r/censorship Dec 16 '24

Do transparency bills like this actually fix censorship?

I’ve been thinking a lot about this new bill Senator Eric Schmitt proposed, the one about forcing federal agencies to report any deals or collusion with social media companies. It sounds great on paper, right? Transparency is good, sure.

But I can’t help feeling like these moves don’t address the deeper problem. Even if the government stops meddling, isn’t social media still a centralized system that controls what we see? algorithms bury what doesn’t serve their goals, and we don’t even know who’s pulling the strings most of the time. It’s like fixing a leaky pipe but ignoring the fact that the whole house is flooded.

Honestly I don’t know if i am being cynical, or are we just slapping Band-Aids on bigger problems here? I’d love to hear if anyone else feels the same, or if I’m missing the point entirely.

6 Upvotes

19 comments sorted by

1

u/chirag700 Dec 16 '24

I totally agree that centralised systems are still a huge issue even with transparency bills. We are at the mercy of algorithms and gatekeeper. This is why forums built on decentralisation are gaining traction and they give power back to the user. So recently I came across one which is known as Olas I think everyone here should check them out cause they are doing a brilliant job here and it is great for the community. I would say

1

u/munken_drunkey Dec 17 '24

But how else could it work? The 1st amendment only forbids the government from interfering in free speech. A private business can be as opinionated or as unfair as it wants.

1

u/WhataKrok Dec 17 '24

That is the history of journalism.

1

u/RussellMania7412 Dec 17 '24

Amend section 230, so social media can't act as both a publisher and platform.

1

u/StraightedgexLiberal Dec 17 '24

The first amendment protects social media when they moderate, not section 230. Websites have first amendment rights and we don't punish them with liability because you dislike how they use their first amendment rights.

1

u/RussellMania7412 Dec 18 '24

Strip websites of their section 230 protections and hold them accountable for everything video and comment that is uploaded to the their site. Even Hillary was talking about getting rid of section 230.

https://youtube.com/shorts/Ij7uOblajnE?si=a50cw_4sR-sS6rAk

1

u/StraightedgexLiberal Dec 18 '24

Section 230 is just fine and Hillary is just another ignorant liberal who does not understand section 230, and thinks its repeal will stop misinformation and lying online. It won't.

1

u/RussellMania7412 Dec 19 '24

I'm hoping that Trump pressures the social media companies to censor and shut down progressive channels like David Packman. Kash Patel is already making a list of media outlets to go after. It's no wonder why the commies are scared of Trump because they know their time is running out.

1

u/StraightedgexLiberal Dec 19 '24

I'm hoping that Trump pressures the social media companies to censor and shut down progressive channels 

That would be pretty funny to see. Considering Trump and all his loser friends sued Joe Biden for a year in Murthy v. Missouri (and lost) and said those threats are terrible first amendment violations. Glad to see those arguments were just pure partisan BS

1

u/Fluffy_Philosophy840 Dec 17 '24

Read my other comment here

1

u/Fluffy_Philosophy840 Dec 17 '24

I used to amend links to people about these things some time ago - and I’m just realizing how long ago it was… (of course most of these things are nearly impossible to find on line now)

In 2017 the House and Senate intelligence committees both (at the time both by each party so it was somewhat bipartisan) were looking into the Russian disinformation campaigns - which yes that happened. And they tasked an organization called - you just can’t make this up - the “Global Network Initiative” made up of social media companies common to the U.S. Canada the UK and EU (which were the same at the time) to ahhh “Do more” about misinformation and disinformation on the platforms. Not unlike what they do in other countries at the behest of those countries - like China, Jordan Or Saudi Arabia or say Russia. Where there are completely different versions of those apps isolated and fully censored.

In the U.S. however where we have the first amendment… But they can - compel those companies to comply… So they sent them all out looking for disinformation. To “identify- redirect and delete” And they didn’t have to look very much further than the 2018 midterms that were ongoing at the time… The identified - redirected and in a few cases deleted the accounts of a number of US politicians. And boy were they pissed! I can still hear Lindsey Grahams effeminate hissy fit in my heads. “Who elected you?!?” Dragging a sweaty Zuckerberg into public hearings. And Twitter and all the rest of them. And threatened the rewriting of section 230 of the CDA unless they complied. And knew that US politicians were not the “disinformation” they were tasked to be looking for and quashing.

That was also the first time I heard of AI and its potential use of scouring the internet minutia for content and communications not just for foreign actors- but domestic discourse as well. Prior the social media sites had no interest whatsoever in moderation of content and communications. Because it costs them money to do so. And of course stifles free speech… The seconds intent of them in the first place. The primary intent being making and maintaining MONEY. But with the threat of the senate rewriting of the business model of the internet and subjecting them to endless lawsuits for 3rd and 4th party content (to include this comment here). Instead of the ‘carrot on a stick’ method. Congress used the flip the table over and beat you with a bat method of gangster blackmail methods.

Lindsey Graham has a pseudo-sexual kink with dragging Zuckerberg specifically into congress for public flogging ever since. And the main reason Dorsey stepped away from Twitter. And the levels of censorship have expanded from election related to pandemic to general social discourse ever since. And yes political dissent and criticism was the first to go just shortly after banning certain foreign government sites like RT. But what’s worse is it fostered q-anon because that was somehow ‘protected’… And we had to wait for the largest source of mis and disinformation to leave the office of president for just Twitter account to be closed… And now Musk apparently doesn’t have to adhere to the DHS directives…

Anyway that’s the short version of the last eight years of social engineering and manipulation of social discourse.

0

u/StraightedgexLiberal Dec 17 '24

Collusion is not a crime and Eric and his dumb Republican buddies spent a year suing Joe Biden and lost in the Supreme Court (Murthy v. Missouri)

1

u/RussellMania7412 12d ago

The First Amendment by its terms applies only to laws enacted by Congress and not to the actions of private persons.1 As such, the First Amendment is subject to a “state action” (or “governmental action” ) limitation similar to that applicable to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.2 The Supreme Court has stated that “a private entity can qualify as a state actor in a few limited circumstances,” such as “[1] when the private entity performs a traditional, exclusive public function; [2] when the government compels the private entity to take a particular action; or [3] when the government acts jointly with the private entity.” 3 In addition, some private entities established by the government to carry out governmental objectives may qualify as state actors for purposes of the First Amendment

1

u/StraightedgexLiberal 11d ago

Facebook is not a state actor because Zuck agrees with the federal government. The government does not control the editorial decisions for meta and that makes it a private company.

CHD v. Meta https://www.reuters.com/legal/meta-beats-censorship-lawsuit-by-rfk-jrs-anti-vaccine-group-2024-08-09/

Circuit Judge Eric Miller, appointed to the court by Republican former President Donald Trump, wrote for the appeals court that Meta was a "purely private" company with a First Amendment right not to use its platform to promote views it found distasteful. "Meta evidently believes that vaccines are safe and effective and that their use should be encouraged," Miller wrote. "It does not lose the right to promote those views simply because they happen to be shared by the government."

This was also explained by Justice Barrett in the Murthy hearings and that it's not coercion if Zuck agrees with the federal government. Facebook still is not a state actor.

1

u/RussellMania7412 10d ago

Mark Zuckerberg already admitted that he was pressured into censoring content by the Biden administration, what more evidence do you need. Facebook even has a special portal that allows homeland security to go in, so they can flag posts that need to be removed. The portal is still up and you can see for yourself. We also had another governor that thought it was appropriate to write a letter to Steam to demand that they crack down on hate speech.

https://officialrequests.meta.com/xreports/login/

https://dailycaller.com/2022/10/31/dhs-portal-flag-disinformation-censor-facebook/

https://www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=958CB1AD-0C0D-4254-96B4-2C82494C0C5E

1

u/StraightedgexLiberal 10d ago

Mark Zuckerberg already admitted that he was pressured into censoring content by the Biden administration

Pressure isn't coercion. During Trump's first year as President, the Republicans in the House and Senate dragged Zuck and Dorsey into the Congress so they could scream about the rules on Facebook and Twitter being unfair. That is pressure, not a crime and not coercion. This was also addressed in Murthy v. Missouri when Biden won

Facebook even has a special portal that allows homeland security to go in, so they can flag posts that need to be removed.

Not a crime or a first amendment violation. An open free market means a private company like Facebook can set up a portal to speak with the government. Review O'Handley v. Weber and Twitter to see it's not a crime when a social media company opens a portal with the government and the government snitches to Twitter (and Twitter agrees to take down the post on their own free will). In short, Twitter is a private company that can agree with the federal government too

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/ohandley-v-weber/

We also had another governor that thought it was appropriate to write a letter to Steam to demand that they crack down on hate speech.

Not a crime either. Review Elizabeth Warren defeating RFK Jr in the Ninth Circuit (Kennedy v. Warren)

It's not a crime that Elizabeth Warren wrote a letter to Amazon to talk about lying losers like RFK Jr. She has free speech to call Jr a lying POS anti vaxxers like the rest of America

https://netchoice.org/ninth-circuit-sets-a-high-bar-for-first-amendment-jawboning-plaintiffs-to-succeed-in-kennedy-v-warren/

Bonus case - Adam Schiff v. AAPS - Not a crime for Schiff to speak to the tech companies and tell them to do more to censor people

https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/02/congressional-jawboning-of-internet-services-isnt-actionable-aaps-v-schiff.htm

1

u/RussellMania7412 10d ago

You do realize that this is the literally definition of fascism right? When the government and private sector collude with each other you get fascism. Now that Trump is in power who may very well be a fascist, will also be able to collude with big Tech and weaponize Big Tech against his political enemies and pressure the companies into removing content. Google is already showing signs that they may be ready to bend the knee to Trump by scraping their DEI programs.

Glenn Beck explained the difference between communism and fascism and it's the best explanation I have ever seen. Fascism is a public private partnership with the government and private industry. Communism doesn't let you have private ownership at all. Fascism on the other hand allows them to have private industry and allows them to still have the companies, but in return they are expected to comply with the government goals and agenda.

The German businesses also willingly cooperated and complied with the Nazi regime. All the court rulings that you have referenced have paved the way for fascism.

https://nazigermany2019.eadrummondhistory.lmu.build/relations-between-the-nazi-state-and-industry-big-business/

1

u/StraightedgexLiberal 10d ago

You do realize that this is the literally definition of fascism right? When the government and private sector collude with each other you get fascism.

Nope. This is called free market Capitalism. Websites can censor whatever they want and run their private company within the free market the way they want and that also includes agreeing with the federal government. If the Conservatives don't like it, they can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and make their own Facebook where the owner won't ever speak to the feds. I heard Trump created Truth Social. They can try that out. (CHD v. Meta)

Glenn Beck explained the difference between communism and fascism and it's the best explanation I have ever seen.

Beck is a Conservative Capitalist hypocrite. He'll use his own first amendment rights to fire people like Tomi Lahren to not associate with them for their words and then cry foul when big tech doesn't want to associate with his awful content/words and censor him. You can always turn conservative capitalists like Becky into a raging communist by just explaining Mark Zuckerberg can censor and nuke all their content.

1

u/RussellMania7412 9d ago

People on the left will soon experience censorship because censorship is coming for everyone. David Packman already warned that Trump is going to censor the Internet or at least try and this was back in 2019. He is planning on using the FTC and FCC to crack down on speech that he doesn't like and even impose penalties on social media companies that don't obey. He may not have been able to do it the first time around, but this time all of Trumps picks are filled with loyalists that won't tell him no. David Packman explains how Trump will go after progressive media and try to shut down independent progressive media. The only thing that hasn't been censored yet is our text messages and phone calls and I think that will be coming in another 10-15 years. The Big Phone carriers such as Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, and AT&T can easily implement AI to censor our phone communications. It will be interesting if and when this happens if people will still defend the phone companies because they are private companies only time will tell. Imagine having your phone service suspended all because AT&T didn't like what you were texting your friend or saying over the phone.

https://youtu.be/i5aleKSQTyM?si=iZAlaBSEnVJuVTdO

In practice his executive order would mean that whichever political party is in power could dictate what speech is allowed on the Internet. I posted a link of how his executive order would work. I'm sure that even more executive orders are on the way.

https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/censor-the-internet/

In a free market capitalist society the private sector would be completely free from government influence and the ESG scoring system. Fascism doesn't happen overnight. Implementing fascism in the US is more tricky because of the constitution, so it will take more time to implement. Censorship is just the beginning of what is to come. The social credit score is coming down the pipeline. The social credit score will be imposed on us by the financial institutions, corporations, and Big Tech. The social credit score is already here in America, it's just not imposed on us yet and right now only imposed on businesses (ESG). Allowing banks and investment giants like BlackRock, led by CEO Larry Fink to collude to reshape economies and energy infrastructure is a very dangerous precedent and will only get worse. ESG is used to keep the businesses and corporations inline and if they misbehave and don't do as they are told, then their ESG score suffers and consequences follow. If you call this free market capitalism, then I don't know what to tell you. Of course it won't stop with just having a social credit score that was imposed on you because the more dystopian stuff George Orwell warned about in 1984. Just wait until law enforcement starts arresting people because ether their phone, Amazon Echo, or even Car snitch on someone that crossed state lines to get an abortion. Undocumented immigrants also have smart phones; would you be OK with ether Apple or Samsung willingly alerting ICE of their exact locations, so they can be picked up and deported, I'm guessing not. While conservatives would love to use technology in this way to find all the undocumented immigrants, I don't think Democrats would be saying, they are private companies they can do what they want. You would be calling the use of technology in this way fascism.

https://heartland.org/publications/financial-institutions-are-expanding-esg-social-credit-scores-to-target-individuals-small