Not So Unbiased Social Media Employees

Kate posted about this a few days ago but i would like to look at it from a broader pespective.

Imagine receiving an email or phone call from your Internet or mobile phone provider chastising you for recent political comments you made on SDA or elsewhere. Would you be surprised or do you think they would have every right to do so? What would you actually do if this happened?

Given that Twitter and Facebook and other social media platforms have become the de facto public square of old, does it seem correct to you that highly biased employees at these companies can regulate what you post on them? The narrative to date has been that “they are private companies so they can do anything they want”. Is that really correct?

An investigative reporter has revealed some interesting facts about the Head of Site Integrity at Twitter. Here’s the fellow’s Twitter feed. Of course, he’s fully entitled to any personal opinions of his own but should his political biases be allowed to infringe on the speech of others?

18 Replies to “Not So Unbiased Social Media Employees”

  1. I’m in the camp that doesn’t want the Govt. involved in policing the user practices of a private company. If Twitter wants to push their group think…more power to them.

    HOWEVER, I think the RICO Act needs to be applied towards the blatant conspiring that takes place in negating a level playing field for competitors to challenge their fiefdoms. It’s an open secret that the major silicon valley entities protect each other. If you want to create a viable entity to challenge someone like Twitter, you will require various other services to sustain your venture. For example, a payment distribution service. However, to protect Twitter, the major payment distribution services will refuse to do business with you. Got that? They will turn down a potential customer under an unwritten agreement with Twitter.

    Or, let’s take a real life situation. Apple Aps refuses to do business with GAB, a potential competitor to Twitter. Apple claims they won’t do business with GAB until they remove objectionable content. Of course, that has everything to do with what they consider objectionable (which in itself goes counter to Free Speech, which was the motivating factor behind GAB). It’s likely only an excuse.

    1. These social media GIANTS … are functioning NOT as Private companies … they are de facto Public Utilities. In fact they are equal to every single Public Utility in the entire USA …if not the entire world. The largest Public Utilities ever built … this means; YouTube, Google/Alphabet, Instagram, Twitter, Fackebook, Apple, etc. Their reach is enormous. They aren’t your local electric company or trash collection Company … well … they do collect lots of trash …

      There are no seriously viable alternatives. Sorry, PDJT would not have the same effect on “GAB” as he does on Twitter. Why? Because the legacy media are all on Twitter. MY President trolls them beautifully. And EVERY single ONE of his Tweets are a news “scoop” on all the leftist FAKE NEWS outlets. Do the people REALLY have a choice of an alternative platform? Not really. These public utilities need PUBLIC transparency and regulation. Period. Sorry, Daniel Ream.

      Perhaps they could have pretended to simply be a “private company” … and continued to; censor, ban, edit, label, “fact” check, shadow ban, and pull all manner of authoritarian operation … until … they did it to PDJT. These “smartest young CEO’s in Silicon Valley” … specifically Jack Dorsey and his inner circle of radical leftists … couldn’t help themselves. They want to be known as the “brave new world orderers” … who defeated PDJT.

      These people have lived too long in their SF Bay Area leftist echo chamber (I should know) and believed their crackdown on PDJT would be universally welcomed and praised. Wrong. Now Dorsey better have a master plan for defeating PDJT in Nov. … or he is gonna see an entire new Federal oversight Commission empaneled to breathe down his neck. And the Anti-trust charges are currently being prepared … Note to Jack Dorsey … dude … you’ve made a massive mistake that everyone in Silicon Valley will pay for. You’ve ruined your friends gigs. You’re not gonna be invited to their anonymous sex orgies anymore. Sad face.

      1. +1. Be neutral and be protected. Be politically active and reap the whirlwind.

  2. I don’t have a Twitter or Facebook or an iPhone for that matter, mainly because of their far left loons. This one gets filed under “valuable ground that conservatives have ceded to the far left”. Hollywood, public schools, government bureaucracy, universities and news outlets. All taken over by the far left and all still largely funded by conservatives either directly or through tax confiscation.

    Conservatives have the required power (governmentally at times) and wealth…but we refuse to capitalize on it. We’re shooting ourselves in the foot.

    1. …to that end, I’m all for using whatever tactics are necessary to roadblock lefties. The time for a principled fight has long past.

      1. Soon Youl Roth will know how the rest of us have to live.
        After Twit pays out billions for litigation and loses the protection from government handouts, Youl will have no problem getting a job at the local Kosher Restaurant.

  3. ” “they are private companies so they can do anything they want”. Is that really correct?”

    Yes, but, as the left always likes to point out, that doesn’t mean that they can do it without consequences. Rule 4: Good and hard. Without any Vaseline in the sand.

    1. I owned an ran a number of private companies during my working life and we could not do anything we wanted, ever.

  4. Imagine receiving an email or phone call from your Internet or mobile phone provider chastising you for recent political comments you made

    Imagine not understanding the difference between a common carrier and a web site.

    Given that Twitter and Facebook and other social media platforms have become the de facto public square of old

    Imagine knowing so little about the Internet that you think two web sites are the sum toto of human communication.

    should his political biases be allowed to infringe on the speech of others?

    Imagine thinking that you have some kind of right to use other people’s computers for free.

    I remember in 2011 when radical lefties called upon the US government to nationalize Twitter because it was so important to public discourse and we all laughed at them. Good times. Good times.

    1. “Imagine not understanding the difference between a common carrier and a web site.”

      Imagine not understanding that a website is publication by telecommunications and perfectly capable of being a common carrier, with decades of established law in support.

      Common carrier status is determined by the behavior of . . . the carrier.

  5. The social media “platforms” (re: ***Publishers***) fuked themselves when they DEMONETIZED conservative voices, opening the door for the DOJ to investigate ANTI-TRUST violations, since ability to earn revenue has been directly affected.

    They passed themselves off as a neutral forum which gave them protection under Section 230 against liability. Since the tech giants are no longer behaving like public platforms, but instead more like publishers practicing editorial judgement as to which statements get published, Trump’s executive order TAKES AWAY that protection under Section 230.

    And the DOJ just hired outside counsel (Mueller anyone?) which indicates that it’s preparing a case against the tech giants.

    Pass the popcorn!

  6. I like the way Red Pilled America compared the Facebook to an online Company Town.
    Supreme Court Marsh vs Alabama.
    https://redpilledamerica.com/ episode 8 (might need to Patreon for this one but they are all good check out the free podcast.

  7. Arrogance and a sense of entitlement,make for really interesting decision making.
    Having a Progressive nitwit lecture the rest of us,as to what is fact or fiction is always entertaining.
    Now the Tech Lords have come to believe they are untouchable and essential to the powerful.
    Note their chumminess with the Demon Rats,their bragging about their helpfulness toward the D’s and their total offence when the “opposition” uses their own techniques against them.
    Twitter is hooped,they would love to just forbid Trump the use of their platform,but recognize that would kill it.
    However,thinking themselves so much smarter that everyone else,they tried this dopey “Fact Checking” annoying the Prezz and offending their customers.
    Does not work out so well when you call your customers too stupid too think for themselves,”We must fact check for you”,cause you are all fools?

    So now they get to suffer.
    No more double FU for the peons,they have to chose.
    Platform or Publisher.
    Which will be hell,cause these are the same people who can’t decide what washroom to use.
    Having great wealth and power to manipulate,must be very frustrating,especially if by doing so you lose your power and possibly the source of your wealth.
    Our progressive Comrades never do very well on the “great responsibilities” part of the bargain.

  8. If the terms and conditions don’t apply to all equally then it should be considered a breach of contract. If they say “use us to keep in touch” and then they shadowban you for no reason that is spelled out in their terms of service (not explicitly banning, which is totally acceptable as a business practice) then it’s another form of breach of contract.

    President Trump’s response is exactly what I was hoping for. It gets away from the legalese that UnMe and Danial had been championing, and makes companies choose whether they a public forum or a private publishing operation. I’m very happy today.

  9. “Given that Twitter and Facebook and other social media platforms have become the de facto public square of old”

    Saying this over and over again will not make it true. You lost the culture war, get over it.

    1. Shush, child, the grown-ups are talking. Thinking things are a way doesn’t make them so. That’s one of the differences between grown-up thought and a child’s.

Navigation