Recently, Sen. Bernie Sanders raised concerns over the banning of Donald Trump from Twitter as an attack on free speech by corporate censors. It apparently had no impact on Big Tech. Facebook has removed a video of an interview by Lara Trump of her father-in-law and former president. The company declared that it would censor any content “in the voice of Donald Trump.” It appears that Trump has achieved Voldemort status on social media and is now “he who must not be heard.”
Notably, he could be talking about the Yankees but the posting would be censored because the team was discussed in the voice of Donald Trump. It is not his view but Trump himself that is being canceled by the company. However, presumably, Lara Trump could sit next to Trump and have him whisper his views into her ear. She could then give his views in the voice of Lara rather than Donald Trump.
As we have previously discussed, Democrats have abandoned long-held free speech values in favor of corporate censorship. They clearly has a different “comfort zone” than Sanders. What discomforts many Democratic members is the ability of people to speak freely on these platforms and spread what they view as “disinformation.”
When Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey came before the Senate to apologize for blocking the Hunter Biden story before the election as a mistake, senators pressed him and other Big Tech executive for more censorship.
In that hearing, members like Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., HI) pressed witnesses like Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey for assurance that Trump would remain barred from speaking on their platforms: “What are both of you prepared to do regarding Donald Trump’s use of your platforms after he stops being president, will be still be deemed newsworthy and will he still be able to use your platforms to spread misinformation?”
Rather than addressing the dangers of such censoring of news accounts, Senator Chris Coons pressed Dorsey to expand the categories of censored material to prevent people from sharing any views that he considers “climate denialism.” Likewise, Senator Richard Blumenthal seemed to take the opposite meaning from Twitter, admitting that it was wrong to censor the Biden story. Blumenthal said that he was “concerned that both of your companies are, in fact, backsliding or retrenching, that you are failing to take action against dangerous disinformation.” Accordingly, he demanded an answer to this question:
“Will you commit to the same kind of robust content modification playbook in this coming election, including fact checking, labeling, reducing the spread of misinformation, and other steps, even for politicians in the runoff elections ahead?”
“Robust content modification” has a certain appeal, like a type of software upgrade. It is not content modification. It is censorship. If our representatives are going to crackdown on free speech, they should admit to being advocates for censorship.
Now “robust content modification” includes censoring the voice of Donald Trump. It is not just censorship but senseless. These companies are trying to erase a unpopular figures but in doing so they are only deepening the divisions and anger in our country. Yet, the media is largely either supportive or silent in the face of this corporate regulation of political speech.
The move by Facebook could strengthen calls for changing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Big Tech once fashioned itself as the equivalent of the telephone company, and thus sought protections as neutral suppliers of communication forums allowing people to voluntarily associate and interact. It then started to engage in expanding, conflicting acts of censorship. Yet, it still wants to remain protected as if it were neutral despite actively modifying content. We would never tolerate a telephone company operator cutting into a call to say the company did not approve of a statement that was just made, or cutting the line for those who did not voice approved positions.
That is why I call myself an “internet originalist.” True neutrality leaves it to individuals to choose who they read, watch or converse with in the media. You leave it up to people to decide whose voices will be heard.
If Trump is silenced on twitter, how are all the White Nationalist Militia members going to know to whom to send their death threats this week?
Shut your pie-hole, idiot!
Amazing how the right wing which is outraged OUTRAGED that Chris Cuomo could have once interviewed Andrew Cuomo on CNN thinks not only that Fox News contributor Lara Trump should interview Donald Trump but also that twitter should be forced to air it.
Family Ties,
The angst was not that Cuomo was interviewed….but that his BROTHER interviewed him…..which in the days of Journalistic Ethics would have not happened due to the direct Conflict of Interest issues.
Next thing you know Dr. Jill will not only. be speaking for Groping Joe….but will be asking the questions too and you I assume would be quite content with that.
And why would Dr. Jill asking questions of Joe in the hypo you suggest be worse journalistically than Lara Trump asking questions of Donald Trump?
Lara Trump just got a paid gig as a contributor on FoxNews. She will be amplifying the views of her father-in-law to millions a couple of times a week. FoxNews is broadcasting hers and his views on immigration. She is using her high profile platform to probably get a Senate seat in two years.
But, alas, Turley is concerned she and her father-in-law are being silenced.
Sump,
They were….by Face Books own admission.
Reading Comprehension not your strong suit I guess.
The time to shatter Silicon Valley was at least ten years ago. At the time nobody was paying attention, and nobody cared, in spite of the voices saying such. While I’m glad that people are finally waking up, now it will be ten times as hard. The millennial inheritors of tech have zero in common with the ideals of the people that founded it, and unless we get very serious real fast, all I can say is – good luck to us. Find your spines, Congress.
So what’s the principled response from the Lefties on this blog? The censorship is currently legal. Build your own platform if you don’t like it. While Turley won’t do it and shouldn’t do it; if these useful idiots had their posts deleted that supported violating constitutional principles, they’d be stuck sharing recipes.
These people are the domestic enemies that we were warned would take this country down.
Olly, the principled response has been posted quite clearly multiple times.
It involves the simple concept that there is no constitutional requirement for any of these companies to carry anyone’s messages or speech.
Everyone who signs up agrees to their terms set before them. Nobody forces anyone to sign up.
This censorship is and will always be legal. Simply because it’s THEIR platform. Their rules. They created it. Not the government or anyone else.
Your own employer can censor your speech if it wants to. If your employer doesn’t like a bumper sticker you have on your car they can tell you to take it off or be fired. It’s not a government entity and your right to free speech remains intact as long as you’re not employed by that company.
This censorship is and will always be legal. Simply because it’s THEIR platform. Their rules. They created it. Not the government or anyone else.
They may have created it, but the government facilitated their growth with Section 230 protections. Call it Big Tech Privilege. You know, like white privilege for these tech platforms. What we have is institutionalized techism. The people that support their Big Tech privilege are techists. They have no problem silencing opposition to their techism or making it extremely difficult to rise above the oppression. Time for conservatives to fight for reparations from these Big Techists.
Olly, “ They may have created it, but the government facilitated their growth with Section 230 protections. Call it Big Tech Privilege. You know, like white privilege for these tech platforms.”
Government didn’t facilitate their growth. Section 230 only protects them from being sued over what someone on their platforms say. It does nothing to prevent them from banning people who have agreed to their terms. In fact removing those protections will make it more likely they will ban more to prevent lawsuits.
Ironically anyone who signs up and agrees to their terms and conditions are being granted a privilege that can be taken away if you violate it. If you don’t like what they do, don’t sign up.
Interesting that you didn’t hear the principled response that the tech companies are too big and should be broken up.
Turley does have Darren delete comments and ban people.
Anonymous, what is considered “too big”?
Facebook doesn’t control the entirely of social media.
“ Turley does have Darren delete comments and ban people.”
So you agree that Turley attacks free speech too. Interesting.
Interesting…
Expected. A principled response requires…principles. They are anchored in the Democratic Party. The Democratic party is anchored in majoritarianism. In other words…power.
Olly, principled people would understand the principle of entering into an agreement. When people AGREE to terms and conditions set by the organization they wish to use for the benefits they provide without reading said terms and conditions the principle of AGREEMENT becomes the dominant dominant refutation of any excuses made after the fact. Ignorance has its consequences and only those who AGREED to the terms are solely responsible for experiencing these “unexpected” consequences.
Trump this week gave a speech at a wedding where he continued the Big Lie that the election was stolen from him. This speech was sent all over the internet.
This guy is not being silenced. He has been heard whenever he speaks. He just has nothing truthful and worthwhile to say.
The time for action is among us. There is no other option at this stage. They started this civil war and we need to be victorious. I call on all my fellow freedom loving Americans to TAKE DOWN the opposition in whatever ways necessary. This is too important, we need to TAKE AMERICA BACK!
I think we need to have a serious conversation about the proper ordering of society. I am not interested in a civil war that leaves the current powers that be in charge all over again. I would rather watch the paint dry and file my nails, than go out and eat a bullet for a new group of plutocrats. No thanks.
We need to consider undoing the power of financial capitalism, in favor of industrial capitalism. We need to stop globalism and save the nation.
Now, these terms are not well known. Financialism, financial capitalism. It means, in a nutshell, a plutocracy such like as America today which is controlled by financial interests.
But what’s the alternative? Industrial capitalism. Which depends on nationalism for its legality. Yet, nationalism is now often misbranded and confused with socialism, and all of them are throwwn into the “fascist” dustbin together. And yet, much of the world does pursue an industrial capitalism, for the good of the nation, as their explicit national economic policies.
Unfortunately, there has for many decades been a scheme to mis-brand such industrial capitalism, socialism.
The Republicans have long been captured by a libertarian narrative that stymies their best attempts to rectify things hurting the people. Talking back to Reagan here, Friedman.
The billionaires like the Koch brothers spread their money around and stab good leadership in the back, stymieing new timely initiatives.
Then the Democrats and their sponsors on Wall Street and among the banks and the national banking cartel leadership, all act in ways that ensures the current system, propped up by the strong dollar as world reserve currency, remains on track. Some of the green shoots of good ideas that appear among Democrats, are ripped up from the roots as they emerge, and front men like Credit Card Joe Biden get all the donations.
The mass media, owned by the corporate billionaire elite, keeps us misfocused on trivialities like trans-gender drama pro and con. This issue directly affects almost nobody, in terms of the relevant percentage of population truly invested in the topic. Or another campaign to eradicate racism, which is always whitey’s fault, even when it isn’t.
The deeper more important questions of economics remain untouched. Universities fail at teaching economics too. On purpose! Because of course they too are bought off,.
At the root, there is a question of what is the proper organization of society, and this is always, necessarily, a conversation that gets into money.
I recommend this long interview of Michael Hudson for people with an open mind who want to learn more about the dynamic tension between financial capitalism, aka globalism, and industrial capitalism, which although Hudson is loathe to say it, is fundamentally, nationalism itself. This is what must be understood. Sal Sar
https://www.unz.com/mhudson/in-quest-of-a-multipolar-economic-world-order/
These companies are not private anymore but are public utilities. They are used by public school districts, townships, etc as the major forms of communication. Now they have aligned with the fascist left. Anyone who supports Democrats and the fascism the Democrats support is entirely unAmerican. How disgusting that so many Americans have been fooled and allow themselves to be lied to by the Democrat party.
Silicon Valley must be shattered with the antitrust hammer ASAP
Break the information-warfare oligopoly they use against the people, and that will be the first step that readies the rest of it
Sal Sar
Highlyeducatedwoman, very doubtful about that, but these are still private companies. They are and cannot be regulated like utilities. Now your internet service provider (ISP). IS a utility because it’s purpose is to provide you with ACCESS to the internet.
Facebook only provides access to Facebook when you or anyone else agrees to their terms upon signing up willingly.
For an “educated suburban woman” it is painful to see the ignorance you presented.
Anyone who continues to support the Democratic Party is a fool – period.
I tried to retweet this post on Twitter. Blocked.
So true! From the noun FOOL, to the adjective FOOLish, to the adverb FOOLishly.
They aren’t blocking President Trump because he is unpopular.
They are blocking him because he is so popular it terrifies them.
Young, they are blocking him because he violated THEIR rules. They can ban any content they deem associated with him personally. It’s their platform.
They are not constitutionally required to carry his or anyone’s messages.
“It’s their platform.”
***
Not entirely.
They have accepted, and hidden behind, special protections granted to them by the American people through Congress subject to certain rules. They are arguably breaking those rules and have gone from something like a bulletin board to a political publisher of opinion and ‘approved’ fact. Their rules are whims; the public rules are laws.
They can follow their political whims but should surrender their privileged protections. If they publish they should have no more protection than the New York Times and even those lesser protections are seen to be too much lately.
I would add that I still suspect there is something buried in contract law that may expose them to considerable liability. All of their contracts are contracts of adhesion for starters, and there may be more.
When they act they know the harm they do so they may not even be able to hide behind Hadley v Bakendale and its successors.
Young, you’re referring to the liability protections they enjoy right now. That’s true, BUT removing those protections will only make it more easy for them to ban more people. Because it reduces their exposure to litigation and it gives them an incentive to be much more aggressive with their enforcement and limiting EVERYONE’s speech instead.
Yeah that’s a sure fire way to solve the problem.
I guarantee you even Turley’s own blog would be subject to being sued because of its posters conments.
Svelaz: “it reduces their exposure to litigation”
***
Most people find that removing one’s immunity to suit tends to increase exposure to litigation.
No, Young, Trump has NEVER been popular with the majority of the American people. That’s his delusion, and apparently yours, too. He set a record for low approval ratings in 4 years’ time, never even breaking 50% once, lost the popular vote in 2016, lost the election in 2020, he lost the House for the Republicans in 2018 and the Senate in 2020. He botched the economy, botched the pandemic, ran up an historic trade deficit and budget deficits, all for a huge ego with a pathetic need for attention and praise because, down deep inside, he knows he isn’t bright, isn’t successful and isn’t well liked.
He is banned from Twitter for fomenting a riot and invasion of our Capitol by pushing the BIG LIE which his tender ego required him to do because he cannot handle the truth that he is the most-unpopular and least successful White House occupant in recent history. Therefore, there must have been fraud. He won’t let it go. He can’t let it go.
America has had enough of Trump. He’s trying to circumvent the lifetime ban by going through Lara Trump’s account. That won’t be allowed, either. He just needs to go away.
If all the half truths just listed here were even half true, how do you account for 74 million votes? Until Covid, best economy in 50 years, most progress for minorities, highest employment, fewest deaths in new overseas wars, and a continually more secure border.
What have you been reading? Are you glued to “The View”?
Yes, Betsy, we see that you sit, starry-eyed, listening to and believing the lies put out by Fox. Trump did NOT have the “best economy in 50 years”. Obama and Jimmy Carter created more jobs and there was better economic growth during their tenures. The rest of this drivel is also lies.
Trump is a malignant narcissist and chronic, habitual liar. He exists to feed his huge ego, selling himself as a self-made billionaire real estate mogul. In truth, his Daddy financed his beginnings and bailed him out over the years until he lost control of his finances due to dementia. That’s when the bankruptcies started–6 of them so far. His businesses are under water and he owes hundreds of millions in loans coming due very soon. He had to turn to Russia for financial help because no US bank will loan him any more money because he’s a bad risk.
The 74 million votes are actually a little less, and based on lies and fear-mongering. Nevertheless, Biden got over 81 million votes and won, fair and square.
If Biden got 81 million votes, I assure you, it wasn’t fair and square.
This is how a FOOL writes FOLish stuff and then FOOLishly posts it!
“He just needs to go away” from the inside of your very small cranium, Natacha.
That is all you need to worry about. Because Trump’s not going away.
“That is why I call myself an “internet originalist.””
I find that hard to believe, since Darren deletes comments here and even blocks people. The guy who previously posted under the names “This is Absurd” and “Art Deco” has been blocked. I don’t see Turley directing Darren to unblock him. JT comes across as a hypocrite to complain about Twitter and Facebook while censoring people here.
Personally, I’m not an “internet originalist.” I think private companies can create their own Terms of Service, and if people don’t like them, they shouldn’t use the company. I don’t like Facebook’s terms. I’ve never had a Facebook account. I also think these companies are too big and should be split up under the antitrust laws. That will make it easier for alternatives to compete.
Anonymous:
The Turley blog allows far more adverse commentary than your comment would suggest.
Look at Joe Friday (in his various personas).
As far as I know, he was only banned once in spite of numerous comments like: “Turley, GFY”.
JF is a troll, yet appears to have almost unfettered access to the blog.
Monument, Turley’s blog does allow more than most blogs, but it still has its own terms and conditions everyone agrees to by signing up to post here.
Turley’s blog regulates speech and if it chooses to censors it too. It exercises the very same things Turley’s criticizes other platforms of doing as attacks on free speech. It’s hypocrisy at its most grotesque because it comes from a professed supporter of free speech.
Anonymous, that’s the hypocrisy of Turley’s position. His own blog practices exactly what he’s complaining others are doing. According to Turley’s “internet originalist” belief this blog should be a free for all smorgasbord of all kinds of speech, offensive, controversial, racist, bigoted, Lewd, profane, etc. But the second rules are imposed, based on his own view, he’s already attacking free speech.
Blumenthal and Hirono are two of the dimmest lights to ever occupy a Senate Seat and Coons should know better. The party on the left has become unhinged and frankly dangerous. It was only a few decades ago when the left demanded that the Nazis be allowed to March in Jewish Skokie and people screamed at conservatives for complaining that the right had the nerve to want to stop tax dollars from going to “artists” like the guy that created P*ss Christ, which was actually a crucifix in a jar of urine. Now the right didn’t demand anyone get closed down or cancelled they only didn’t want TAX DOLARS to go to support it. Now the left demands, DEMANDS, that internet providers censor that with which they disagree.
Hey Chris Coons and the two morons, would it be ok for you to pressure hotels, airlines and other private entities to ban a conservative? How about a Black conservative? How about a woman conservative? How about a gay conservative? How about a Black, gay female conservative? How about a Black, gay, female to make trans conservative?
A conservative sees the garbage on CNN and switches the channel, catches the lies on MSNBC and changes the channel and sees a magazine or newspaper like Time or the NY Times and doesn’t purchase them. A leftist sees Fox News and demands a boycott or even worse has national representatives try to get cable companies to remove them.
The left is a vile, small minded, corrupt, authoritarian danger to our freedom. Or should I say “our Fweedom”.
“Now the left demands, DEMANDS, that internet providers censor that with which they disagree.”
Nope. Internet providers are companies like Comcast, Verizon, RCN, AT&T, HughesNet, …, and they don’t censor. You can write whatever you want in your email, read whatever you want online, …, and no one is advocating that that change.
If you’re going to make an argument about it, understand what you’re talking about.
Well said.
Maybe legal, but it isn’t right.
The law lags, so the law must be updated.
If companies which control the internet space want to interfere in politics/free speech, then maybe they shouldn’t be allowed to control the internet.
We need to consider limitations and consequences.
I hate government regulation, but we are now fighting for the future of the country.
(Aside, politicians who violate their oath – obey the constitution – need to be voted out of office on those grounds alone.)
There’s a huge flaw in your argument. Facebook doesn’t control the internet. No single company controls the internet.
Facebook controls its own platform because obviously it is the owner and creator. They can do whatever they want according to their own established policies that every user agrees to.
A ban on Trump means a ban an anything trump is involved in even if his voice is on it. Facebook is well within its right to censor Trump completely for violating Facebook’s policies.
Turley keeps thinking that these companies are bound by the 1st amendment prohibitions. They are not. Only government is bound by these prohibitions.
Turley’s own blog has censored, booted, or “revoked privileges” to posters for violating its terms and conditions. Based on Turley’s own argument Turley is also guilty of censorship and attacking free speech.
“There’s a huge flaw in your argument. Facebook doesn’t control the internet. No single company controls the internet.”
NOT NECESSARY FOR ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT ACTION. Trust me they are big enough. Them and Twitter too. A look at google’s control over video-posting via Youtube too.
It must be done. The Silicon Valley oligarchs are enemies of the people.
Sal Sar
Democrat-tolerated corporate censorship, combined with HR1 (if it passes) would lock up the future for corporate control over elections via Democratic Party election “victories.” HR1 will allow the federal government to override state election laws, and with the Democrats and their corporate cronies in charge of the federal government, democracy would effectively be over. We would then enter an era of one-party/corporate rule, aka: fascism.
Facebook = Butt book.
Wipe a throw away the toilet paper.
Yes, this is an attack on free speech.
Social media pretended they were going to operate like the phone company in order to get liability protection. They were merely providing the platform for people to freely speak to each other. Platform, not publishers, remember?
The Little Brother of private industry monopolies run by Democrat activists, allied with the Democrats in power in government could lead to a tyrannical Single Party State. Who needs government propaganda when private industry so willingly obliges?
We need a real digital public square. If it’s legal to say in public, it should be uncensored on that digital venue. We really do need a space that operates like the phone company. We would not tolerate a telephone operator listening in to our phone calls, cutting us off from speaking with people, or criticizing the conversation. So why do we tolerate social media being just another Democrat organization. We can’t talk, now, unless we subscribe to the Democrat Party Line? They deplatform us, censor us, demonetize us, and promote prejudicial, false stories about us.
We either need a law that prohibits social media censorship, or we need a real digital public square by a new provider.
Down with the Democrat hegemony in Big Tech.
Karen, this is not an attack on free speech. It’s companies enforcing their policies which every one who uses THEIR platforms AGREE to.
If anyone is found violating the policy THEY AGREED TO ABIDE BY when they signed up, they can censor or ban out at their discretion. None of these platforms are constitutionally required to carry anyone’s posted messages or conversations.
Turley and others upset at the idea that these companies can censor speech because “it’s wrong” keep forgetting that everyone AGREED to the terms which included censorship or being banned. It’s ridiculous how so many don’t understand that simple concept that people willingly, stupidly AGREED to it. They only have themselves to blame.
Actually, there were no such policies when most people signed up on Facebook. They were implemented recently. It’s called “Changing the rules in the middle of the game.” I got off of Facebook and Twitter because they have an agenda I do not support. Get off and leave it to the leftists who are trying to ruin this country.
Semcgwanjr, that’s true, BUT every time they change the rules you STILL have to accept the new changes or not.
They give you the option not to accept the new changes. It often pops up as a clear notification that changes to terms and conditions occurred. It gives you a link to the new terms and a chance to a accept or not. As it is always, the majority of people just hit “I AGREE” so they can quickly get back to their content.
Then they proceed to gripe and cry fowl over unjust censorship and bans…. but they still AGREED to the new terms.
Turley who seems like an intelligent person can’t seem to grasp that little problem in his complaints about these “attacks on free speech” that users continue to agree to.
You are exactly right. Facebook started out as a medium through which people could connect with others. Then after Donald Trump was elected, they came out with new “rules” banning political speech they didn’t like. Zuckerberg and his ilk are nothing but tyrants and those who claim they aren’t are tyrants themselves. They have crossed a line and should be boycotted.
“ Zuckerberg and his ilk are nothing but tyrants and those who claim they aren’t are tyrants themselves. They have crossed a line and should be boycotted.”.
The horror! CEO’s who built their own companies deciding what they can do with it and forced millions to sign up and agree to their dastardly terms and conditions. These tyrants must be held accountable for violating people’s rights that they were forced to give up. (Rolling eyes in sarcastic manner ).
We get it, Karen. You hate Democrats. You’ve made that clear. You’re a Trumpster, and you think that makes you a conservative, but it doesn’t, but they conflate the two on Fox, so you repeat it. You like to try to throw around big words you really don’t understand, too.
President Trump’s website:
https://www.45office.com/
TRUMP 2024!
Communist behavior, plain and simple. Thank a Democrat today for the loss of your freedoms.
I’ve said this once and I’ll say it again every single person that voted for Joe Biden, needs there ass beat the way I did my brother-in-law. And the day that he voted for him my oldest sister warned him,
“If you do this when you come home you will not be allowed back in to this multi million dollar house that is in my name 100%. As you know my daddy is the one that put you in the position that you’re in, at the company. When you drive off to go vote you will not have a job to go back to tomorrow.
“N or will you be allowed back onto company property. All of your belongings at the office will be boxed up, then thrown away. Because I will call my brother to come get it all and he’s already said he will enjoy burning every bit of it”. Which I did. I enjoyed burning every bit of it.
🙂
Sedition laws next up?
Maybe, but too much SCOTUS precedent contra
Zuckerberg and Dorsey should cancel Kamala Harris for supporting rioting last summer, but this isn’t about parity. It’s about tyranny.
What goes around comes around.
Zuck and Dork are tyrants is my point.
Zuck and Dorsey and many others if not most on the billionaire list are tyrants, plutocrats, and racketeers. There are also some open traitors on that list.
A proper government would reign them in. We do not have a proper government.
Sal Sar
Agreed!