’s second amendment right. The 230 example is defending one person’s right to silence others

    1. And the government is literally suing the NRA out of its own volition.

    2. “companies would be forced to constantly defend their constitutional rights in court—which is expensive and time-consuming.”
      Welcome to the real world. Aren’t publishers and networks already subject to lawsuits for slander? How about doctors, drug companies, lawn mower makers, food processors? All face the potential of frivolous lawsuits, so they take care to be safe and accurate enough to win most of their battles. One big reform would be “loser pays” and that would discourage a great number of the lawsuits brought just to compel a settlement to make it go away.

      1. libel and defamation too.

      2. And now, as if it wasn’t already over burdened, the legal system, at least here anyway, is getting jammed or at least challenged by all these ILLEGAL mask mandate tickets. If you challenge, it gets thrown out.

        Mouth diapers DO NOT save lives you fucken sheep retards.

  30. The question is if what Twitter, Facebook, et al did was ethical, given they had sold themselves as open forums. It also calls into question whether they are useful to their customer base if they are going to shut down criticism of one side of the political spectrum. There was not this unseemly rush to suppress the NY Times story on Trump’s tax returns, even though surely any official documents the Times may have been given were obtained illegally.

    Their behavior is deserving of criticism, and while it may be legal, it is not professional, ethical, or in good faith.

    1. Remember, Facebook doesn’t want you to know that Biden’s son, Crackhead McStripperbang sold access to the White House to Ukrainian businessmen; and when the Ukrainian Prosecutor General was looking into investigating Crackhead, Daddy Biden the VP OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FLEW to the Ukraine and threatened to withhold $1billion in guaranteed loans unless the prosecutor general was fired.

    2. their censorship does violate section 230 hence moving them into new territory. if they return to 230 and quit censoring then there would be no arguments. but both sides think there are advantages telling them to censor or else.

      1. and it all started with must censor active shooters and those who commit suicide on line, honorable goals maybe, but only leads us down the rabbit hole of where do we stop censoring.

  31. Maybe ENB doesn’t have any friends at the office, and if so, I feel sorry for her. But she really needs to run some of this horseshit past another human being before posting.

    1. She’s just copypasting from the talking points in her JournoList account.

  32. Doing so also opened Twitter and Facebook up to allegations of suppressing information critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden…

    It’s pretty obvious that is precisely their intent.

    1. That kind of weak language is absolutely hilarious. That was Robbie’s take as well. It opens them up to allegations.

      Good lord! It doesn’t get more obvious than this. This is his ham-fisted a job of suppressing a story as there has ever been in history. one does not have to allege that it is being done for partisan reasons, for crying out loud. One does not need to allege that Billy Graham holds rallies to spread the gospel. No one need make allegations that the Coca-Cola company runs advertisements to induce people to buy more Coca-Cola.

      They seem to think it is a clever and artful way of framing the issue. But it just makes them look ridiculous.

      1. It worked in the case of the SF Chron; not one word about it.
        They were, however, sort of forced to admit there is a discussion regarding the best way to deal with the ‘rona, but *that* side is promoted by Trump, and therefore….
        In a day or two, perhaps they’ll admit WHO is on that same side, but it’ll by below the fold on page 8.

        1. That one has the potential to move the needle so it’s surprising they reported on it. I doubt the Hunter Biden stuff was going to make a dent in either campaign’s numbers.

          I hate to be this cynical but motives are too obvious most of the time to ignore.

  33. With the second presidential debate now canceled, Biden and Trump will each do separate televised town halls tonight.

    Let’s face it: Trump will be doing a town hall. Biden’s will be more of a town oates.

    1. Damn! That is brilliant!

      1. Seconded. Sidekicked.

        1. And yet Reason is censoring my content by moving it all the way to the bottom of the page with the losers.

          1. I crushed you today, but I’m not gloating. Just checking out how the bottom feeders live.

            1. I blame my dentist’s lack of reliable wifi.

    2. “I can’t go for that”

      I realize this is opening a can of worms.

  34. Barron Trump also contracted COVID-19…

    No one warned us the virus could float up to that altitude.

  35. Today is the final day of the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings.

    The last day before Handmaid’s Tale becomes reality.

    (I know I said Kavanaugh would bring it about, but this time I really mean it.)

    1. Handmaid’s Tale? Twelve Years a Slave.

  36. ‘Women and minorities hardest hit!’

    “Stocks are soaring, and most Black people are missing out”
    […]
    “…Only 33.5% of Black households owned stocks in 2019, according to data released recently by the Federal Reserve. Among white households, the ownership rate is nearly 61%. Hispanic and other minority households also are less likely than white families to own stock…”
    https://www.myjournalcourier.com/news/article/Stocks-are-soaring-and-most-Black-people-are-15639491.php

    Kinda hard to make bucks on equities if you don’t own any.

    1. I have listened to AOC, so I have the solution! The only fair thing to do is to take all the equities away from white people and redistribute them to black people. That will fix the problem.

      Done and done!

      This AOC stuff really is easier!

      1. My first question to aoc is always “since your direct ancestor Cortez is responsible for mass genocide, how much in reparations are you, and all other Hispanics going to give the native Americans?”

        1. The Occasio side cancels that out.

    2. Are you saying owning 40 pairs of pumps or Air Jordans doesn’t have a high ROI?

    3. I understand those greedy, rapacious brokers that are always pestering you about investing with them, are nonetheless turning away black business.

      1. Sort of like those greedy corporate execs only care about making money, unless they can lose some by denying employment to certain classes of people.
        Priorities, donchaknow.

  37. There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting Twitter from restricting speech on its platform, and it is certainly not “censorship” (which has denoted government suppression of information since the office of censor was created in Ancient Rome to impose public morality).

    I suppose you’re right, in the sense that OJ Simpson didn’t kill his ex-wife but Jeffrey Epstein did kill himself and Hillary Clinton hasn’t committed any crimes. If you’re speaking in the strictest legal sense of the word, yes these platforms have not, and cannot, violate the First Amendment, but they sure as hell aren’t “free speech”, either. To the extent that they claim to be non-partisan and unbiased, they’re full of shit and committing a fraud on the public.

  38. “The latest round of redefinition comes in response to Facebook saying it would “limit distribution” of a New York Post article about Hunter and Joe Biden due to concerns about its veracity. Twitter also temporarily blocked users from sharing the article, saying that it violated its “hacked materials” policy.

    Remember, neither Facebook or Twitter had any problem last month with people posting the New York Times bit on Trump’s taxes, which were illegally obtained.

    1. The policy covers hacking, not theft, plus FYTW.

      1. Hunter’s emails were neither hacked nor thefted.

        1. Yes, but Twitter is pretending that they are.

          1. What evidence do you have to support your belief these are real emails?

            1. and whats your opinion of the Clinton/FBI/McCain paid for steel dossier

            2. Well this is new. Not even the New York Times has taken the fake angle yet.

              1. It’s starting to trickle out amongst some of the blue checkmarks, but that became irrelevant when the banhammering started. Its veracity isn’t even the story anymore.

            3. Well Pod, unlike NYT, WaPo, The Atlantic and a host of others….The NY Post went on record with their sources.

      2. FYTW pretty much covers social media’s behavior over everything the four years.
        Has there ever been another industry (excepting the mainstream media) that hated its own consumers so much?

    2. Or people calling Kyle Rittenhouse a white supremacist

      1. Or calling the Latino leader of the Proud Boys a white supremacist.

  39. Just to stir the pot over the “lack of permission” – – – – –
    No one has said yet about this specific case, but generally, when you leave a repair item, and do not pick it up/pay for it, title transfers to the shop owner. The shop owner gave the files freely, so permission was granted.
    What excuse now, Twits?

    1. The post story showed the repair contract w the 90 day abandonment policy.

      1. You do realize it’s more likely somebody hacked those emails, if they’re even real which I doubt, loaded them onto a laptop, slapped a sticker on it and dropped it on the doorstep of Trump fanatic/lunatic?

          1. Lol to you. How fucking dumb are you people? There’s no fucking way Hunter Biden’s laptop gets dropped off like that. It’s just so fucking stupid. I can’t even.

            1. Just like there’s no way Hunter Biden left a rental car on the curb with his ID and a crack pipe in it?

              Of COURSE he could leave a laptop and not pick it up. He was a crack head earning $50,000 a month! That’s exactly what a crackhead earning $50,000 a month would do.

              1. Remember how Hillary’s emails ended up in Weiners lap top shit happens. also remember when Clinton lost the nuclear launch codes people loose shit all the time.

                1. A laptop here, a secret bathroom server there, pretty soon we’re talking about real high clearance information.

            2. There’s no fucking way Hunter Biden’s laptop gets dropped off like that.

              I know you are trolling, but, sweet Jesus, the pictures are clearly of Hunter. They got them from somewhere.

            3. We know Pod….you can’t even…form a rational fucking thought.

        1. I realize you just made up bullshit pod.

        2. “You do realize it’s more likely somebody hacked those emails,..”

          You do realize your lame hypothetical evasions are the mark of panic, don’t you?

        3. No it isnt. It wouldn’t be the first time a crackhead forgot to pick something up. And the drive contained more than emails dumbass.

  40. Yes, ENB, it WAS censorship. Or are you once again confused between “censorship” and an actionable “first amendment” issue?

    1. Progs change to meanings of words and phrases all the time. Just accept it and move on.

  41. and it is certainly not “censorship” (which has denoted government suppression of information since the office of censor was created in Ancient Rome to impose public morality)

    That’s just wrong. For example, throughout the 20th century, people referred to “censors” at private broadcasting companies.

    1. She’s confused (again) on the definition of censorship. She’s decided that only an actionable first amendment violation is “censorship”, everything else is just…. who knows how the fuck she defines it… the ‘quiescence’ of a news story?

    2. For ENB it’s only censorship if the federal government does it. Of course, her policy on the matter is fluid and expect to see a change if a conservative outfit is changed with the same.

      1. It’s only censorship if government doesn’t provide a place for trannies to do strip teases in front of young children

        1. Or if politicians complain about preteen sexploitation flicks.

  42. https://spectator.org/covid-lockdowns-right-safety/

    The bullshit about a false right to safety applies just as well to the mask idiots. You don’t have a right to demand someone make you safe from a speculative risk. If you think you do, you have given away the game. At that point, you have admitted subjecting people to a speculative risk is a violation of the NAP, otherwise you would have no right to insist on it. If it is a violation of the NAP, then saying “but I don’t want the government to mandate it” because a meaningless qualification.

    1. I agree no one has a right to safety but what is NAP? i keep seeing this but online all i get is how long of a nap should one take.

      That said you don’t have a right to harm others however defending everyone from every possibility is an impossibility that actually starts to cause harm to person trying to not harm others.

      1. it is short for non aggression principle. Sorry that wasn’t clear.

        1. It’s kind of a big deal in libertarianism, Ron. Probably the biggest, actually. That’s why you’ve never seen it written in any article here.

  43. “There were 898,000 new jobless claims filed last week…”

    Gee, those lockdowns are really fixing things, aren’t they?

  44. The Biden campaign ended any question about the authenticity of the Hunter Biden emails. When asked about the issue, the campaign said “it was not on his official schedule”. Notice, they didn’t deny the meeting happened and didn’t claim that the email was not authentic. If the email was a fabrication, the Biden campaign would no it and be screaming it was a fake. The fact that they are not is as good as them confirming it’s authenticity.

    https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/biden-campaign-says-burisma-meeting-not-on-official-schedule/

    1. Don’t know if it is true, but someone I follow on Twitter noted that the infamous meeting to frame Flynn (That Biden most certainly attended) also wasn’t on his official schedule.

      1. Here is the other thing. Biden has been in public office for 47 years. He had been VP for over six years at that point. The only possible defense Biden has is that he wasn’t selling access his son was but that Biden didn’t do anything for Burisma or anyone else paying his son. The problem with that defense is that if Hunter Biden were scamming people selling influence he really didn’t have, people would have figured that out long before 2014 and stopped hiring him. So, Burisma knew what they were getting when they paid off Biden. They had to.

        1. Give it up. No one cares. You’re so dumb and desperate.

          1. Yeah, no one cares, that is why big tech tried to suppress the story.

            And of course you have no defense for Biden putting US foreign policy up for sale. It is so obvious that you won’t even try. All you can say is “no one cares”. You don’t care because you are a piece of shit. A lot of other people, however, do not fit that description.

            1. The story was blocked because it’s obviously part of a larger criminal conspiracy to help Trump. Hopefully the FBI will can tell us more about it once we get the traitor out the WH.

              1. The email is legitimate. The Biden campaign admitted as much. And it was in the lawful possession of a computer repair shop because Biden’s deadbeat son never paid the bill.

                There is no criminal conspiracy. Notice, the Biden campaign never claimed that because they know it isn’t true. The only criminal conspiracy here is Hunter Biden acting as a bag man for his father’s bribery.

                1. No one from the Biden side has admitted the emails are real. You made that up. And your credibility is trash because apparently don’t you understand what “admitted” means.

                  1. Yes they have. They never disputed them being real, which is an admission that they are. Biden is in a better position of anyone to know if they are legitimate. IF they were not, that would have been the first words out of their mouth.

                    Stop lying and pretending everyone is as stupid as you are.

                  2. Did anybody from the Biden campaign dispute the authenticity of the e-mails?

                    1. No they did not. And if anyone knows if they are real, it is the Biden campaign.

          2. “Give it up. No one cares.”

            Yeah, fuckwads like LoS here don’t care if a sitting VP sells his ass to a foreign agent so his deadbeat won’t be a drain on the family finances;
            Fuckwads like this LOVE corruption!

          3. Someone is being dumb and desperate here, but it isn’t John.

        2. And not a word from the FBI, who has had the hard drive and emails for months. I am still incredulous about that aspect.

          1. I had this crazy idea that the FBI held off until October for maximum effect and that Chris Wray is really BFF with Trump. I mean, it is 2020 after all.

            1. He’s been doing an awfully good job of keeping up false appearances then

              1. I did preface with “crazy”.

        3. Biden getting people fired for looking into crimes at Burmissa is influence with a very heavy hand of a billion dollars

  45. I guess this is the kind of headline you write when a thing you support has been proven to be so awful as to be indefensible.

  46. Democracy dies in darkness. Lean forward.

  47. “I decided to narrowly redefine this word to suit my ideological argument so therefore you’re wrong.”
    -reason magazine 2020.

    1. -The Left 2020

      Just this week they literally rewrote the dictionary to do this.

      1. Maybe it’s their preference.

        1. How dare you! That word is offensive!

    1. Lol, he didn’t understand OnStar which is like twenty years old now?

      1. “Why can’t I buy insurance after my house burns down”?

        1. You can but the premium is really high.

  48. Twitter can’t violate the First Amendment but what they did most emphatically is “censorship”. The definition of that word has not been limited to government censorship since, well, probably the Roman times.

    With that said, the article is correct that private censorship is legal (even when it may be stupid or bad public policy). Stop pussy-footing around the word, though. Even if it’s legal, it’s still censorship. Companies that tout their “free-speech” credentials deserve to get called out for their hypocrisy.

  49. >> do separate televised town halls tonight.

    what is the sound of one person clapping?

    1. the camera man is not allowed to clap so no sound

  50. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor

    censor verb
    censored; censoring\ ˈsen(t)-​sə-​riŋ , ˈsen(t)s-​riŋ \
    Definition of censor (Entry 2 of 2)
    transitive verb

    : to examine in order to suppress (see SUPPRESS sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable
    censor the news
    also : to suppress or delete as objectionable
    censor out indecent passages

    Don’t see “government” anywhere.

    1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship

      censorship noun

      cen·​sor·​ship | \ ˈsen(t)-sər-ˌship \
      Definition of censorship
      1a: the institution, system, or practice of censoring
      They oppose government censorship.
      b: the actions or practices of censors
      especially : censorial control exercised repressively
      censorship that has … permitted a very limited dispersion of facts
      — Philip Wylie
      2: the office, power, or term of a Roman censor
      3: exclusion from consciousness by the psychic censor
      Examples of censorship in a Sentence
      Recent Examples on the Web
      The release of its latest list coincides with Banned Books Week, an annual event seeking to draw attention to literary censorship.
      — NBC News, “LGBTQ themes found in half of the past decade’s 20 most-banned books,” 29 Sep. 2020
      In 17th-century Spain, English books were exceptionally rare due to religious and political censorship.
      — Alex Fox, Smithsonian Magazine, “Rare Edition of Shakespeare’s Last Play Found in Spanish Library,” 25 Sep. 2020

    2. Make sure to screencap it because it may be different by tomorrow morning.

      1. Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 10/16/2020

        Censor/Censorship
        Offensive when used to describe the legitimate withholding of information possibly harmful to the campaign of any leftist dictator wannabe.

    3. “Doing so also opened Twitter and Facebook up to allegations of suppressing information critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden”

      ENB using “suppress” during her dissertation on why it wasn’t censorship.

  51. also one person’s dumb is another’s “Illegal, Censorship, or Election Interference” they’re all water cooler words

    1. Said water cooler words also having specific legal meanings.

      1. wake me when suits are filed.

        1. Empty suits are never filled.

          HEEEYOOOO!

          I’ll be here all week, tip your waitress.

          1. even worse someone just sent me a link about the Senate subpoenaing Dorsey … I wish they’d just ignore it.

  52. For people defending the Tech companies’ ‘right’ to ‘fact check’ the Biden email story before allowing it to be posted, shared or linked, then the next time a major wildfire or weather event occurs, then no links or mentions of any story that claims a connection to “climate change” can occur until the claim is thoroughly ‘fact checked’ by the tech companies? Is this really what you’re saying? Because if that’s what you’re saying, then let’s have a fucking go at this new policy. Let’s have a go…

    1. No they aren’t saying that. They just wish to selectively censor and then still maintain liability immunity by claiming to be a platform. Double, triple standards, the lib way!

    2. Those stories will have already been fact-checked by the time they’re posted.

      1. True; the fact that they all support global socialism has been checked.

    3. The other thing is that the Post is a large newspaper. If this story is untrue or the result of some conspiracy, then the Bidens have one hell of a libel and slander action against the Post. Oddly, the Bidens don’t seem to be saying that or demanding the story be retracted.

      The Post says the story is true. The people involved have not disputed that. So, there is no reason to not give the Post the benefit of the doubt here. There has not been a single bit of evidence contradicting this story.

      1. They will respond right after they tell us if they will pack the supreme court – – – – –

        1. Yeah, the emails are fake and Biden, who is in a better position to know that than anyone, hasn’t claimed that out of kindness or something.

      2. The complete lack of denial on any of the material is telling. It’s similar to the Clinton email scandal. The complaint was the method of acquisition– yet no one ever said the emails were fake…

        1. I think you mean the DNC emails. No one ever say the Clinton e-mails. It is just assumed the Chinese, Russians and every other intel agency in the world read them. It was the DNC emails that were put out by wikileaks. And yes, no one ever claimed it was a fake. We were supposed to not talk about them because reasons or something.

        2. They are staying silent because there will be more e-mails dumped in the coming days. They do not want to get caught denying things potentially established by documents that have not yet been released or reviewed. The piecemeal release of the documents and e-mails is intended to get the Bidens to commit to some absurd denial, only to be blown out of the water with additional documents.

          1. Right now they are spinning as hard as they can to “prove” that the e-mail clearly indicating that Biden met with a Burisma officer does not mean what it plainly means. I would not be surprised if somewhere among the next document dump there is a calendar invite, or some other clear track record of the meeting that would make denying it impossible.

            1. And when they do, Reason will cover them!

      3. Old Joe will simply say the story has been discounted and that will be the end of it for everyone and it will go into the memory hole of MSM to never be heard of again for what Old Joe says is gospel.

        1. What difference, at this point, does it make.

      4. Funny, when I made the analogous argument about the veracity of the Times story about Trump’s tax records, I was told that it proved nothing.

  53. On top of this, according to Fox News, ABC, NBC, and CBS nightly news didn’t cover this story at all last night.

    1. Well yeah, who do you think is demanding twitter suppress the story? Does no good to go whole hog if you just report it on the nightly news.

  54. Any mention of Syrian gas attacks should be scrubbed from the internet because after a common-sense waiting period for fact-checking, it’s been identified as “complete bullshit”. And if every mention of it on the internet is systematically scrubbed, with anyone continuing to post it unpersoned and permabanned, that wouldn’t be censorship.

  55. ENB , LOL
    That whole platform vs publisher thing I guess escapes her.

    1. Only on purpose though.

  56. This is a classic case of “arranging the deck chairs while the Titanic sinks”. Illegality, morality, etc are completely beside the point.

    Our political system relies on trust and faith in the process. That faith and trust keeps us civil. Twitter and the social media are exerting an out-sized impact on the process creating inequity and more concerningly, eroding the public’s faith in the process. If it erodes too much?…well, history is filled with examples of what happens when political systems fail. So it simply doesn’t matter whether its legal, fair, constitutional, or otherwise. All that matters is whether it is eroding the public’s faith in the political process, and if so, how close is it pushing us to a collapse.

  57. The first amendment protects against government censorship…… which by definition means there can also be non-government censorship you midwit.

  58. Might want to consider shorting Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube.

  59. Isn’t ENB the one who thought Facebook memes were “election interference”, oh, about four years ago. Actually everyone at this publication did. Do the Kochs give you bonuses for lacking all self-awareness?

  60. One of the things that really shouldn’t get lost in the pile, here, is that Hunter Biden is probably a corrupt jackhole, who used his father’s position to enrich himself by associating himself with some really corrupt people in Ukraine–and his father did him a big favor by shutting down an investigation that might have or would have exposed that corruption.

    The reason we don’t have more facts to bolster the case against Hunter Biden’s is because his father shut down the investigation that would have uncovered it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA–dj2-CY

    1. Burisma didn’t give Hunter Biden $84,000 a month for nothing or for a photo op with Biden. They wanted and got something in return and Joe Biden bragged about what that something was; namely getting the prosecutor who was going after them fired.

      1. And isn’t it disingenuous of people to argue that we shouldn’t make these accusations without evidence–when one of the reasons there’s no evidence is because Joe Biden shut down the investigation by threatening to withhold foreign aid?

          1. It would be one thing if there were some question about whether Joe Biden shut the investigation down, but since we have him on video bragging about it, that’s not in dispute.

            1. We have him on tape bragging about it. I am not sure I have ever seen a more obvious case of influence peddling in my lifetime. Siro Agnew and Blogovich both went to prison on evidence a lot less compelling than this.

  61. https://pjmedia.com/election/matt-margolis/2020/10/14/report-biden-campaign-doesnt-rule-out-the-possibility-joe-biden-met-with-burisma-executive-n1055204

    Now, if you’re gonna have a sleazy meeting with somebody, are you gonna put that on your official schedule?” asked Levin.

    “You can look at Joe Biden’s schedule that day. You know what it has? It has two gaps that are three hours or more,” explained Schweizer.

    The Trump campaign also noted that Joe Biden “arranged an Oval Office meeting for his son-in-law’s business partners in 2011,” and while this meeting took place, and there is photographic evidence of it, it was not on Biden’s “official schedule.”

    The meeting occurred.

  62. This is all so wrong.

    By definition, Twitter can’t violate the First Amendment rights of the president, members of Congress, or anyone else. First Amendment violations are things the government does to the people, not the other way around.

    The point of the amendment is to specify that government can’t infringe on a right. What right though?

    The right to free speech, expression, faith, gathering.

    Nowhere does it say that the government cannot act to protect those rights.

    In fact, protecting those rights in general, throughout the populace, is how one maintains a culture of free speech.

    We are not doing that because the advocates of controlled speech have been teaching, lo these many years, that suppression of free speech is just fine, if undertaken by private citizens.

    And, as a result, ever more egregious citizen censorship is approved, and free speech dies the death of a thousand cuts.

    There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting Twitter from restricting speech on its platform, and it is certainly not “censorship” (which has denoted government suppression of information since the office of censor was created in Ancient Rome to impose public morality).

    Except, of course for the fact that the Construction exists as a means of protecting our rights from unwarranted or involuntary infringement.

    And, if you’re paying attention, you can see how the advocates of controlled speech twist words to put across their evil intent–

    (which has denoted government suppression of information since the office of censor was created in Ancient Rome to impose public morality

    The idea of censor predates the office. Because censorship has always been an issue of morality.

    This shouldn’t need repeating as often as it does these days. But President Donald Trump and those who support him have been working hard to recast censorship as something private companies can do to the most powerful man in the country (see Trump’s executive order on Twitter) while arguing that government should be allowed to restrict these companies’ freedom of speech, conscience, and association.

    And just how exactly are Trump and his supporters trying to ‘restrict these companies. such as Twitter, Google, Facebook and Youtube,’ freedom of speech, conscience, and association?

    By seeing to it that they honor the laws of the land? By demanding that they allow freed speech, and freedom of expression, and the freedom to express one’s faith?

    How, exactly does that suppress their freedom of speech, conscience or association?

    How does demanding freedom of speech, conscience or association for all, suppress anyone else’s rights?

    1. Well said. I think it parallel’s nicely with why I have been saying lately that most of the writers here are not truly libertarians (and many of the commentators that claim they are) from a philosophical perspective.

      Just as The Bill of Rights does not grant us rights, but protects them from the government, being a libertarian is a personal philosophy about how one should live your life, not agreeing with libertarians on certain political issues. It goes beyond government and politics, it is part of our humanity.

  63. I’ll believe conservatives that they want to end corporate censorship when they go after Walmart for instituting a clean only album policy.

    Not that I cared, I went elsewhere, but they all cheer Walmart for doing this. So if they have reversed their position on this great, start with Walmart.

    Also I want to see at this year’s Super Bowl, the female singer’s breast – uncut and uncensored.

    1. Apples to oranges.

      Walmart’s censorship occurred within a very diverse, non-monopolistic marketplace for music sales. Was Walmart ever a leader, let alone ‘the leader’ in album sales??? So what they do in terms of censorship is a business decision with negligible impact to society in general.
      Compare that to a hypothetical(?) situation where Apple censored listing on I-tunes. As the dominant market leader in digital music, their actions may be a legal business decision, but results in a profound impact on the free market exchange of information/art. It’s really no different then a monopoly, where instead of a product, its information itself.
      We have laws to limit monopolies and the business decisions they are allowed to make. Twitter, Facebook, and Google have become near-monopolies in information sharing in their respective market space. They should be treated as such.

  64. Yesterday I posted about Amazon putting Shelby Steele’s new film, “What Killed Michael Brown?” under “content review”.

    https://reason.com/2020/10/14/trump-can-end-census-now-says-supreme-court-in-ruling-that-could-have-big-impact-on-house-seats/#comment-8519641

    Well, Amazon has completed their review and they’ve decided not to show the film through their Amazon’s streaming service.

    For those who didn’t see the post yesterday, the film is by a black conservative about the reality of what really happened in the shooting that sparked the Ferguson riots in 2014. The film apparently uses it as a critical lens through which to look at the narratives that are being sold by BLM and others in regards to what is happening today and why. It turns out that black opinion is far more diverse than the media narrative would have us believe, and it includes black conservatives who are critical of using systemic racism as an explanation for everything.

    Yes, really.

    1. You can see Amazon Prime’s rejection letter, as well as watch the trailer, here: https://whatkilledmichaelbrown.com/

      The film becomes available tomorrow.

    2. Amazon’s loss, is Walmart’s gain. Or does it have offensive language, Walmart won’t allow offensive language to be sold in their stores.

      1. This guy is an intellectual “Senior Fellow” from the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

        It isn’t about foul language. It just appears that he’s critical of systemic racism, BLM, and the dominant media narrative on race.

        Amazon Prime doesn’t want any part of that. I guess they thought they were getting a documentary about police shootings by a black intellectual heavyweight.

        And what they got instead was sure to piss off BLM, SJW’s, anti-fa, etc.

        Here’s the trailer:

        https://whatkilledmichaelbrown.com/watchfilm

        1. Just a joke regarding Walmart’s censorship policy* regarding music albums they sell, which many conservatives championed at the time as good corporate governance.

          *not sure if this is still in effect or not, once I got a Johnny Cash edited CD by accident I never bought music or entertainment again from them.

          1. I still hold out hope that the censorship perpetrated by these major corporations will bite them in the pocketbook. Of course, this supposes that they will be subject to competition, and the govt won’t hamstring competition with regs the big boys can comply with but the little guy trips up on.

        2. So what you’re saying is, I won’t find this under their “black voices” section?

  65. Hey let’s all make sure and not mention Kristopher Jacks, the Colorado Democratic Party executive committee member advocating for violent revolution against the government and murder of Trump supporters.

  66. “Dumb but not illegal” could be the media’s new slogan.

    Twitter, of course, still maintains the thin pretense that it’s not part of the media. “Nobody here but us objective content providers.”

    (I haven’t read all the comments, so apologies if I repeated someone else’s argument)

    1. Consider them to be part of the media or don’t consider them to be part of the media. It doesn’t affect anything.

      1. No legal implications?

  67. The entire point of an open society is the free exchange of ideas. ENB’s approach would further segregate ideas. In her world with a Facebook and a conservative Facebook is anathema to free exchange. It would incentivize and further entrench echo chambers, hastening the problem we have today society wide.

    If social media companies want to pretend like they’re not specifically influencing elections, and fighting to keep undue influence out, then they should stop specifically influencing elections. Their censorship is far worse than anything they claim foreign entities have done.

    1. There’s no other place people can discuss politics but Facebook and Twitter? Most Americans don’t even use Twitter.

      The importance of these social media sites is vastly exaggerated.

      1. “Move along, folks, nothing to see here. There’s nothing uncouth about giant tech companies coordinating with a major political party during an election campaign to suppress negative news about that party’s candidate! It’s all perfectly normal and we should celebrate it!”

        1. There is no evidence that they coordinated with the major parties. A simpler explanation is that the people at those companies tend to have a liberal bias.

  68. Steve Scully, the “ethical journalist” that was supposed to moderate tonight’s debate, has been suspended after lying about his Twitter being hacked.

  69. Look, Trump doesn’t own and operate Twitter. In fact, none of us do. The fact is that Twitter can allow or disallow anything the want. Of someone wants a more conspiracy or right wing driven social networking platform, they can make one. And I’m sure some of the big investors can complain to twitter, but they can tell those investors to fuck off if they want. The bottom line is, of you don’t like it, don’t use it. I promise, your fingers won’t fall off of you can’t post a twat.

    1. They absolutely can. But then we, the public and their users get to call them out for what they are.

    2. It doesn’t matter if he owns it or not–there’s clear collusion here between at least three gigantic tech corporations and the Democratic party to try and keep this story from getting spread across social media.

      If Facebook and Twitter aren’t publishers, then each instance of them banning accounts for sharing a legitimate news story, including the account for the President’s own campaign, should be considered an in-kind political contribution to the Democratic party and reported to the FEC. If they’re going to act like “fact checkers” and remove news content based on internal editorial decisions, then they are a publisher and this is a 1A issue–Section 230 doesn’t apply.

      This whole “if you don’t like it, don’t use it” is simply an obtuse and simple-minded take in this case–tech companies that control 90 percent of online ad revenue and are far and away the dominant form of social media, to the point that they work with foreign governments to actively suppress online speech in those nations, are now openly declaring that they are a corporate and media arm for a single political party.

      If you think that’s acceptable, then we need to rid ourselves of this delusion that the “free market” is at work here, and you need to start making the case for why corporatism should now be the part of the ideology’s philosophical bedrock.

      1. I’m currently working on an essay length print-era analogue to what we now have with the disposition of modern tech companies to ‘fact checking’ and editorializing on what can and can’t be posted, shared, or even talked about on their forums.

      2. At this very moment I have no links to the Post story on my personal website. My not repairing a story is a contribution I am making to the Joe Biden campaign?

        1. repairing -> repeating

          1. The White Gaslighter gaslighting again.

            1. No, it’s really true. My iPhone spell correction really did change “repeating” to “repairing”, and I didn’t notice how helpful Apple was being with my spelling until the comment was already posted.

    3. I would agree, except for the court case that decided that Trump couldn’t block anyone on Twitter. The reason there was that this was the primary method of contact, and so blocking people was denying them access to their president. There is no way to read that logic without also reading the inverse. If Trump cannot deny people access. Twitter cannot either.

      1. You’re right about that. It should have been Twitter who made that decision. It’s their site, so it’s their decision.

  70. It’s only a matter of time when twitter and the other chinese bankrolled companies in silicon valley decide that reason isn’t allowed on the internet. Oh you think you can keep this website going forever? When they decide you are against their one party state religion and their DNS servers won’t direct anyone here, and you have to go to the dark web (assuming any server will route to yours). Then you will see. But please do keep equivocating about the 1st amendment and private companies blah blah blah.

    1. Facebook and Twitter don’t control DNS.

    2. Never gonna happen.

  71. Boy is Brown missing the point. FB and Twitter are just digital bulletin boards..and as the “seller” of space they can’t discriminate according to the CR act of 1964. It’s pretty simple..while they can decide what the subjects of the bulletin board (maybe just how to bake cookies), they can’t discriminate and they do. This has nothing to do with publishing. FB and Twitter if the are going to cover political news can’t discriminate between customers..(NY Post versus the NYT). Right now anyone who supports their censorship should join the old bolshevik party and heck..move back to Russia..

    1. Facebook and Twitter are blocking user posts based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or sexual orientation?

    2. Not sure what you mean by seller of space. They sell advertising but the people that post there do not buy the space. And if someone puts up a bulletin board, virtual or physical, they can allow or disallow what’s posted on it. If you put up a bulletin board and people started posting all sorts of outrageous, stupid, evil or wicked things on it you could, depending on your disposition, tear it down or leave it up. It’s your board.

  72. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-gop-fbi-hunter-biden-laptop

    “EXCLUSIVE: House Republicans are calling on the FBI to reveal whether it was in possession of a laptop that reportedly contained emails by Hunter Biden during the impeachment of President Trump — and claiming the agency committed a ‘gross error in judgement’ if it did not inform the White House.”

    I’ve had several people say to me in comments above that no additional verification of this story is needed because the Post checked it all out. The House Republicans and I disagree.

    A lot depends on the FBI’s answer to this question. If they respond that they do have the laptop or the disk drives, then it could be taken as proof that they suppressed information not just relevant, but central, to the impeachment hearings. If they don’t have the laptop, it adds weight to suspicions that Rudy Guiliani is trying to plant a fake story, and vindicates Facebook for fact checking the story.

    1. If they don’t have the laptop, it adds weight to suspicions that Rudy Guiliani is trying to plant a fake story, and vindicates Facebook for fact checking the story.

      I think it’s pretty clear that the E-mails are real, no matter how Giuliani got them; if they weren’t real, Biden would simply have denied ever having written them.

      And it’s quite difficult to forge large amounts of E-mail correspondence, either in terms of content or even in terms of headers. A major intelligence agency might do a convincing job at it; Giuliani, not so much.

    2. Except the FBI responded only that they could not confirm they had this.

      And if it is proven wrong later, that is no excuse for blocking it now before there is any evidence that it is wrong. Especially as the explicitly stated reasoning was that it was blocked because it was based on stolen documents. Given that this would ban everything from Deep Throat to last month’s Trump Tax Return release by the New York Times (which was also based on stolen documents, but they didn’t even provide the actual documents), I find the claim specious and insulting.

  73. Twitter Blocking a New York Post Article Was Dumb—but Not Illegal, Censorship, or Election Interference

    Well, that’s for Congress and a court of law to decide.

  74. I have started this business of professional blogging of online job of SEO Visit here to earn thousands of dollars

  75. Too true.
    There is a real possibility that if this page is opened in California, a wildfire (caused by global climate warming change) would break out.

  76. Reason needs a dictionary, of the “define censor” search not a single definition had government in it.

    Getting rid of section 230 would not mean government would have more ability to actually censor, it would open the platforms up to private people suing for libel or slander, government or public officials cannot do that in America.

    It is fine to protect platforms but not publishers, they really need to figure out what they want to be.

  77. Too true.
    There is a real possibility that if this page is opened in California, a wildfire (caused by global climate warming change) would break out.

Please to post comments