Airliners.net

New York (CNN Business)The White House on Wednesday launched a tool for people to report instances of perceived social media bias, signaling President Donald Trump's and top Republicans' plan to continue vilifying technology companies, which are currently seen as political villains by many in the conservative base.

"The Trump Administration is fighting for free speech online," the White House tweeted Wednesday afternoon. "No matter your views, if you suspect political bias has caused you to be censored or silenced online, we want to hear about it!"
The White House's tweet directed people to a form which first asked users for personal information, such as their name and whether they are an American citizen.
After users entered the personal information, the form then asked them to describe the alleged bias that occurred, which platform it occurred on, and if they had screenshots of any messages they received from the company that took action.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/15/tech/whi ... index.html

I don't know what mechanism they can use once they determine there is blatant bias on an open platform, I suppose a privately owned site can do what it wants but it might make some of those doing some of shenanigans I've witnessed think twice.

On the other hand, is the use of the internet considered a public venue that should remain uncensored thus making blatant bias actionable?

mham001 wrote:

On the other hand, is the use of the internet considered a public venue that should remain uncensored thus making blatant bias actionable?

Doubtless others will expound on this more than I can, but yes, it is.

If you're a "platform", e.g. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, etc., then you're not responsible for the content or any opinions contained therein, you're just providing a service without bias towards content so long as said content doesn't break any laws.

If you're a "publisher", e.g. New York Times, Washington Post, etc., then you are responsible for every word of content and you get to choose who gets to say what within your publication.

Lately the platforms mentioned above have censored/de-platformed people with conservative or right-wing views for minor or arguably nonexistent infractions against their rules while allowing those with leftist or super-leftist views to blatantly commit infraction after infraction with no repercussions whatsoever. This takes them out of the realm of "platform" and into the realm of "publisher", a position which carries many more and stricter rules for operation.

That's about it, as far as I'm aware.

This is what dictators do. This should scare the hell out of every single American, left, right, and center. Of course, the right will cheer this and welcome this. We need to remove this wannabe dictator now.

Well nothing good can possibly come from this.

seb146 wrote:

This is what dictators do.

No, censoring or silencing viewpoints other than their own or ones that do not align with or challenge their personal beliefs in order to avoid any sort of reasoned debate, as Facebook and Twitter have done recently, is what dictators do. Putting in place a mechanism by which platforms, which by definition ARE neutral, can be held accountable for documented bias is the exact opposite of what a dictator would do and is perhaps the most universally beneficial thing Trump has done.

Is airliners.net considered social media?

seb146 wrote:

This is what dictators do. This should scare the hell out of every single American, left, right, and center. Of course, the right will cheer this and welcome this. We need to remove this wannabe dictator now.

So was Obama a dictator when he wanted to accomplish the same thing with talk radio? Do you have more peace of mind that that dictator is out of office?

afcjets wrote:

Is airliners.net considered social media?

Uh oh... Seems like some lovers of Greek airlines might be getting into trouble...

Awww look at the triggered snowflakes in the whitehouse who want to allow hate and lies to be passed around.

Social media is just a trial balloon - easy place to start, as it was infiltrated by them to begin with. Once unpersoning someone for having unpopular opinions becomes a thing, SJWs will extend it to Internet (pressure ISPs into dropping your service), cell phones (making your mobile carrier drop you, etc.). Eventually they will manage to ban cash / physical currency and then it will just be a matter of forcing Visa, MasterCard and AmEx to drop you, so you can starve to death. Presto, unpersoning completed.

casinterest wrote:

Awww look at the triggered snowflakes in the whitehouse who want to allow hate and lies to be passed around.

As opposed to the triggered snowflakes in Silicon Valley who want to allow only their own hate and lies to be passed around while silencing opposing voices that say "Hey, wait a minute, that's not the case at all and here's why" followed by actual facts and figures rather than feelings to back up their assertions?

TSS wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Awww look at the triggered snowflakes in the whitehouse who want to allow hate and lies to be passed around.

As opposed to the triggered snowflakes in Silicon Valley who want to allow only their own hate and lies to be passed around while silencing opposing voices that say "Hey, wait a minute, that's not the case at all and here's why" followed by actual facts and figures rather than feelings to back up their assertions?

Hey people get banned all the time from those sites. It just seems that the right seems to embrace more of the racists, and abusers.

afcjets wrote:

seb146 wrote:

This is what dictators do. This should scare the hell out of every single American, left, right, and center. Of course, the right will cheer this and welcome this. We need to remove this wannabe dictator now.

So was Obama a dictator when he wanted to accomplish the same thing with talk radio? Do you have more peace of mind that that dictator is out of office?

You mean let right wingers put out their version and also tell the other side of the story? Like that? Such a dictator forcing both sides to be heard......

TSS wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Awww look at the triggered snowflakes in the whitehouse who want to allow hate and lies to be passed around.

As opposed to the triggered snowflakes in Silicon Valley who want to allow only their own hate and lies to be passed around while silencing opposing voices that say "Hey, wait a minute, that's not the case at all and here's why" followed by actual facts and figures rather than feelings to back up their assertions?

Those right wing extremists have their own "social media" sites. And it always ends badly. We know this. Let them have their hate sites and their hate speech. We know it will turn deadly. And the same cast of characters will sit back and say "the only thing we can do is shut down 'liberal' sites and attack 'liberals' because clearly 'liberals' are the problem!"

LOL...seriously, inputting personal information into that database? As if the big gov't is not going to abused that?

seb146 wrote:

Those right wing extremists have their own "social media" sites. And it always ends badly. We know this. Let them have their hate sites and their hate speech. We know it will turn deadly. And the same cast of characters will sit back and say "the only thing we can do is shut down 'liberal' sites and attack 'liberals' because clearly 'liberals' are the problem!"

Seriously, those people have 4chan, 8chan, and a bunch of sites that I'm not aware of. If they wish they can just stay in that echo chamber anyway.

Oh well, still waiting for the day when Twitter finally has enough and ban Trump.

DDR wrote:

Well nothing good can possibly come from this.

Maybe... maybe not. Maybe millions of Americans should report the bias they see on Faux News... cutting off and silencing anyone who disagrees with their dogmatic point-of-view.

Let's see what the White House does to correct the stench emanating from that cesspool...

I see the rigid enforcement of online government-approved speech is one trade with China that isn't suffering from tariffs...

alfa164 wrote:

DDR wrote:

Well nothing good can possibly come from this.

Maybe... maybe not. Maybe millions of Americans should report the bias they see on Faux News... cutting off and silencing anyone who disagrees with their dogmatic point-of-view.

Let's see what the White House does to correct the stench emanating from that cesspool...

The problem with your suggestion is that Fox News is considered a "publisher", not a "platform", so they are well within their rights to publish/show/promote only that which agrees with their dogmatic point of view. Ditto CNN, CNBC, and any other "news" channels. Personally, I'm all for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine wherein any news channel must by law give equal time to opposing viewpoints.

seb146 wrote:

Those right wing extremists have their own "social media" sites. And it always ends badly. We know this. Let them have their hate sites and their hate speech. We know it will turn deadly. And the same cast of characters will sit back and say "the only thing we can do is shut down 'liberal' sites and attack 'liberals' because clearly 'liberals' are the problem!"

As if the progressive left doesn't read from exactly the same script: Those left wing extremists have their own "social media" sites. And it always ends badly. We know this. Let them have their hate sites and their hate speech. We know it will turn deadly. And the same cast of characters will sit back and say "the only thing we can do is shut down 'conservative' sites and attack 'conservatives' because clearly 'conservatives' are the problem!". The point is, echo chambers benefit no-one, not the right, not the left, and certainly not the middle, and the whole point of platforms versus publishers is that with a platform everyone, right, left, or middle, has an opportunity to be heard the same as anyone else.

Francoflier wrote:

I see the rigid enforcement of online government-approved speech is one trade with China that isn't suffering from tariffs...

Actually, what this is attempting to do is make sure no government in the future can do an end-around constitutional protections on free speech by leaning on the platforms to do what it cannot do directly. Just like the founding fathers would have been taken aback by attempts to drag paper/parchment and ink manufacturers through Congress and generally making their lives miserable unless they refused to sell their products to certain people. Given how there is no such thing as constitutional protections of freedom of expression in Europe, it is easy to see how you would be confused by that.

Traditional media was completely taken aback by the loss of their power to control the narrative that came along with social media. The spin on the news that they do report was one thing, but the most important aspect of the media's power has always been the most insidious, and hidden, one - the news that they just decide to kill. With social media, certain news that do not fit the narrative can no longer be swept under the rug. Government should not condone any efforts by traditional media to hold onto their dying powers.

A more correct headline would read: "Trump Campaign creates tool to harvest contact details from gullible followers".

Why waste time and effort spying on peoples' internet browsing when you can just make a form and they'll spill it to you voluntarily.

TSS wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Those right wing extremists have their own "social media" sites. And it always ends badly. We know this. Let them have their hate sites and their hate speech. We know it will turn deadly. And the same cast of characters will sit back and say "the only thing we can do is shut down 'liberal' sites and attack 'liberals' because clearly 'liberals' are the problem!"

As if the progressive left doesn't read from exactly the same script: Those left wing extremists have their own "social media" sites. And it always ends badly. We know this. Let them have their hate sites and their hate speech. We know it will turn deadly. And the same cast of characters will sit back and say "the only thing we can do is shut down 'conservative' sites and attack 'conservatives' because clearly 'conservatives' are the problem!". The point is, echo chambers benefit no-one, not the right, not the left, and certainly not the middle, and the whole point of platforms versus publishers is that with a platform everyone, right, left, or middle, has an opportunity to be heard the same as anyone else.

I agree that a certain type of information is shared. Some of the articles that show on my social media feed are only partly correct. I know it is the same with right wing social media. It seems the right, especially the extreme right, take these articles to heart. I have seen those partially true articles posted here along with the same right wing people saying "we need to stop this" or something similar. I have wanted to post outrageous articles about how terrible those extremists like Ted Cruz, Mike Pence, Rick Scott, Scott Walker, and many others, are. However, when I read the article, it is written to gin up the base. So, I don't post it. I know other "liberals" do the same thing.

Look at the right wing extremists who tried to send pipe bombs to Democrats and the right wing extremist who opened fire in a synagogue or the right wing extremists who set fire to Black churches in Louisiana or the right wing extremist who walked into a Black church in South Carolina and opened fire or the right wing extremist who set fire to a Sikh temple......

Another extreme right vs. extreme left example is rallies. When there are rallies at government buildings calling for LGBTQ equality or women's equality or Black equality or Muslim equality, there is always counter protesters who are not protesting the actual legislation or government but hurling insults at protesters. It sometimes comes to blows. I have LGBTQ friends in Portland who are always posting that Patriot Prayer and similar White nationalist groups are at such-and-such location and please avoid the area. What ends up happening is Patriot Prayer and/or White nationalist group ends up assaulting and picking fights with anyone they deem different.