Tech CEOs testify to Congress at antitrust hearing: live updates

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

so what yall think ?  Can FB decide what it thinks is appropriate ? Is it Govt overreach to tell a company what it can and can not allow on its website ?

 

The FCC certainly  regulates broadcasting.

 

I got mixed feelings. Anyone got a strong opinion one way or another. VJ certainly    regulates what it thinks is appropriate

 

do we really want the Govt regulating internet content ?  

 

 

 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tech-ceos-testify-to-congress-live

[Dashinka 24,504]

I think if these companies continue censoring, it will be a great big political mess.  That being said, it is their own decision, they should be required to specify more than just in a rarely read ToS contract that they may and will censor content based on political leanings.  Additionally, if they do censor for political reasons they should lose their legal liability under Section 230.

[yuna628 9,676]

13 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

so what yall think ?  Can FB decide what it thinks is appropriate ? Is it Govt overreach to tell a company what it can and can not allow on its website ?

 

The FCC certainly  regulates broadcasting.

 

I got mixed feelings. Anyone got a strong opinion one way or another. VJ certainly    regulates what it thinks is appropriate

 

do we really want the Govt regulating internet content ?  

 

 

 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tech-ceos-testify-to-congress-live

A company can regulate what it thinks is appropriate. When you work at a job there are rules and regulations about what you can and cannot do, yes? If you behaved badly to a customer, you'd likely be fired right? VJ has rules and regulations about what you can and cannot do. Terms that we agree to when we sign up. If we don't like those terms, we are free to choose to go elsewhere. No, the government doesn't belong regulating content. It is of no doubt if you went onto any right-leaning or Christian, or Catholic, or very religious forum/website right now and started spouting off views in stark contrast to their own, posted porn, or started swearing - you'd be punted right off. How is this different from any other terms of use? I get tired of the whining about it really. Free speech is free speech, but that free speech does not mean you are free from consequences.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

1 minute ago, yuna628 said:

A company can regulate what it thinks is appropriate. When you work at a job there are rules and regulations about what you can and cannot do, yes? If you behaved badly to a customer, you'd likely be fired right? VJ has rules and regulations about what you can and cannot do. Terms that we agree to when we sign up. If we don't like those terms, we are free to choose to go elsewhere. No, the government doesn't belong regulating content. It is of no doubt if you went onto any right-leaning or Christian, or Catholic, or very religious forum/website right now and started spouting off views in stark contrast to their own, posted porn, or started swearing - you'd be punted right off. How is this different from any other terms of use? I get tired of the whining about it really. Free speech is free speech, but that free speech does not mean you are free from consequences.

salient point 

[Dashinka 24,504]

53 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

A company can regulate what it thinks is appropriate. When you work at a job there are rules and regulations about what you can and cannot do, yes? If you behaved badly to a customer, you'd likely be fired right? VJ has rules and regulations about what you can and cannot do. Terms that we agree to when we sign up. If we don't like those terms, we are free to choose to go elsewhere. No, the government doesn't belong regulating content. It is of no doubt if you went onto any right-leaning or Christian, or Catholic, or very religious forum/website right now and started spouting off views in stark contrast to their own, posted porn, or started swearing - you'd be punted right off. How is this different from any other terms of use? I get tired of the whining about it really. Free speech is free speech, but that free speech does not mean you are free from consequences.

Absolutely, just as the government should not afford these companies liability protection when they editorialize content.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Watching the Google guy answer is just cringe, it's like they're speaking entirely different languages, he's not answering the questions being asked, just giving cue card responses like Congress is talking to some outsourced call center. 

 

Edit: There was some fantastic news delivered though, Jim Sensenbrenner is finally retiring. Thank god. 

Edited July 29, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

It was somewhat a breath of fresh air seeing both parties go after the antitrust/anticompetitive behavior of these companies, but that ended with MD Dem Rep Raskin invoking Russia/Putin-Trump and "white nationalists", blaming Russia for US antisemitism and race conflict, and going after Facebook for not being enough of an arm of the ADL and other censor happy organizations.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Google was also hilariously caught changing their search censorship policies right before hearings like this, likely so that a Congress member could not illustrate it in real time. But Rep Steube's staff had documented it months ago and again over time to see how it changes. 

 

This very thing was seen when Jack Dorsey was hauled before Congress for politically contrived censorship aimed at GOP House Reps, affecting their communication. Not only was their censorship policies changed, but their shadowban policies were completely dumped removing all shadowbans.

 

The end result was no actual changes made, emboldening these companies to ramp up their targeted censorship efforts. 

 

Combine this with their anticompetitive practices, American election interference, and partnering with China, you have these companies being very dangerous. At minimum, Google needs to be Ma Bell'd, though, like Ma Bell, it could all be irrelevant, since the very same government that broke up the bells, allowed them to re-consolidate under AT&T. Another fitting fact, AT&T happily allowed the government access to their buildings, partnering with the NSA to build data interceptors/relays relaying all calls/traffic in real time to their primary data centers, effectively wiretapping anyone who's calls or data happened to involuntarily go through those trunks and relays.

Edited July 29, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

1 minute ago, Ban Hammer said:

Ahhhhh. I feel so much better about all the times you and Tbone threw me in the hole😀

[yuna628 9,676]

5 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

Oooh, so that's how you mods really feel eh? 😉

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

39 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Ahhhhh. I feel so much better about all the times you and Tbone threw me in the hole😀

good thing improper spelling isn't against the tos.........

Edited July 30, 2020 by Ban Hammer

[TBoneTX 45,293]

11 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Ahhhhh. I feel so much better about all the times you and Tbone threw me in the hole😀

[T-B. observes someone's Platinum Status slipping away...]

[Orangesapples 1,954]

On 7/29/2020 at 10:34 AM, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

so what yall think ?  Can FB decide what it thinks is appropriate ? Is it Govt overreach to tell a company what it can and can not allow on its website ?

 

The FCC certainly  regulates broadcasting.

 

I got mixed feelings. Anyone got a strong opinion one way or another. VJ certainly    regulates what it thinks is appropriate

 

do we really want the Govt regulating internet content ?  

 

 

 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tech-ceos-testify-to-congress-live

The government should not regulate internet content but it needs to break up companies that have gotten too big. That's the main issue with the current rampant censorship - it's not a problem if a small company does because you always have the alternative to go post on a different website. But when the website that censors is too big, it has a disproportionate amount of power over speech.