Silicon Valley Social Media Is Totally Discriminating Against Conservative Voices

Following the crackdown against Alex Jones and various other pundits on Twitter and other social media outlets, on Saturday morning President Trump joined the big tech censorship debate, and accused social media of "totally discriminating against Republican/Conservative voices", claiming that the Trump administration "won't let that happen", and arguing that the platforms should allow both "good and bad" content online amid an escalating debate over social media’s growing censorship and role in policing content online.

"Social Media is totally discriminating against Republican/Conservative voices. Speaking loudly and clearly for the Trump Administration, we won’t let that happen. They are closing down the opinions of many people on the RIGHT, while at the same time doing nothing to others," Trump tweeted.

Trump's tweet follows just hours after prominent anti-war activist Caitlin Johnstone became the latest voice to be temporarily suspended on Twitter without an explanation for what triggered the ban except to note that she violated our rules against abusive behavior":

Hello Caitlin Johnstone,

Your account, caitoz has been suspended for violating the Twitter Rules.

Specifically, for:

Violating our rules against abusive behavior.

You may not engage in the targeted harassment of someone, or incite other people to do so. We consider abusive behavior an attempt to harass, intimidate, or silence someone else’s voice.

Note that if you attempt to evade a permanent suspension by creating new accounts, we will suspend your new accounts. If you wish to appeal this suspension, please contact our support team.

It also follows growing allegations by Republicans that social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter are biased against them, and GOP lawmakers have held multiple congressional hearings on the subject. The two platforms, along with Apple and Spotify, were recently scrutinized over the decision to suspend Alex Jones, a controversial right-wing host, over "hate speech."

After initially siding against censorship, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey defended the decision to suspend the accounts of Alex Jones and Infowars, saying that Jones was posting content that broke the platform's terms of service and needed a "pause" to reconsider his behavior.

Fast forward to today when Trump, who appeared on Jones' show in 2015, blasted "censorship" and added that he has not called for CNN and MSNBC to be “removed” despite their “fake news” broadcasts although one can imagine the media fallout from such a call. Trump frequently blasts content critical toward his administration as “fake news,” with CNN and NBC News his most frequent targets.

“Censorship is a very dangerous thing & absolutely impossible to police,” he continued. “If you are weeding out Fake News, there is nothing so Fake as CNN & MSNBC, & yet I do not ask that their sick behavior be removed. I get used to it and watch with a grain of salt, or don’t watch at all.”

Trump also suggested that the so-called "fact-checkers" and other people "making the choices" on limiting content online cannot be trusted. Trump's solution: "Let everybody participate, good & bad, and we will all just have to figure it out!"

Previously, Trump warned that his administration would “look into” alleged “shadowbanning” of conservatives on the platform, although there has yet to be any concrete steps taken in that regard even though Twitter has admitted that a new policy to suppress hate speech "unintentionally" reduced the search results for some Republican lawmakers.

In response, Facebook launched a review of policies possibly impacting conservative voices and other communities in May.

Comments

 
 
 
Profile picture for user DingleBarryObummer
DingleBarryObummer Sat, 08/18/2018 - 08:53 Permalink

Why doesn't he boycott (power of free market capitalism, hello?) twitter and move to a different platform, like whitehouse.gov or some other non-censored place?

Is it because he has a backroom deal with twitter and is making money on it?

Prediction: He will stick with twitter until the bitter end.

Profile picture for user Lumberjack
Lumberjack  nmewn Sat, 08/18/2018 - 09:02 Permalink

Doctor who was disciplined had clashes with patients over Trump

Dr. Cathleen London, who has said she plans to run against Sen. Susan Collins in 2020, had conflicts with patients who were Trump supporters, according to a consent agreement that also spelled out flaws in her prescribing and record-keeping practices.

https://www.centralmaine.com/2018/08/17/disciplined-doctor-clashed-with-patients-over-trump/

In reply to by nmewn

Profile picture for user HopefulCynical
HopefulCynical  beemasters Sat, 08/18/2018 - 09:46 Permalink

Facebook, Google/YouTube and Twitter, taken as a whole, constitute the "town square" of the Internet. Only a total moron would argue that anyone who isn't an actual, outright criminal should be denied access to the town square.

HankPaulson sneers:

It's a free market. They can close down any user they want. Up the shut fuck with the socialist big government interference, Trump.

Ol' Mr. Hanky doesn't seem to understand that not only is the Big Tech Trust the modern-day equivalent of the phone company, but that all of those firms are up to their eyebrows in partnership with .gov. Or maybe he does, and is simply trolling? The account is 9 years old, so very low chance of Share Blue/Soros activity.

beemasters asks:

He's a fake. How is it difficult moving his followers to another platform away from Twitter???

Oh, I dunno. How effective is holding a meeting in the town square, as opposed to in your own living room, so far as getting the word out about your ideas?

The answer is very simple. It doesn't involve regulating the Internet or even the Big Three communication platforms via the FCC. It's very simple: you subject them to the exact same rule the phone companies have imposed on them. They are NOT allowed to deny you service because they don't like your politics or ideology. They get to remain private companies, they can run their BUSINESS however they like, but unless a person is engaged in CRIMINAL activity - which doesn't mean "being to the right of Mao," no matter how much Antifa whinges to the contrary - they are free to use the phone system to communicate any ideas they please, with whomever they wish to communicate.

Problem. Solved.

 

In reply to by beemasters

Profile picture for user HippieHaulers
HippieHaulers  HopefulCynical Sat, 08/18/2018 - 10:03 Permalink

These are not free market companies. They were formed with government seed money and rely on government subsidies and contracts. These are public private operations, and as such should be regulated to ensure speech rights. This is the new public square. Basic bitch libertarians should shut the fuck up. 

In reply to by HopefulCynical

Profile picture for user Element
Element  wide angle tree Sat, 08/18/2018 - 12:25 Permalink

I find this whole 'social media censorship' thing a bit baffling. I tried some major 'social media' sites and found them to be vaguely fake, needy and a bit insipid. They had a whole lot of really useless rubbish in them, mostly not interesting to me. Most pedalled a sort of fake vanity as some sort of recommendation. Mostly I couldn't find anything of interest in them, the whole thing seemed bland and a bit forced. I just didn't enjoy such sites. I only tried them because actual friends thought they were worthwhile, give it a go, etc. And I learned nothing worth knowing from them, so what was the point of it all?

So I decided to censor 'social media' sites a few years ago, and it's taken this long for them to catch up to me.

I can phone, text or email someone, who I know, and go and have a bbq, see a band--do stuff. So why the fuck would I want to use 'social media' to fuck about in software, with 'friends' that I don't know, and who aren't really my friends? And you have to manage a fucking 'relationship' with these 'people'? Oh krist, it's just bland as fuck.

I had this girlfriend who bought tofu, then she ate it--voluntarily! And she was always trying to get me to eat it too. I kept saying no, so she kept sneaking it into the salad, which I didn't mind as the other ingredients made up for it. But when she tried serving it to me on crackers I put my foot down. She said I ate it all the time in salads. I said that I knew, and that it was really ordinary and bland. She didn't much like my censoring of the tofu supply and gave me that look.

So I'm a bit hard to shock these days.

But what was the fucking problem here? Why do I have to be tricked into eating tofu, by her? But more puzzling was why she was put-out or disappointed by my not liking something that tasted like nothing but paste? What the fuck was he logic here? Did I complain because she spent money on it and ate it? No! But if I didn't eat it, then it was a matter for complaint! WTF?

Well that's why I censor 'social media', as it's much the same dynamic. People I know use it, and want me to use it, and it's fucking bland as shit, and if I say it's bland as shit, they're disappointed in ME!

So it's clear that 'social media' is Internet tofu!

I don't want fucking social tofu in my internet salad! Why the fuck is that disappointing to social tofu gobblers?

If they censored me from the club of tofu experts, I'd be perfectly OK with that, but Bookface still keeps continually trying to feed me fuckin tofu, regardless!

Why the fuck is my rejection of tofu such a fucking drama for these fucking neurotic tofu gobblers?!

 

It's like a wheel within a fucking wheel ...

In reply to by wide angle tree

Profile picture for user jin187
jin187  HopefulCynical Sat, 08/18/2018 - 13:14 Permalink

The phone company has the added benefit of people not being able to sue them based on conversations they had over the phone.  Most social media sites have suits ongoing at this very moment due to users posting things like suicide videos, terrorist propaganda, bullying, etc.  You can't tell them not to police content, and make them liable for it at the same time.

In reply to by HopefulCynical

Profile picture for user gatorengineer
gatorengineer  beemasters Sat, 08/18/2018 - 10:55 Permalink

Trump is a shitstain.... Period.

If he were serious he would ban Google Chrome from all .gov computers, he can do that with a pen, and go to Mozilla, Brave, et al.

He could leave Twatter.....

He could ban Fakebook from installation on any .gov device, or its use by any .gov agency.

He could put a 25% tariff on all chinese made cell phones.

He could stop giving cloud contracts to Google, or Amazon 

Dont know what its going to take to treat the millions with TDS, but its worse and more persistant that Obowel, Derangement syndrome.  I know more repentent Obowel voters than folks that voted for Drumpf...

In reply to by beemasters

Profile picture for user IridiumRebel
IridiumRebel  gatorengineer Sat, 08/18/2018 - 11:14 Permalink

Trump has laid threadbare all the cunts out there....you included.

His success has been his use of social media. Asking him to give that up is asking him to drop his gun. Who do you offer up since you’re so fuckin cool and just hate everyone. 

 

Tell ya what Mr Cunt, YOU RUN. I’m sure you’ll do great. You’ll be busy and we won’t need to read your tripe here.

In reply to by gatorengineer

Profile picture for user ZD1
ZD1  the artist Sat, 08/18/2018 - 13:46 Permalink

"Just open up a Gab account (or whatever platform he wants) and cross post to there."

It not that easy...

The evil leftist shitheads at Google have BANNED Gab's Android app from the Google Play Store.

The evil leftist shitheads at Apple have BANNED Gab's app from the Apple App Store.

Google and Apple control 99 percent of the phone operating systems!

They need to be sued and broken up!

 

 

 

In reply to by the artist

Profile picture for user GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek  ZD1 Sat, 08/18/2018 - 16:03 Permalink

Microsoft has threatened to stop hosting Gab.ai on their cloud. It's almost like Microsoft, Goolag, et al are colluding. Getting one's own hardware is expensive and time-consuming, and it entails ongoing support costs.

I would prefer that CONgress do something - for a change - and come up with some laws appropriate to the current state of technology. Since these social media behemoths rely on public infrastructure - cable or wireless - they should be regulated and forced to stop discriminating against certain types of legal expression. Since they offer services in an interstate environment, they should not be allowed to discriminate against certain types of legal expression. Since they offer free services (ignoring the fact that the users of the services are the actual product they sell), those services should be equally available to all who refrain from illegal activities.

There are many avenues by which CONgress could justify opening these entities to equal access and treatment vis-a-vis conservatives, antiwar activists, etc. That they do not indicates to me that CONgress overwhelmingly wants to allow us but a single viewpoint. Gee, I wonder why.

 

 

In reply to by ZD1

Profile picture for user jin187
jin187  IridiumRebel Sat, 08/18/2018 - 13:21 Permalink

How is his use of social media his success?  I haven't gone there to read a single one of his posts.  Most of the so-called conservatives and libertarians that use social media are just RINO's, or people that want to take a shit in the libtard's echo chamber, and those ones get (shadow)banned most of the time.  All he's doing is firing up the food stamp and SJW voters when he tweets.

In reply to by IridiumRebel

Profile picture for user GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek  jin187 Sat, 08/18/2018 - 16:09 Permalink

How, you ask? The ripples emanating from Trump's tweets result in huge numbers of discussions on other web sites, including ZH. Trump's thoughts get a thorough airing and dissection in all sorts of places, stimulating almost endless speculation, discussion and even arguments. I never use twatter (or any of the others) and doubt I ever will. But I am very aware of what Trump puts out, and appreciate the ability to consider what he says.

Only a fool would look only to the MSM's filtering of the news (fake news, concocted news, biased opinions, whatever) and consider themselves well informed.

I do believe, by the way, that Barry made great use of social media during his campaigns. What's good for the goose is good for the Trumpster.

In reply to by jin187

Profile picture for user Nunny
Nunny  jin187 Sat, 08/18/2018 - 17:18 Permalink

" All he's doing is firing up the food stamp and SJW voters when he tweets. "

You say that like it's a bad thing ;)

I don't go there either (nor do I FB), but I can read his tweets on hundreds of sites from around the world.  Then I go to the comments to watch 1. The Left tard meltdown (usually small unless at someplace like the huffpo rag), or 2. The MAGA'ers supporting him.

What I find fantastic is that they used to say that Barry was a 'master' at social media.

In reply to by jin187