It’s Time to Confront the Tyranny of Social Media Censorship

social media phone

Bigstock

By Larry Keane

It’s time the little blue birds of Twitter come home to roost. While we’re at it, clean out the henhouse of Facebook, Instagram, Google and the other plucky tech giants.

The Trump administration is laying the groundwork to fence them all in for their blatant discrimination. It’s about time. Where’s the “hell-yes” emoji?

Under consideration is the creation of a White House commission to explore allegations of anticonservative bias by social media businesses. Interestingly, it’s coming from the most prolific Twitter user to occupy the White House. It’s also not the first time President Donald Trump’s torched social media platforms, according to The Hill, which reported the president tweeted in 2019 the tech giants engage in, “tremendous dishonesty, bias, discrimination and suppression practiced by certain companies. We will not let them get away with it much longer.”

Vice President Mike Pence told Breitbart, “Well, the president has made it very clear that we are not going to tolerate censorship on the Internet and social media against conservatives. We’re just not going to tolerate it.”

The pressure is building. News broke last year that the Justice Department was investigating unspecified online platforms to consider concerns raised about “search, social media and some retail services online.” Independently, 47 state attorneys general are probing Facebook for antitrust violations.

The firearm and ammunition industry has more than a few instances of documented antigun bias by social media companies. There’s a love-hate relationship with the social media platforms. They’ve become so ubiquitous that it’s nearly impossible to reach customers without them. NSSF has argued they’ve become the virtual public square, where people from every walk of life can not only see pictures and video of friends and family, but express ideas, debate topics and participate in civic discourse. That is, of course, if they’re allowed.

Community Standards

Jessica Keffer, the marketing manager for the Sportsman’s Shop in East Earl, Pa., went on Fox and Friends to describe the discrimination her business faced from Facebook. She was booted for advertising on Facebook over American flags. Keffer’s ad wasn’t about gun sales, but with her attempt to boost an “Honor the Flag” promotion. The ad was approved and then rejected. The reason given was, “It’s because you have a link to your website on your page which does sell firearms. That’s also against our policies I’m afraid.”

The ad had nothing to do with selling guns and while the Sportsman’s Shop sells guns, all sales are completed in a face-to-face transaction, and with a background check, in accordance with federal and state laws.

Keffer was pointed to Facebook’s Prohibited Content section, a part of the social media giant’s Ad Policies. “Ads must not promote the sale or use of weapons, ammunition, or explosives,” one of the subsections reads. But Keffer’s ad was about flags, not guns. The Daily Caller dug deeper and Facebook told them since the page links back to the shop’s website, which advertises guns, they canned the ad.

Google It

It wasn’t just Mark Zuckerburg’s baby. Tech giant Google assigns a “Family Status” to every product in the Google Shopping function. In 2012, Google moved firearm-related content to the same “non family safe” category as adult content. The bias didn’t end there.

Google discriminated against Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, a conservation organization that is dedicated to putting millions of acres into perpetual trusts and conservation lands and restoring wild elk populations across America. RMEF wanted to promote an eight-minute video about the benefits of hunting to conservation. Google labeled it “animal cruelty.”

It didn’t get turned around until U.S. Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) and U.S. Rep. Greg Gianforte (R-Mont.) sent a letter to Google’s CEO demanding answers.

It wasn’t the first time, either. Google owns YouTube, which shut down Brownells’ channel without warming in 2018. Brownells’ 69,000 subscribers, and the company, were left in the dark. Brownells issued a social media call-to-arms and their customers responded and YouTube restored the channel.

The whole dustup was for supposed “violating YouTube Community Guidelines.” Even founder of Ars Techica and former Wired editor Jon Stokes scratching his head. He’s plugged into all things in the tech world and he couldn’t make the connection to any community standard that would have possibly posed a hazard.

Stokes tweeted, “I gotta say something else about this. Brownells is like the stodgiest, old-schoolest, non-tactical, non-‘assault rifle’, old-hunting-guy brand in the gun world. When your platform has summarily executed Brownells, you’ve just gone too far.”

Infringing Rights

These tech giants, for years, have been infringing First Amendment rights to quash Second Amendment rights. Buying and selling guns is a constitutionally-protected right. A three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said as much in their ruling on Teixeira vs. Alameda County that reads “the right to purchase and sell firearms is part and parcel of the historically recognized right to keep and bear arms.”

Social media corporations have been suppressing the firearm industry, gun ownership, firearm safety and anything that could be related to guns in the name of “community standards” and what they determine to be in the best interests of Americans. That right doesn’t belong to virtual overlords. That free exchange of ideas belongs to the people.

It’s time the blue birds came home to roost.

 

Larry Keane is SVP for Government and Public Affairs, Assistant Secretary and General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

comments

  1. avatar Dennis says:

    Just curious, did any of these “social” media outlets ever claim to be non-partisan or transparent!?

    1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

      They claim immunity from lawsuits based on laws that are designed to protect “platforms”, a definition which does not allow viewpoint discrimination.

      In other words, yes, they claim non-partisanship while engaging in it.

      1. avatar Felix says:

        They DO NOT claim non-partisanship.

        They are private companies, not the government, and the First Amendment does not apply to them.

        You either believe in free speech for everyone, or you do not. You are either a summer soldier and sunshine patriot, or you have principles.

        1. avatar Rusty Shackleford says:

          That is pure BS. Google (Youtube) and Facebook where both created with U.S. Taxpayer money via DARPA as well as the CIA via In-Q-Tel. They were created from our money, they are not private.

        2. avatar Felix says:

          You don’t have a clue what you are talking about. Following that kind of logic means that every single person is a government creation.

        3. avatar EWTHeckman says:

          They DO NOT claim non-partisanship.

          You are wrong. Period.

          They claim the protection from lawsuits of a law that defines them as carriers. Carriers are not allowed to engage in censorship. Censoring is partisanship. Not censoring is the ultimate in non-partisanship.

          They are private companies, not the government, and the First Amendment does not apply to them.

          Funny how you baldly assert this after I cited the Declaration of Independence’s argument that governments exist to protect rights. Answer my questions in that post and maybe you’ll have enough credibility to try your assertion again.

          No society can survive the suppression of the truth. Therefore it is necessary that everyone be able to access the arguments and evidence of all sides to be able to identify what the truth is. Therefore, it is considered a right for everyone to be able to make a case for what they believe to be true. That such a human right can be violated by non-government entities should be blazingly obvious, even to you.

          You either believe in free speech for everyone, or you do not. You are either a summer soldier and sunshine patriot, or you have principles.;/blockquote>

          What a pure piece of self-contradictory bullshit. You are literally defending those who trample the free speech rights of those they hate. You should read up on psychological projection. That is exactly what you did here.

        4. avatar Felix says:

          There is nothing simpler than understanding that the First Amendment only applies to governments. Google, Facebook, Twitter, are not government. If the closest you can get to calling them government is that they use the Internet and that the Internet was invented by DARPA (which is false), then you are making the case that everyone with a connected phone or computer is a government agent.

          It is pure nonsense.

        5. avatar EWTHeckman says:

          There is nothing simpler than understanding that the First Amendment only applies to governments.

          That is only technically true.

          A Constitution, by definition, is law that applies to a government. It defines the structure and restrictions upon that government. Therefore, the First Amendment is law which applies to only government.

          Where this statement is false is in claiming that the rights protected by that amendment exist only in the context of government.

          Would you be okay with a private organization (say Antia, or the NRA) engaging in quartering their enforcers in your home? Or searching through your papers and possessions? Or preventing you from owning and bearing arms? Or breaking up your gatherings? Or taking your property?

          They are unalienable human rights. They can be (and are!) violated by individuals and private organizations just as easily as by governments. The whole point of having a government in the first place is to deal with these violations of rights by private individuals. (In our case, we have the advantage of a Bill of Rights that says government may not violate those rights either.)

          When a right is violated by a private entity there are two options. The government can act independently to to punish that infringement. This is the area of criminal law. Or the victim or their representative can petition the government to punish the offender on their behalf. This is the area of tort (lawsuit) law. Both are areas of non-Constitution law (and I do not mean unconstitutional) created by the government to address such issues.

          The law says that social media services can be protected from that tort law on the basis that they do not have the responsibility for the content created by their users. But they are taking that responsibility upon themselves, therefore they should be liable for tort claims.

          To claim that it is okay for a private organization to violate human rights without repercussions merely on the basis that they are private strikes me as among the most ridiculous assertions I see.

        6. avatar Felix says:

          All this braying for government control of Google, Facebook, and Twitter on the grounds that they use the “government-created” Internet remind me of Obama and his “you didn’t build that” moment.

          I wonder how many of you summer soldiers and sunshine patriots even recognize the hypocrisy.

          Get some principles. Stick with them. Life’s a lot simpler when you don’t have to remember all the exceptions.

    2. avatar Hank says:

      Yes, their respective CEOs lied to congress multiple times claiming to be unbiased “platforms” when in fact they’ve practiced editorial control.

  2. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

    “The Trump administration is laying the groundwork to fence them all in for their blatant discrimination.”

    It’s “under consideration.” Will he wimp out again when the oligarchs pressure him to lay off?? I’m not holding my breath.

    1. avatar PK says:

      Just look at how much work the Second Amendment Coalition has done for us!

      I’m sure the same loving attention to detail will be given to this after the election.

  3. avatar Mack The Knife says:

    I’m surprised that our community uses these outlets to the extent we do. Being staunch, constitution preaching folks that we are, why do we keep bowing to our enemies?
    It disgusts me that in order to enter a giveaway that I am required to visit each of these sites that work overtime trying to disarm me and destroy our constitution.
    So, I don’t and haven’t in some time. The only way to get back to normalcy is to abandon these crepes.
    The community is full of hypocrites.

    1. avatar LifeSavor says:

      Mack the Knife,

      “The only way to get back to normalcy is to abandon these crepes.”

      But I love crepes! Especially with fresh fruit and peanut butter (yes, PB).

      1. avatar jwtaylor says:

        Blueberry, cream cheese, and butter.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          You sadistic…..you had me at blueberries. And I’ll bet you use goat butter.

      2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Whenever I start making crepes and bring out the fixin’s, I always end up just making a stack of pancakes because that’s the only way I know how to pour and manage batter. They bring a bigger smile to my face, anyhow.

        1. avatar LifeSavor says:

          A crepe is just a pancake that thinks it is better than everyone else.

        2. avatar Art out West says:

          Crepes think they are better because they actually are better. No disrespect intended towards pancakes.

        3. avatar Coffeemonster says:

          If you think you like pancakes, you just like your crepes dry and leathery. Sorry, we need the French for something, and wine alone isn’t enough reason.

      3. avatar Mack The Knife says:

        Yeah, peanut butter is good. I rotate between grape and strawberry jelly.
        I’m 65 and this is the very first time I ever misspelled a word. What’s your average?
        Hahahaha. I guess other than crepes you are all in agreement.

  4. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Although I agree with almost everything Ben Shapiro says, his site , blocked me also after years on the site..I think it was called the Daily Wire. Interesting site but they blocked me cause I called a celebrity what she wanted to be called & even talked about it on her T V show, I said something about her being a bulldyke which she was proud of. Kinda surprised me that the web site cut me off. No biggie,

  5. avatar GS650G says:

    It’s a shame we are legally required to be on Twitter, Facebook and the rest.

    Oh wait.

    1. avatar LifeSavor says:

      Smirk!!

    2. avatar Jimmy James says:

      What he said. I have no use for any of that time wasting crap. I’d rather waste time here.

  6. avatar LKB says:

    As Sen. Cruz has cogently observed, all Congress needs to do is get rid of the immunity these platforms enjoy from copyright infringement lawsuits. This immunity was put in place as part of the DMCA under the theory that ISP’s would be neutral communication conduits (like the phone company), rather than publishers who control what is said on their platform.

    Since Twitter, FaceBook, YouTube, Google, etc., all now gleefully exercise substantive control over the content on their platforms, the whole basis for giving them immunity is gone.

    Get rid of their immunity, and they’ll be put out of business within a year by an avalanche of copyright infringement lawsuits.

    1. avatar JLo says:

      Very interesting take on this.

    2. avatar jwtaylor says:

      This is the only legal and fair way. It should have been done long ago. They are responsible for their content or they are not. And if the EULA says they have the right to use it if you post it, then it’s certainly their content.

    3. avatar Rad Man says:

      YouTube eventually demonetized my and almost every other gun channel. The content is still there but folks have switched to Patreon begging instead of being rewarded for the millions of views their advertisers were getting.

      1. avatar Napresto says:

        This has happened to gaming and other channels as well, though not as aggressively as guns. A while back, Google/YouTube changed its monetization setup to the distinct disadvantage of creators. Even those who weren’t actually demonetized had to start findIng new ways to bring in income.

        As with many things, Google/YouTube would actually benefit from some competition. Google is turning into Microsoft, circa the late 1990’s and early 2000’s: arrogant, monopolistic, and shifty. The result is garbage policies and products. Microsoft improved because along came Google to eat their lunch. Time for Google to enjoy the same kind of harsh curative.

        1. avatar RidgeRunner says:

          duckduckgo.com, yo.

    4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      LKB,

      This immunity was put in place as part of the [Digital Millennium Copyright Act] under the theory that [Internet Service Providers] would be neutral communication conduits (like the phone company), rather than publishers who control what is said on their platform.

      Not only will removing immunity make them liable for copyright infringement, it will also make them liable for slander and libel since they are controlling the content on their platforms.

      Yet another fun question: would removing their immunity also open the door to prosecute those platform operators for Conspiracy to Interfere/Deprive Civil Rights when their content conspires to deprive someone of their civil rights?

    5. avatar TheSophist says:

      All those defending these companies are ignorant of the real issue, which is what you point out.

      The First Amendment doesn’t apply to them, as they are private companies. HOWEVER, they have been deemed “platforms” rather than “publishers” which gives them all kinds of immunity from various other lawsuits. As long as these platforms engage in censorship, or even promulgate rules that are designed to engage in viewpoint censorship, they need to lose their “platform” status.

      They can remain free to engage in whatever viewpoint discrimination and censorship they want to, but as Publishers, not as neutral platforms.

    6. avatar JStarX7 says:

      Yup, And this is the basic problem. You’re either: A) A platform. You get no say about what people put on you, but you’re also immune to lawsuits about content OR B) A publisher. You get final say about what is or isn’t allowed, and as a consequence you are responsible for everything posted.

      Social media has been trying to have it both ways for too long.

    7. avatar Casey says:

      Get rid of their immunity, and kiss the internet goodbye. How long do you think it’ll be before some liberal crazy comes on here and false-flags a screed about killing hither and yon. Without Section 230 TTAG is responsible for “saying” that. Goodbye TTAG and every other website that allows user-submitted content.

  7. avatar JLo says:

    Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there private companies. It’s the people who blindly think these corporations are you’re friends. They don’t have to protect rights or upheld them, not there job. Maybe people should be more accountable and use other means to get there ‘oh so important opinions’ out there. Same goes for companies, poor Brownells, maybe we should stop using these oligarch sites and use more free thinking ones instead? It’s like all of a sudden google and Facebook are evil? They kinda been the whole time.

    1. avatar LifeSavor says:

      JLo,

      More nuanced than that.

      In Packingham v. North Carolina, the Supreme Court ruled that Facebook is a public forum and that a North Carolina law prohibiting convicted sex offenders from accessing Facebook was a denial of First Amendment rights. Further, the court realized this principle extended beyond the NC Law and has implications for everyone.
      Justice Kennedy wrote:
      “A fundamental First Amendment principle is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more,”

      So, if Facebook is a public forum, then, censoring people for their point-of-view is a denial of their 1st Amendment right. That is why Facebook always trumps up charges of rule-breaking so they can claim the censorship is due to rules violations and not directly related to political or social opinions.

      1. avatar JLo says:

        Seems like they are having a tough time figuring out who’s in charge of what. Quite honestly, these companies are free to do what they want. It’s up to people to understand what there getting into. Those agreements we blindly choose ‘agree’ too, are exactly why we’re here. People agreed to play along there rules. Now government wants to step in. Should have done that to begin with, but then, it’s Hong Kong all over again. Where does the line get drawn? And how do I find it? Lol

      2. avatar binder says:

        Sorry, but that is a wrong analysis. That is like suing a book store for not having your book. On the other-hand, if the government says you can go into a book store, then we have a issue.

    2. avatar EWTHeckman says:

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…
      — Declaration of Independence

      Who, exactly, can infringe upon these rights that make it necessary to form a government?

      If it’s merely government that can infringe on rights, then it’s really simple to avoid infringement; just don’t form governments.

      Or maybe the whole point of forming a government is to prevent infringement by “private” entities!

      1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

        The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

        No, the federal government shouldn’t weigh in on this one way or another and that includes protecting these businesses… We either allow our individual states to deal with them as needed or we vote with our feet. I have NEVER had a facebook account and I actually SOLD my twitter handle to some young kid with my same name years ago… No worries on my end

        1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

          And great job on my part… I effed up the closing italics tag. Sorry for making it weird

    3. avatar Dude says:

      “Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there private companies. It’s the people who blindly think these corporations are you’re friends. They don’t have to protect rights or upheld them, not there job.”

      Are you saying that you should just go somewhere else if, say a baker, doesn’t agree with a message you want them to put on a cake?

      1. avatar JLo says:

        Just a few words that helped create this issue to begin with: Virtue signaling, social justice warriors.

      2. avatar JLo says:

        I forgot about that story, lol, nice 👌

  8. avatar LifeSavor says:

    Breighteon.com
    Tiny compared to Facebook and YouTube, but very supportive of conservative values. Some good firearms material.

    If I need to post video, this is where I go.

    In our house, no Facebook, no Twitter. No Google search. No Wikipedia.

    1. avatar Rev. Philip E. Evans says:

      I tried to get to Breighton.com. It seems it doesn’t work with Firefox, only Chrome.

    2. avatar Hugh Glass says:

      Sorry, when I hear “conservative values” I run the other way. Sounds boring, among other things.
      Just like when the guy bids me on a job, and throws in, “we’re a good Christian company.” Not looking for that. Looking for a good plumber. Not a sermon.
      And I’ve found the ones that throw in that they’re a “good Christian company” are most likely to screw you, in my true experience.
      Just do what you do, keep the moralizing out of it.

  9. avatar Ralph says:

    Simply stay away from twatter, Youboob, Fakebook and open sewers. You’ll be okay and the world will smell a lot better.

    1. avatar LifeSavor says:

      Ralph,

      Not only will the world smell better, but we will all be happier and healthier.

  10. avatar Darren says:

    Sorry Mr. Keane…but you’re wrong. Facebook, et al are not infringing your First Amendment rights. Period. A federal appeals court literally ruled today that you’re wrong and while the lawyer that lost said he planned to appeal all the way to the “Supremes” if needed, he is going to lose if he does.

  11. avatar Retro says:

    Monopolies are rarely good for the consumer, and when they are tolerated (not broken up) they are heavily regulated. This includes media like newspapers, radio & TV. Facebook, youtube, twitter are media. They should be either broken up or regulated.

  12. avatar Imayeti says:

    Are book burnings still a thing or do we discourage anything we don’t like just by calling it “Fake News?” Asking for some friends.

  13. avatar tdiinva says:

    Funny how people who have been talking about how restricting their ability to sit down at a McDonald’s to eat their double quarter pounder meal infringes on their rights are cheering the possibility of infringing on a private company’s first amendment rights.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      As has been pointed out in multiple posts in this thread (and that you seem to ignore) these social media companies are an abortion where they can simultaneously restricting content as a publisher but yet are free from copyright laws.

      It’s WAY PAST TIME for them to be forced to pick one or the other just like EVERY OTHER COMPANY on this planet.

      My only question is …why are other countries not suing the sheet out of them? I’d gladly support that.

      The only way these companies continue to exist is that they grease both sides of the isle. It’s past time for the Justice dept to step in and end it.

      1. avatar Tired of the bs says:

        Hahaha you funny guy, what you say is true and has needed to happen for a long time though. They should not be having it both ways.

      2. avatar tdiinva says:

        I am aware of all the hypocrisy. Infringement is infringement by any other name. Even if you remove some of their protections they will still have a right to discriminate against view points. All removal of copyright protection does is make them pay for copywrited material.which means they will just charging for access to their services. That will actually enhance their ability to discriminate. Making them subject to liable is a paper tiger since it is nearly impossible for a public figure go win a case.

        Any change in law only applies forward from the date specified in the legislation.

  14. avatar anarchyst says:

    Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, and other social media outlets should be required to request designation as “common carriers” in order to retain their immunity from prosecution for content.
    They should be treated like telephone companies. Who ever heard of a telephone company censoring content?
    If they want to remain as they are, open them up to lawsuits.

    1. avatar Binder says:

      How many cigarette adds do you see on national TV?

      1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

        That is a wildy different can of worms…

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      The ISP is the common carrier. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube , et al are individual users. That don’t carry anything except their own product.

      1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

        So Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are creating all the content they publish, not carrying the content created by others?

        They are the distributors/carriers of content, not the creators or consumers of that content.

  15. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    According to Libertarian Philosophy private multi billion dollar companies can destroy your private business. They can destroy your research. They can work to have you taken off the internet. They can run advertising on your videos. They keep the money. And prevent you from getting ad revenue. And it’s all legal according to Libertarian philosophy.

    I’m not saying government is better. Private companies made slaves out of workers in India, Central America, and in the United States. In the 19th and 20th centuries. A woman shot up the YouTube headquarters two years ago. Because they destroyed her ability to make a living. Private companies and the government, seperate or together, are working to stop people from making a living.

    The christian bakers were just “the canary in the coal mine”. Just a few years ago.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      “They can run advertising on your videos. They keep the money.”

      That’s an absolute scam. A trillion dollar company demonetizes a channel because they say it isn’t advertiser friendly, then they run ads on the video without sharing anything with their “partner” making the video. I used to go out of my way to watch the ads on channels I liked (I thought they got credit for it) until one said they were completely demonetized. Then why am I still seeing ads? Talk about using people and stepping on the little guy.

      It’s funny how the Party of Standing up for the Little Guy is cool with this.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        I have yet to hear a Libertarian explain why this theft is ok. Because they are ok with it.

  16. avatar strych9 says:

    Meh, open a Facebook account and use it to do nothing but share Boogboi and Jeffy Epstien memes.

    Search for weird collections of shit on Google.

    Fuck ’em and fuck with ’em. Every website is running their trackers for analytics so you might as well screw with them.

    Now, to search out cat videos, a new cable puller and “family size” tubs of personal lubricant…

  17. avatar possum says:

    Yeah, I’m going to the House of Social Media and wave my gunms, that ought to show them.

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      Which one of Zuckerberg’s houses are you going to?

  18. It’s a private company. It can do what it wants. If you don’t like it, use another platform and move on.

    1. avatar LKB says:

      Yup, they are private companies that can do what they want. But if their wish is to function like publishers, they have no business enjoying legal immunity that was granted under the claim that they would function as neutral communication channels, and without which they would have been sued into nonexistence years ago.

      If they want to control content on their platforms, fine. But then they ought to be subject to the same strict liability for copyright infringement that everyone else faces.

      1. avatar binder says:

        “function like publishers” What publisher is required to publish what the authors tell them?

        1. avatar doesky2 says:

          For the thick.

          They are playing on both sides of the publisher/open-communications field enjoying freedom from copyright laws and freedom to control content which is FVCKING UNLIKE ANY OTHER BUSINESSES prior to them getting special treatment because they greased politicians.

          Now do you fvcking understand?

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          Unless you’re carving marble in fucking Latin stop using fucking V’s in place of fucking U’s.

          FUCK!

    2. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

      Like bakeries.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        No. This time they came for the Christians (bakery) first. “But I was not a Christian. So I didn’t care”.
        “But when they came for me. There was no one left but me”.

        The 1st amendment died a long time ago.

  19. avatar enuf says:

    “It’s Time to Confront the Tyranny of Social Media Censorship”

    No, it isn’t really. There’s no government action there so it cannot be a Tyranny. It can be lots of other things, but not a Tyranny. It’s private property and unless and until you can prove they harmed you somehow, there’s not athing in the world you can do about it.

    Of course Trump and mis sycophants are only beating this drum now because Twitter placed a fact check on a couple of Trump’s Tweets.

    I do see the point on Brownells. YouTube knocking them off is an unfair trade practice. Nothing acceptable about that.

    Finally, in closing, one should always remember the words of Lady GaGa who said…

    “You have to understand, social media is the toilet of the internet”

    Smart lady, plays a good piano too.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      “Of course Trump and mis sycophants are only beating this drum now because Twitter placed a fact check on a couple of Trump’s Tweets.”

      I have to call you out on this one. No, it’s been brewing for years. Trump as well as other politicians have been talking about it. Very few have been talking though because Big Tech was smart enough to buy them off years ago (both sides).

      https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/11/tpresident-trump-to-host-big-meeting-with-tech-companies-on-free-speech-rights/

      1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

        I have to call you out on this one… Articles on Breitbart from 2019 aren’t exactly falling short of the “Trump sycophants” category. That outlet has fallen a pretty long way since the man passed some years back.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          Matt Richardson says:
          May 27, 2020 at 18:02

          ” I have to call you out on this one… Articles on Breitbart from 2019 aren’t exactly falling short of the “Trump sycophants” category. That outlet has fallen a pretty long way since the man passed some years back.”

          Attacking the messenger is meaningless here. You’re either lazy, have nothing of value to add, or you’re a leftist troll, or all of the above.

          Here’s the topic at hand for you:
          “Of course Trump and mis sycophants ARE ONLY BEATING THIS DRUM NOW because Twitter placed a fact check on a couple of Trump’s Tweets.”

          The Breitbart article is from nearly a year ago. You are implying that they just pulled that story out of their a$$ with absolutely nothing to back it up. I’m sure that worked out somehow in your brain, but it didn’t translate well into the real world. Thank you for outing yourself as a useless troll.

          Since you’re too lazy, I’ll do the work for you. Here’s a link to a CBS article:

          https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-social-media-summit-to-snub-tech-giants-host-conservative-personalities/

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      enuf,

      It’s private property and unless and until you can prove they harmed you somehow, there’s not athing in the world you can do about it.

      And now we get to the real meat of the matter. That sounds good on the surface. The reality is that I cannot successfully sue a company whose owner is worth almost 100 Billion dollars.

      This is similar to the monopoly problem: very bad things happen when a single player amasses so much money that no one can oppose them.

  20. avatar Prndll says:

    All part of why I never created a login for Facebook or Twitter.

    Gun videos on YouTube can be of great value and I very much thank all those that run channels there. My only ask is that you understand even with my appreciation, I will not take YouTube beyond a certain point. I think you already know the score with them though.

  21. avatar Hannibal says:

    Imagine pretending to care about the Constitution and then cheering as the government tries to shut down private corporations for politically opposing him.

    Those who want to make their preferred politician a dictator are just as much the enemy of the republic as much as those who want to vote for gun control all day.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      Imagine being so stupid to not realize that they can only exist in their present double-dipping legal status because they greased politicians.

    2. avatar Matt Richardson says:

      This this this!

      The current system is treating these entities differently than any other individual or corporation; HOWEVER, the idea of waving the BOR flag while simultaneously stomping your feet because the federal government hasn’t come down on these goons is some nonsense worthy of Mel Brooks film

    3. avatar tdiinva says:

      The pandemic has revealed to me that the right is just left with different opinions. The “right” as opposed to conservatives is simply two groups that Lenin would have called deviationists that have been assigned to conservativism – populists and Libertarians.
      Populism has always been leftwing. It is about using the government to take from people you don’t like and give it to you and your friends. The people who call themselves Libertarians want to skip the withering away of the State and proceed directly to the state of nature.

  22. avatar doesky2 says:

    On one hand I want the government to undo the special laws allowing these social media infections to operate like they do.

    On the other hand, I believe that the social media companies are hastening the arrival of a national divorce and I don’t give a sheet if it’s peaceful or not.

    I guess you can say it may be win-win.

  23. avatar BGB says:

    Yes the government should control all media. It’s just easier that way.

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      They should call it “The Press Chamber”. And the art would have to pass through “The Chamber of Culture”. For motivational images, they could use “The Ministry of Public Enlightenment”.

  24. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

    Looks like Trump is poised to sign an executive order concerning social media, and Repubs in ccngress are looking to strip Section 230 legal immunity.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/election-meddling-rule-enforcing-twitter-execs-under-fire-anti-trump-postings

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      He just wants unlimted characters for Twitter.

  25. avatar Montana Actual says:

    Right. But don’t forget to share this with that social media button at the top of the article…

    1. avatar enuf says:

      LOL!!! I see what you did just there!!!

  26. avatar Tired of the bs says:

    I’ve been saying it for years that I will celebrate the day when the internet crashes and burns never to be heard from again. It has caused more problems the world over than I care to speak about now. I will not miss it.

    1. avatar Debbie W. says:

      Be careful what you wish for…No internet means 100% full time fake news media filling the heads of gullible Americans with nothing but socialist manure. America would look like it were ran by the likes of bill clintoon, b. h. obama, jimmy carter, lyndon johnson et al on steroids. Instead of newspapers like the Washington Post heading into the sunset they would be alive and well with 100 times the propaganda they spew today. And worst of all…I couldn’t hear from you and you couldn’t hear from me and that would leave you lost in space.

  27. avatar Nickel Plated says:

    At this point I’m more concerned about the contact tracing that Google and Apple will be helping out with. And no, it’s not “voluntary”. I recommend getting a faraday cage for your phone if you’re gonna be traveling across state lines for a while.

  28. avatar The Hairy Canary says:

    You conservatives have to stop being such entitled freeloaders. Twitter is not yours. Quit coveting thy neighbors goods.

    1. avatar Debbie W. says:

      Attention birdbrain!!! If twitter were a newspaper it would be on the bottom of your birdcage. The only “coveting” going on anywhere is the coveting of our Constitutional Rights by uppity lowlifes and their useful idiots like you.

      Over the past 4 years can you cite one incident where the slanderous, libelous, fake news media and their D.C. cohorts have been blocked, censored or prevented from spreading their sleazy, despicable, concocted slander and libel against the POTUS? Whatever happened to “Collusion With Russia?” What happened to Hookers peeing on a bed that the obama’s slept in, etc?
      That’s right azzhat…With the decades long sleazy political rap sheet of hilliary rotten clintoon gullible politically inept history illiterates like you actually believed the POTUS needed the assistance of Russia to beat a lying lowlife Benghazi cover up, self serving bag of democRat manure in an extra wide pantsuit?

      Furthermore…Being as the Roots of Gun Control are in Racism and Genocide can you cite one incident where any Second Amendment Group or org. has blocked or censored or altered the racist and nazi based Gun Control Agenda of the demented democRat Party?

      The floor is always free and wide open for you or anyone of your ilk to attempt to justify your Racist and Nazi Based democRat Party Gun Control Agenda. Can’t wait to hear what you have to say so hop to it.

      TRUMP/PENCE 2020.

  29. avatar Warlocc says:

    Wow. Tyranny, really? You whiny, entitled boomers.

    You’re as bad as the left screaming “Nazi” all the time.

    This site is getting trashier by the day. Go back to guns and gun reviews.

    1. avatar Debbie W. says:

      That’s right establish yourself as not being a leftist and cork the topic by getting back to guns and gun reviews and a bag of Doritos. Just what is needed another complaining slacker sitting in an ivory tower while Gun Owners defending their rights are called nazis and silenced. Instead of trashing the time and efforts of people who are being called nazis and silenced based solely on their defense of The Second Amendment how about getting off the wagon and doing some pulling or are we supposed to follow your lead to shut up and kneel down for tyrannical Gun Control Zealots?

  30. avatar Chi-Raq says:

    Learn to code POTG…….

  31. avatar Dude says:

    The funny thing is Twitter decided to make a stand against Trump, and they “set the record straight” by literally spreading disinformation.

  32. avatar Anton Solomyr says:

    Best way to win the social media game is to not play it.

    People are way overrated. Individuals are great, but there are fewer and fewer self-actualized folk to be found anymore.

    Everyone seems to be on the edge of their seat, waiting to get triggered at the tiniest perceived slight against them, their identity, culture, etc.

    In my opinion, when it comes to people in my life, I prefer quality over quantity, and face-to-face beats texting, twitter or facebook anytime.

    Then again, what do I know?

  33. avatar Alex W. says:

    The only censorship I care about is by the government. If I’m in Jack Dorsey’s house and he kicks me out for saying something he doesn’t like, well that’s just part of being in his house. If the government kicks me out of his house then than is an offense against both of us. The other thing is that I don’t have to go to Jack’s house for any reason. I don’t like him or his house.

    President Trump has 80+ million followers on Twitter. How much do you think Twitter’s stock would drop if he moved over to Gab? How quickly would Twitter reverse course to keep him?

    1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

      If I’m in Jack Dorsey’s house…

      That does not work as an analogy. Between Twitter, Facebook, Google, and YouTube, they’ve laid claim to more than 90% of all public spaces.

      Maybe if your analogy was one where you were in your town’s park which Jack Dorsey had managed to claim ownership of…

  34. avatar BusyBeef says:

    Private enterprise. They can do what they want.
    They’re not a governmental entity.
    They are not bound by the same rules of discrimination against protected classes.

    NOW – the argument needs to be re-framed that firearms owners ARE a protected class and that they are singling out that protected class for discrimination.

    That is the only path to victory on this issue.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      “Private enterprise. They can do what they want.
      They’re not a governmental entity.”

      This is false. The tech companies got their special Section 230 carve out because they didn’t want to be held liable for posts made by others. Their part of the deal was to provide a forum free from biased censorship. They didn’t keep their part of the deal.

      “NOW – the argument needs to be re-framed that firearms owners ARE a protected class and that they are singling out that protected class for discrimination. ”

      I think you’re on to something here. It’s time to make political affiliation a protected class. I’ve never seen so much discrimination and hate based on different opinions. It’s sad but true.

  35. avatar borg says:

    The social media platforms enjoy protection are shielded from lawsuits for Slander and Libel by claiming public platform status. They now are acting as publishers by censoring or editing posts. I heard on the news that they altered the President’s posts and in doing so are interfering with his political speech. They are acting more like publishers rather than platforms and they should be redefined as publishers so they can not benefit from being falsely labeled as platforms. Also all these monopolies seem to be colluding to suppress speech so an arguement could be made that they are conspiring to deprive everyone of their rights which is a federal crime that is a serious felony.

  36. avatar LastOfTheOldOnes says:

    I must be really weird, since I am on neither Facebook, Twitter, nor any other liberal sites.

    Don’t care at all what they do or say. Anyone with sense has already realized that there is nothing to be gained by going there.

    KiwiFarms, Gab, Voat, Whatfinger, 8chan, ZeroHedge, Natural News and a host of other FREE SPEECH sites are available. Some bad ideas there but also a LOT of great ideas.

    I like TTAG, even though it’s not a free speech site, because most here share my views on the 2nd Amendment.

    I just wish I could post pictures, though….. 🙁

Leave a Reply to borg Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email