Social Media Hate Speech, who decides?
With the announcement that the three biggest tech giants in the social media world have come together to create or form a coalition of such. They have anointed themselves the gods of virtue. See, what confuses me as an American, I thought we had a first amendment right to Freedom of Speech. These companies already lean far left and have shown an overwhelming bias to a conservative voice. So, what does this mean in its simplest terms? If you want to use these platforms, yes, I said platforms, check your first amendment rights at their login screen. What they have considered hate speech is anything that makes a left-leaning liberal democrat look bad. For example, and there are so many to choose from: Payments to Hunter Biden, the children that have been saved from sex trafficking, pedophilia! None of these stories hit the mainstream media. The mainstream media is the main conduit for corruption, false information, and reckless reporting. I hope to see this cleaned up in the next fours. The most accurate polls are in fact about the absurdly low level of trust and respect the country has for the mainstream media.
There is hope, I see the masses seeking alternatives to Facebook, such as Sociallly.com. This site is new but the right-side folks that have been banned or suspended, have found a home at Sociallly.com.
So, the vision I can see happening is the masses flocking and jumping on different Micro Media sites. What I mean is smaller social media platforms that are built on the same technology, open-sourced, and then managed independently, but allowing the members to download their entire account and joining a new Social Micro group. In my opinion, this will mitigate a worldwide monopoly on our content, our lives, and our freedoms as Americans. Or am I just nuts? Time will tell.
Is censorship on social media a real thing, or are people worried about nothing?
Facebook announced that its terms are going to change on October 1st. What does that actually mean for its users? Are they planning to ban, suspend, or cancel members’ accounts that don’t align with their liberal ideology?
Twitter announced last week that it will suspend the president’s Twitter account if he starts tweeting about winning the election before every vote is counted. In order for the tech giants to grow they were protected by Article 230 which allowed them to operate as a Platform.
Article 230 shielded them from any liability for content posted. Over the last three to four years they have been heavily censoring many opinions that are considered conservative-leaning.
Social Media censorship appears to be getting more and more prevalent.
Will the moves that Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube make prior to the 2020 presidential Election be considered election interference, or simply a company doing business as they wish in a capitalist country?
There are Facebook alternative sites popping up. One of the bests sites to replace Facebook is www.Sociallly.com. Sociallly.com has the look and feel of Facebook, however, they do not keep all your data, they don’t sell your data and you can also use its text messaging features similar to Messenger.
A game-changing feature that Sociallly plans to release soon is the ability to import your entire Facebook account into the Sociallly platform. This feature may come at the perfect time for some disgruntled users that feel Facebook censorship isn’t for them.
November 2020 will reveal the truth no matter what either side has to say. Get your popcorn ready!
Section 230 says that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”
In simpler terms 230 was there to protect the tech companies and internet providers from being held responsible for any information uploaded to their Platform. This allowed the internet to grow and these companies to flourish without the fear of carrying any legal liability for the content.
This has become a bigger issue now that there are ram-pit claims of user suppression and accusations of first amendment right violations for removing users posts, videos and any uploaded data. Here is the rub, if Facebook is selection which content they deem unacceptable are they now acting as a Publisher? This debate is heating up in congress, I expect it to gain more steam entering early 2021. Get your popcorn folks! This will be a heavy weight bout no doubt!
Is Social Media Jail a myth or the real deal? There have been many rumblings about folks across all social media platforms getting censored. The allegations stem from the current political climate we are in. Now with it being an election year in the United States, it seems many are claiming unfair censorship by Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, and most other platforms.
We have heard many complaints from the right that their voices, posts, and videos are being removed from the top Social Media sites. The accusations are plentiful and the screencaps are piling up proving there may be some truth to this.
The question for Americans is this: Does Facebook have the right to decide what you can post? Does this censorship infringe upon Americans first amendment rights?
I think we are fast approaching the discussion or review of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 allowed for the growth of these social media companies to be looked at as a Platform as opposed to being considered a Publisher. Section 230 allowed protection to these big tech companies so they were not responsible for the good or bad content upload by its users. A publisher is considered a company that selects, edits, and decides what content will or will not be displayed. The following like will get you up to speed on section 230.