There has been much press about the New York University study, “False Accusation: The Unfounded Claim that Social Media Companies Censor Conservatives.” It is being touted by the media as establishing that any allegations of bias against conservatives is “disinformation,” the term used by authors Paul M. Barrett and J. Grant Sims of the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights. That term of course is now used as a basis for flagging or censoring material. The problem is that the study is largely conclusory and, though buried in the study, acknowledges that it is not based on any real hard data and is therefore “inconclusive.”
Conservatives have hit the study as funded by Craig Newmark, a billionaire tech titan who is a major donor to Biden and Democratic candidates. Newmark has reportedly supported groups in favor of blacklisting and called on Big Tech to take action against “bad actors.” However, the authors did reveal Newmark’s funding and, while Barrett has also been attacked for a record allegedly supporting Big Tech, the credibility of the study would be judged on its actual support and analysis.
It is really two lines in the study that is the most serious problem in my view:
The question of whether social media companies harbor an anti-conservative bias can’t be answered conclusively because the data available to academic and civil society researchers aren’t sufficiently detailed. Existing periodic enforcement disclosures by Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are helpful but not granular enough to allow for thorough analysis by outsiders.
So the study is not actually based on a review of individuals and groups censored by these companies because the companies refuse to release the data. Much of the rest of study seems strikingly conclusory and at points apologist. For example, the blocking of the Hunter Biden story before the election was a disgraceful decision for which the Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey later apologized. The authors largely dismiss the entire incident as a simple mistake:
“The Post/Biden imbroglio, in retrospect, seems like a case of reasonable decisions wrapped in mystifying processes. Facebook generally tries to stop posts from spreading if there are “signals” of falsehood. But as in the Post/Biden case, the company doesn’t disclose what those signals are, leaving onlookers to speculate. For its part, Twitter froze the Post/Biden story based on a rule against sharing hacked material. But under fire from conservatives, Twitter backed down, saying that from now on, it would ban hacked material only if it is directly shared by hackers or their accomplices.”
The problem is that the story itself clearly stated that the information did not come from hacked material but Hunter Biden’s own abandoned laptop. Moreover, major newspapers regularly publish information from insiders and whistleblowers like that contained in the New York Post story. Yet, the authors just dismiss that matter as confusion while citing conservative pressure on the company for its changing positions.
At every turn, the authors portray controversies as at best anecdotal or unsupported while acknowledging that it does not have the data to actually determine if there is a pattern of bias. It does not indicate any substantial insights or new information on the internal deliberations at companies like Twitter. Most of what is in the study is based on previously known and discussed facts. It simply presents those facts as a case in support of Big Tech on the allegation of bias.
The study also offers little on the striking contrast of companies banning figures like Donald Trump but allowing others to continue to justify violence or spout hate toward conservatives. We previously discussed professors who have called for killing Trump supporters. Others seem to justify violence. Rhode Island Professor Erik Loomis who writes for the site Lawyers, Guns, and Money and declared that he saw “nothing wrong” with the killing of a conservative protester. (A view defended by other academics). Other professors have simply called for all “Republicans to suffer.”
In the end, I would be interested in looking at the actual data and would keep an open mind on the results. Ironically, my problem is with the entire premise of the expanding system of censorship regardless of how it is implemented. Free speech is my bias. The authors openly support “moderation” which is the preferred term for censorship in our new world of speech controls. This is why I recently described myself as an Internet Originalist:
The alternative is “internet originalism” — no censorship. If social media companies returned to their original roles, there would be no slippery slope of political bias or opportunism; they would assume the same status as telephone companies. We do not need companies to protect us from harmful or “misleading” thoughts. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not approved speech.
Yet, this study is neither conclusive or particularly compelling. It read more like an extended, 20-page opinion editorial. It does seem itself to have a pronounced bias, particularly in declaring allegations of bias as “false” and “disinformation” while quietly noting that it cannot conclusively say whether there is bias.
The problem is that the story itself clearly stated that the information did not come from hacked material but Hunter Biden’s own abandoned laptop.
And Twitter knew it was legit for two weeks before relenting. Twitter made countless deliberate decisions to suppress something it knew to be legitimate news. It cannot be presented as a mistake.
Obviously, this “study” was conducted before James O”Keefe published the hidden videos of Zuckerberg and other Facebook officials spouting off.
Yet, this study is neither conclusive or particularly compelling. It read more like an extended, 20-page opinion editorial.
Yes, of course. It is disinformation.
The problem is that if you look at this very blog you can see that the left almost has a monopoly on rage at universities and colleges. These rage machine professors are constantly saying extremist inflammatory rhetoric and have no interest in free speech at all. They applaud the censoring of the right, and they are absolutely fine with lying as long as it suits their own ideology, in fact they believe lying is great if it gets their point across. So we have giant left-wing tech oligarchs producing studies about the bias of their platforms, playing it up for a biased crowd whose only morals seem to be “do anything it takes to get your way.”
Also, saying that Dorsey, the twitter CEO pretending he is amish with that ridiculous beard, acknowledged that twitter made a mistake on blocking the New York Post’s Hunter Biden story is not really factual in that it wasn’t sincere in the slightest, and when he made that false acknowledgement he was immediately asked if the New York Post’s twitter account would be unlocked and his response was to say yes, when the NYPost deletes their tweet!
Dorsey is the classic Narcissist oligarch. He apologizes and talks about “mistakes” after he already got what he wanted and kept the story out of the public eye. He then says, “Opps…” It is the same thing some of these News outlets do. They put out an inflammatory story that they either manufactured whole cloth or twisted and turned it into something it is not so it fits their narrative, and then, later, they issue a retraction or correction which no one ever ends bup being able to see.
A Cady, as to your Hunter Biden comment, the responsible press – and in this case Twitter – have a history of not publishing information just before an election that could be damaging and is unsubstantiated.
That happened in 2016 to Trump’s advantage:
“….The founders of Fusion GPS have described how they did not hide the fact that they were researching Trump and Russia: “Fusion and Steele tried to alert U.S. law enforcement and the news media to the material they’d uncovered …” and their office became “something of a public reading room” for journalists seeking information. In September they arranged a private meeting between Steele and reporters from The Washington Post, The New York Times, The New Yorker, ABC News, and other outlets. The results were disappointing, as none published any stories before the election.[58]
Jane Mayer has described how, in “late summer, Fusion set up a series of meetings, at the Tabard Inn, in Washington, between Steele and a handful of national-security reporters. … Despite Steele’s generally cool manner, he seemed distraught about the Russians’ role in the election.” Mayer attended one of the meetings. None of these news organizations ran any stories about the allegations at that time.[21]
Only two sources mentioned allegations, which we now know came from dossier reports, before the election. Steele had been in contact with both authors. These were a September 23, 2016, Yahoo! News article by Michael Isikoff which focused on Carter Page,[106] and an article by David Corn on October 31, 2016, a week before the election, in Mother Jones magazine.[83]…”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier
A Cady, as to your Hunter Biden comment, the responsible press – and in this case Twitter – have a history of not publishing information just before an election that could be damaging and is unsubstantiated.
The Bidens themselves substantiated the;laptop’s contents. It’s called an “adoptive admission”. Tony Bobulinski, moreover, explicitly authenticated numerous emails to which he was a party.,
Joe, many would argue–convincingly, IMHO–that the Hunter laptop story could be SUBSTANTIATED in the several weeks running up to the election and was relevant to the election. Your argument at this point would be that Hunter’s laptop could be substantiated but the allegations against Joe could not be. That depends on what “substantiated” means. The emails “suggested” Joe was involved and Tony Bobulinski publicly backed the emails and accused Joe of blatant influence peddling. That in my opinion is enough substantiation to run with the story, even before the election. Also, substantiation was not Twitter’s explanation for censoring the story. They claimed the laptop was hacked and it wasn’t. Again, it’s just my opinion, but the left-of-center media buried the story to protect Joe, not because it lacked substantiation or relevance.
Diogenes, you rightly focus on what the laptop substantiates about Joe Biden, not Hunter, but “suggesting” such is weak sauce relative to the political damage covering it does. With the Steele Dossier, several of the allegations were in fact later proved true – Putin was trying to damage Hillary’s campaign and help Trump’s – and maybe those major news sources in retrospect should have covered it. But they didn’t in the interests acting responsibly – not because they liked Trump and wanted to do favors for him. The same interpretation on the laptop information is the most probable.
Joe, appreciate your polite response. Bobulinski provided emails and made sworn statements that Joe was the “Big Guy” in the emails, so the emails’ suggestions were publicly corroborated by someone who would qualify as a legal witness. As for the Steele Dossier, no legal witnesses came forward before 2016 the election. Not comparable situations.
Diogenes, unless you have the “Big Guy” actively discussing any of this in the emails, or some other evidence, these are unsubstantiated accusations about future events. There is no corroborating evidence, including in Joe Biden’s tax returns and Bobulinski provided none.
“Hunter Biden’s Ex-Business Partner Alleges Father Knew About Venture
Former vice president says he had no involvement; corporate records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/hunter-bidens-ex-business-partner-alleges-father-knew-about-venture-11603421247
Joe, corporate records involving influence peddling are as reliable as Al Capone’s tax returns.
Right Diogenes. Otherwise the books would look like this: data entry staff may select the account for “INCOME: BRIBES FROM CHINA” on the income side, and there is also an expense category for “BRIBES TO CORRUPT LAW ENFORCEMENT” which is right after “ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSE: HOOKERS & BLOW”
These are ordinary and necessary expenses of politicians like Biden. IRS is ok with it, probably.
LOL!! Entertainment expenses was a good one.
Diogenes, there are no records supporting the accusations. See the WSJ reporting on this which I linked.
Joe Biden is a compromised individual on numerous levels not least of which is his mental competence.
Aside from the fact that the FBI is more corrupt today than during the era of Herbert Hoover, and the CIA is an albatross hanging on the necks of Americans, you are incapable of showing any credibility even at forecasting the weather. You have proven to be a left wing paid hack. Be honest for at least one day out of 365 days
“In late July 2016, US intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that US Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against US Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the DNC. The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation of the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggerations or fabrication,” John Ratcliffe wrote to Lindsey Graham.
The Obama-Biden White House was briefed on it by then-CIA Director John Brennan.
“According to his handwritten notes, former CIA Director Brennan subsequently briefed President Obama and other senior national security officials on the intelligence, including the “alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal and claiming interference by Russian security services.”
+100
This is obviously not a post from committ. What kind of person pretends to be another on a forum for the exchange of ideas?
As we have seen from my previous posts, Fusion GPS promoted the Steele Dossier as early as September of 2016 to major newspapers and sources and none of them chose to report it, including later proven facts regarding Putin’s intent to harm Hillary’s campaign and help Trump’s – see GOP majority Senate Intel Comm Report below for verification of this fact. Note that Hillary did not promote or report this information during the campaign, probably because she didn’t even know about it, though maybe she did and decided to not bring it up until verified. If the above claimed plot – by “Committ” – existed, anyone in the Obama administration and Hillary’s campaign could have promoted this information, including the fact that the Trump campaign was under investigation by the FBI before the election, yet didn’t.. Even Comey did not do this as he did make public the fact that Hillary was under FBI investigation 2 weeks before the election.
What kind of dunce does it take to put this simple 2+2 problem together and not get 4?
“The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian
effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak
information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president. Moscow’s intent was
to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the
Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the
U.S. democratic process.
-WikiLeaks actively sought, and played, a key role in the Russian
influen~ery likely knew it was assistin a Russian intelli ence influence
effort. The Committee found si nificant indications tha
At the time of the
first WikiLeaks releases, the U.S. Government had not yet declared WikiLeaks a hostile
organization and many treated itas a journalistic entity. ”
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf
You’re obviously not Joe Friday considering your avatar
You’re a fake, a liar, a con, through and through. Then again no one disputes these facts
“ This is obviously not a post from committ. ”
Since you and Commit are the same person, you of course would know.
Unless if Commit is a different individual then you would have no phknn idea. That you would deign to speak with authority on such a matter belies how craven your organization is at usurping the narrative. You are an empty shell at best.
Your wife must relish getting banged by real men when you’re not building construction projects worth $1.5 M
/sarc
Why don’t they just say they don’t know?
New York this! New York that!
All those people up there are fat!
Trump is a Yorkie.
He talks like one too.
His dad was a Klansman
And Donnie’s one too.
Bulletin from the TASS News Agency – October 1979:
“The Soviet Union has just achieved a world record harvest in grains and potatoes during the year of 1979. Glory to the Great Soviet people and Party for this heroic achievement.”
Meanwhile Svetlana waits in line with her go to bag hoping to obtain her family’s daily allotment of potatoes (or is it toilet paper today?), hoping there will be some remaining when she reaches the front.
antonio
“Conservatives have hit the study as funded by Craig Newmark, a billionaire tech titan who is a major donor to Biden and Democratic candidates. Newmark has reportedly supported groups in favor of blacklisting and called on Big Tech to take action against “bad actors.”
In the interest of fairness, I’d love to know who pays for JT’s subscriber list pushpieces on the blog here.
Elvis Bug
Currency 234 has it right… This is paid “research” to give cover. Let me explain that just a little bit more.
A great many on the left suffer from cognitive dissonance, because what they know to be the truth is not what they wish to believe. The Russian collusion conspiracy hoax would be the prime example of the past several years. There are many more. One of the ways to alleviate one’s cognitive dissonance is to find facts or proof showing that what you believe is true.
That is what this article does. Even here in this blog comment section we are seeing leftist individuals point to it as proving their case. In other words, rather than examine the hard facts of censorship against conservatives, and there are a great many, they can point to the study and say “see, it doesn’t happen, you’re wrong”, while citing a presumably authoritative source for their belief. A great many others will just read this article, and absorb the presumed truth in it, that conservative bias does not exist.
In that way, they can preserve their mistaken beliefs rather than have to fall in line with what the truth is.
It is hard to believe any real academic would put their name on such shoddy research. They included NO objective data that would support their claim and instead used anecdotal evidence, often from the very subjects they are supposed to be evaluating, as proof of their claims. Their extremely limited use of objective data (primarily about time viewed) was not as evidence to support their claim but to suggest it does not matter anyways because there’s still lots of “views” of right of center media.
The most appalling statement to me, aside from their admission that is the statement “The Post/Biden imbroglio, in retrospect, seems like a case of reasonable decisions wrapped in mystifying processes”. This statement alone reveals the deep-seated bias they bring to their research, acting as their own censors and providing subjective and tainted words about a reasonable and valid claim of obvious censorship.
This “document” would never pass any peer review. Academia should be petrified that this was allowed to be passed off as research and disseminated in its name… the fact that they weren’t petrified or outrages speaks volumes.
HIghlyeducated, the responsible press – and in this case Twitter – have a history of not publishing information just before an election that could damaging and is unsubstantiated.
That happened in 2016 to Trump’s advantage:
“….The founders of Fusion GPS have described how they did not hide the fact that they were researching Trump and Russia: “Fusion and Steele tried to alert U.S. law enforcement and the news media to the material they’d uncovered …” and their office became “something of a public reading room” for journalists seeking information. In September they arranged a private meeting between Steele and reporters from The Washington Post, The New York Times, The New Yorker, ABC News, and other outlets. The results were disappointing, as none published any stories before the election.[58]
Jane Mayer has described how, in “late summer, Fusion set up a series of meetings, at the Tabard Inn, in Washington, between Steele and a handful of national-security reporters. … Despite Steele’s generally cool manner, he seemed distraught about the Russians’ role in the election.” Mayer attended one of the meetings. None of these news organizations ran any stories about the allegations at that time.[21]
Only two sources mentioned allegations, which we now know came from dossier reports, before the election. Steele had been in contact with both authors. These were a September 23, 2016, Yahoo! News article by Michael Isikoff which focused on Carter Page,[106] and an article by David Corn on October 31, 2016, a week before the election, in Mother Jones magazine.[83]…”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier
Turley is blind to this, willingly or otherwise.
Note to Trumpers: Ending 230 protection will make posting on social media more restrictive not less. If you don’t advocate dangerous, false, and /or illegal activities, you won’t get kicked off of social Media – see the Trump boys, Rep Greene, etc,.though she has advocated murder.
Are you all in favor of opening our pubic airwaves – they are limited, legally considered public property, and “regulated by the FCC, unlike the internet – and re-instituting the fairness doctrine for broadcast TV and radio? You all killed that under Reagan. If not, you’re worse than a hypocrite.
PS The latter might require offsetting liberal commentators after Rush, instead of 21 hours of different right wing screamers.
You are deranged.
Won’t get kicked off for telling the truth? Ridiculous~
Fairness doctrine? Be serious. Fairness doctrine = one Leftist voice responding to another.
Moreover, we don’t to end 230 protection. Instead, we want to CREATE it. We would PREFER a Twitter that follows the rules entitling to section 230 protection, but Twitter evidently prefers the current state of affairs, in which it is NOT protected by section 230.
To millennials like those in the Valley and elsewhere, editorials ARE legitimate studies. They have been taught their entire lives that facts are secondary to their feelings. It’s why everything from journalism to science to education is such a mess. They have no problem with being intentionally disingenuous if it serves them, either (see: buying term papers or having their parents do their homework or lying on job applications). They honestly believe this, and they honestly believe through entitlement that if we don’t like it we can eff off, or worse. Most altruistic generation, my eye: they are focused solely on personal comfort and selfishness. They help others to make THEMSELVES feel better.
This ‘study’ is not at all surprising, on the contrary it’s all too typical and predictable, they really do believe they are inherently superior (narcissistic disorder) and that we are stupid, like their parents. Sorry kids (some of whom are now 40, at least in biological age). We aren’t. Neither are we intimidated. Usually when stood up to they either curl fetal or explode in rage, just like the four year-olds they still are, emotionally.
The trick is not to take them seriously and to cease the coddling and call them out, just as this piece does.
“The question of whether social media companies harbor an anti-conservative bias can’t be answered conclusively because the data available to academic and civil society researchers aren’t sufficiently detailed.”
if the data are not “sufficiently detailed,” then you cannot do a rigorous analysis. Period.
There is no such thing as an “academic” or a “civil society” researcher. There are researchers who utilitize different methodologies, but when writer refer to themselves as “civil society researchers,” or “academic” researchers, you can be certain they are not “serious” researchers.
“The Post/Biden imbroglio, in retrospect, seems like a case of reasonable decisions wrapped in mystifying processes. Facebook generally tries to stop posts from spreading if there are “signals” of falsehood.”
The writing here betrays the authors — if the processes are “mystifying,” there is no basis on which to judge them “reasonable,” and I am hard-pressed to think of a single “case” in decades of reading scholarly articles in which I have run across an “imbroglio” that is a “case of reasonable decision wrapped in mystifying processes.” However, I can think of lots of badly written manuscripts and papers using such inflated and meaningless language, usually to hide the vacuity of the author’s thought processes.
This very much appears to be the sort of research that cigarette companies used to fund, and the kind of partisan nonsense in which many ‘think tanks’ specialize. Although now thirty years old, Lawrence Soley’s The News Shapers: The Sources Who Explain the News (Praeger, 1992), is useful to help in understanding how the news changed from ‘value-free’ reporting to value-infused, partisan commentary. The Hoover Institute, the Cato Institute, the Brookings Institute, and numerous other organizations exist primarily to ‘research,’ ‘write,’ and ‘disseminate’ what is not so much misinformation as information which is presented in a way to favor a particular point of view. Apparently, NYU has joined that group of sping doctors.
As per Jeffery below, Turley claims NYU bias while shooting from his Fox perch. What a gag – pun intended. Let’s see his data. Fat chance – he doesn’t have any.
The issue is binary and the 2 measures are:
1. Regulating information deemed dangerous, obviously false, and a violation of users’ terms. – Triump and a few other high profile serial liars were cut off for this reason, not because they were Republicans. Other Republicans – like his sons and everyone else – are merrily posting along all day, every day.
2. Usage by political loyalty – much higher by Republicans and right wingers. That is anecdotally true and by the various studies cited in the NYU report – I quoted some yesterday.
So, if you are constantly lying and trying to fire up potentially dangerous crowds, yeah, you might be cut off. If you are a GOP or right wing citizen engaged in legal discussion, you have no problem, total access to these sites, and in fact are in the majority on these platforms.
What’s the problem with that? I mean other than trying to rile each other up about being persecuted?
PS Eliminating section 230 protection will make the situation worse if you want more access. What is wrong with people calling for this. That is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Joe Friday, +100! Exactly.
To Joe Friday…The facts and nothing but the facts.
Just because you hate Trump, does not make his speech dangerous. Disagreeing with one’s facts, does not always make you right. We do have a First Amendment (freedom of speech) in our Constitution, and the Supreme Court has ruled on that. It is not up to you, or your friends who run social media, to decide on what speech is dangerous…especially since you have never said that lies and speech that were far worse than what Trump said…should be banned.
Unfortunately, you are sounding more and more like Chairman Xi, who feels that any speech that “he” does not agree with, must be banned for the good of his country. Under his rules and yours, there is no room for any speech other than your own.
Since I went to NYU, I am embarrassed that they would pull a stunt like this, as if it is relevant and truthful.
Replicant, maybe you were in a coma on Jan 6, but the danger of Trump’s lies was on full display at the Capital that day.
The 1st amendment does not mean you can come into my place of business and say anything you want, and I have to let you in.
See you at McSorely’s!
Nothing Trump said or did was to promote violence. On the other hand we have seen the idols of the left promote all sorts of violence that cannot be mistaken.
Replicant, “ It is not up to you, or your friends who run social media, to decide on what speech is dangerous…especially since you have never said that lies and speech that were far worse than what Trump said…should be banned.”
Actually it is. The first amendment only protects you from the government punishing you or censoring you for exercising your free speech. It also protects the free press from being censored or punished by the government for exercising THEIR free speech. Meaning, like Fox News is allowed to post lies as news or CNN to be biased.
Big tech can limit your right to free speech. They are not constitutionally obligated to carry anyone’s messages or views.
Too many conservatives have this mistaken belief that the 1st amendment protects you from anyone censoring your free speech. It doesn’t. It just prohibits government from doing so.
And blood-black nothingness began to spin A system of cells interlinked within Cells interlinked within cells interlinked Within one stem. And dreadfully distinct, Against the dark, a tall white fountain played.
Sal Sar
Joe Friday, what I see is more of the victimhood mentality than anything else.
When they can’t recognize that their own rhetoric and behavior is crossing a line and they produce consequences suddenly it’s about being a victim of their own creation, but blaming others for the result. It fits the pattern of avoiding responsibility for their own actions and rhetoric. The party of “personal responsibility” can’t seem to recognize its own mantra.
As for Turley calling himself an “Internet originalist” he seems to suggest he would be ok with an anything goes approach with free speech. If that’s truly his view nobody should ever be kicked off his blog for extreme rhetoric, lying, personal attacks, etc.
Indeed Svelaz, and victim hood is what the right, from Limbaugh on, has been selling to reasonably well off white people since the 80s at least. Haven’t seen numbers on 2020 yet, but Hillary voters had less income than Trump voters in 2016, and his sure were white.
Yes, you can get kicked off here and for not much.
Joe Friday, the biggest hypocrisy involving Turley’s claims of being an “internet originalist”. Is displayed the very second anyone on this blog clicks on the “post comment” button. As soon as you do an algorithm examines the content for anything that violates the terms and conditions. Be it racial epithets, profanity, etc. Turley’s blog according to his own beliefs shouldn’t have that at all. He’s doing exactly what other tech companies have done.
He never mentions his own blog page as being truly a free speech zone where anything goes.
Even the crazies on here are limited from going too far. Limited…free speech.
I can’t believe the controversy here!. The authors ADMIT that they were not privy to statistical information. And most of the ” rules” are subjective anyway. This is like Cuomo saying the study about nursing home deaths exonerated him. His administration ran the investigation!! What a shock! You can’t investigate yourself. And as far as Big Tech censorship, this is a self investigation.
So, if you are constantly lying and trying to fire up potentially dangerous crowds, yeah, you might be cut off. If you are a GOP or right wing citizen engaged in legal discussion, you have no problem, total access to these sites, and in fact are in the majority on these platforms.
What’s the problem with that?
The problem is that is false outside of your fantasy world.
And stop pretending that these sites have 230 protection. They do not. They are publishers.
If Twitter EVER chooses to censor something as “false” — even ONE time — it is a publisher.
Newsflash! You have to put together a bibliography and literature review on a subject, and that takes time. You have to have some understanding of what constitutes valid and reliable method. And a lot of academics are steeped in motivated reasoning and worse. Referring to a study is better than just tossing out an opinion, but there are limits to the utility of such citations. (In this particular case, you can see right away the insuperable labor involved in developing a proper sampling frame, coding subjects, &c). And let’s just say the conclusion is…counter-intuitive.
LMAO that you think such labor is insuperable.
Maybe you’re just lazy.
Not if you got through college with your wallet, you don’t. Regular old astroturfing does just fine for folks like this, at least in their tiny version of reality.
NYU project was funded by a Silicon Valley Investor who is a Biden supporter and is well known Biden supporter and he and the lead professor are close and he funds this professor’s work. If you simply look at Tucker Carlson’s last night segment on this report and tells you who everyone is and their history and biased. Also, Twitter sent this report to Tucker Carlson with a warning about disinformation. This report is paid BS to give cover to Big Tech. Time for other states and the Gov’t to follow Florida’s action yesterday, with fines,legal action and etc. Time to stand up to these Big Tech companies and get rid of 230.
That’s a reason to dig. The study has to stand or fall on its own merits.
Turley has acknowledged that he works for Fox News. I understand that he is not permitted, and to date never has, criticized his own network. In the interest of transparency, he should include the fact that he is so employed in every article lest his readers assume that he is an independent commentator.
End section 230 and sue the social media companies civilly and criminally if possible.
Top notch article at WSJ:
The Constitution Can Crack Section 230allan613@icloud.com
Tech companies think the statute allows them to censor with impunity. The law is seldom so simple.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-constitution-can-crack-section-230-11611946851
Anonymous, “ Tech companies think the statute allows them to censor with impunity. The law is seldom so simple.”
Tech companies are under not constitutionally obligated to honor the 1st amendment. They are not the government.
Getting rid of section 230 won’t stop the censorship because their exposure to lawsuits would give them more reason to ban more incendiary commenters who pose a risk. In fact, getting rid of the 230 liability protections would allow anyone to sue Turley for comments posted on his blog. He would have to spend time and money defending lawsuits or shut down.
The perception that tech companies are censoring conservative views is based on illiterate understanding of what constitutes 1st amendment rights. Company CAN censor your speech. None are obligated to carry it. You can still exercise it, BUT also you are not protected from the consequences of exercising it.
Everyone who signed on to any platform agreed willingly to abide by the rules THEY set. Because it’s THEIR platform.
“Tech companies are under not constitutionally obligated to honor the 1st amendment. ”
If you used what God gave most of us you would see that the 1st amendment as generally interpreted is not what was under discussion.
Read the article. If you can’t get it tell me and I will post it for you to read. You have absolutely no understanding of the Constitution or the rule of law. All you are spewing is ignorance.
S. Meyer, point out where in the constitution it says anyone is obligated to carry anyone’s message or speech.
Constitutional scholars wouldn’t agree with you either.
Show us where in the constitution your free speech cannot be censored by private entities like Twitter or Facebook, or any other internet platforms. I’ll wait.
No law requires any platform to be unbiased either. But if you disagree, prove me wrong then.
“Constitutional scholars wouldn’t agree with you either.”
I provided you with an editorial by an exceptional attorney. He provided numerous arguments that clarified the various problems with your interpretation. I would provide a synopsis but the details require a lot of explanation that is better left in his hands. I offered to post it so you could read the entire op-ed if you couldn’t use the site.
Why aren’t you reading the article that is both a summary and an explanation that is written using as few words as possible? Reading this piece would definitely change your mind unless the content was too difficult for you to understand.
S.Meyer, “ I provided you with an editorial by an exceptional attorney. ”
You didn’t provide any editorial or link to to it.
Where is it?
“You didn’t provide any editorial or link to to it.”
You don’t pay attention. The link was provided in the initial comment of this mini-thread that you are responding to.
It said: “Top notch article at WSJ:”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-constitution-can-crack-section-230-11611946851
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-constitution-can-crack-section-230-11611946851
I’m waiting for your reply.
I am not impressed with NYU. Mediocre at best.
These people lie to us, but they also lie to themselves.
Dishonestly is a major part of their existence.
Just look at the posts of many leftist writers here.
Watch, Anonymous the Stupid will come up with a Stupid post that will have nothing to do with the theme of this blog post.
Gainesville will (1) try to divert the discussion to something else, (2) rail at the moderator as a ‘Trump shill’, or (3) just throw out a profane dismissal (“who GAF?”). Paint Chips will just attempt the first of these.
😎 And note that we have Silverstein pretending to know everything about Turley’s relationship with Foxnews and yet he still needs a disclaimer.
Thanks for the gratuitous anti-semitic stereotyping, jerk o…Olly.
If you object to “GAF” as profanity, no doubt you’ll also tell Olly to stop telling people “GFY.”
How about Olly and Miss Manners – monumentcolorado – stop the gratuitous anti-semitism of stereotyping Jeffery by purposely misspelling his last name. .
You’ll have to explain why writing the name Silverstein is anti-Semitic.
Perhaps he fancies Silberman is a French name.
No I won’t have to explain Olly, We all get the code.
His name is Silberman, To get to Silverstein you had to change 4 letters and add 2 more. Hardly a mistake.
If Arty couldn’t respond to every post he doesn’t like with personal attack, while highlighting he can’t stand on solid factual ground, he just wouldn’t know what to do other than sigh on his fainting couch.
The term ‘personal attack’ does not mean what you’re pretending it means.
Allan, you were the first one to post anonymously on this column at 8:29 AM. You are the Anonymous the Stupid you criticize.
My prediction was:
“Watch, Anonymous the Stupid will come up with a Stupid post that will have nothing to do with the theme of this blog post.”
He did. He doesn’t realize how Stupid he sounds. All these back and forth are dumb, but one sometimes has to take out the trash.
Anonymous, take note, except with you, most of my comments have content something that is beyond your intellectual capacity.
Anonymous the Stupid proves my prediction about that fools behavior.
“Post by SAllan Meyer.”
No one cares but Anonymous the Stupid is too Stupid to notice.