FTC investigates “tech censorship,” says it’s un-American and may be illegal
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Well...at least the max troll has come up with a new form of Gish gallop. Instead of one long post full of bullshit clogging up the forum, this troll chooses to drop each turd in a separate post. Quite a bit more work, unless this is being done with a script.
Upvote
25
(25
/
0)
How so? Please... Enlighten me.The very powers you advocate for are now being used against you.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
Actually, the best outcome would be for those tech companies to re-home to another country. Move them to a country in the EU, where data protections are user-first, and where blocking hate speech is more of a "no duh" move than a "stop censoring my hate speech against LGBTQ people [you private company (who's service I take advantage of for no cost)]!!" Sadly, the people complaining loudest about having their hate speech censored are malignant f**kwits that were voted in by backwater bible-belt FauxNews watchers who love swallowing the red pill as long as it gives them something to blame for their poverty-stricken existence; as opposed to blaming said malignant f**kwits for voting against any 'guvmint programs that would actually improve their lives.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
No. Your lack of empathy, care about anyone other than yourself, and complete disregard for logic did that.
Upvote
46
(46
/
0)
No! Just No. Stop there.
No one, I mean no one is forced onto a social media site. They are not the Government. They can set their own damn rules.
No one is forced to use Facebook, X, Truth, et al. Social Media is not a right (and I'd question even if it is a privilege).
I know folks will say that it is hard "walk away", but honestly, that is a personal thing, because there is no rights when you walk into a private club. They make the GD Rules.
Conservatives scream "Censorship, Ma First Amendment Rights are abused", when there are at least two "Conservative" social media clubs where they can spew/vomit/expel their hate all the fuck day long.
Oh...but I can't do that on <fill in reasonable social media>...then don't.
What will happen here is the FTC/FCC under Trump will censor what is said if it is against Trump, Musk, MAGA, or in any way supports LGBTQ or (gasp) human rights.
FFS people, walk away from X, from Facebook, Instagram, and either figure out open source alts, or remember what it was like to be more one on on with people...Pepperidge Farms remembers
This is the insane part to me. Back when conservatives were whining about discrimination on Twitter, I fully, ardently maintained that it was Twitter's house, Twitter's rules. If they don't like it, they can go to another platform.
Nowadays that they control Twitter, I maintain the exact same stance - it's their house, their rules. If you don't like it, go to another platform.
I don't like Twitter. I never liked Twitter. I never at any point in time have had a Twitter account. That's just fine by me, the ownership can do whatever the hell they want with it.
But the party of small government just can't keep from demanding that people give them a platform and an audience, I guess.
Upvote
28
(28
/
0)
And here we thought it was being a bigoted vaccine-skeptical renewable-doubting freeze peacher.
Upvote
29
(29
/
0)
Wait what??? But that's like choosing to have no power, no running water, and no bank!!
(I've never had Twitter or any sort of Meta account. MySpace neither!)
Upvote
21
(21
/
0)
I know, right? Remember the "it's the de facto Town Square and therefore should be regulated as a necessary basic utility!" arguments? lol
Ah, such a simpler time
Upvote
20
(20
/
0)
Republicans have been sick, evil creeps my entire life but they really are the most loathsome they've ever been in 2025.
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
If it can be weaponized, why destroy it instead of co-opt it?
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
Nowhere in the constitution does it say you can force someone to allow you into their place of business. A website is a place of business. No shirt, no shoes, no nazi's. It's not that hard to understand.
The 1st amendment does not mean you can go anywhere and say anything you want. It just means the government can't come after you for speech. This is gestapo bullshit parading as freedom fighters.
The 1st amendment does not mean you can go anywhere and say anything you want. It just means the government can't come after you for speech. This is gestapo bullshit parading as freedom fighters.
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
If only technical systems had...oh whats it called....a filter! yeah that's it!
What you are saying has nothing at all to do with the system we are describing. Do you really think Facebook and Twitter don't have different versions based on location? Do you really think this is all run by one big server sitting in Arizona or something?
It's not hard at all to setup different filtering and rules for different versions of Twitter. Also not hard to deny access from countries that have rules like that if they choose to. Happens all the time, and has absolutely nothing to do with this article. This article is saying US government is claiming that private companies are breaking free speech rights which as far as I can tell...is completely impossible because the 1st amendment has nothing to do with private entities.
Focus panda.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
Companies are not democracies. They are there to make money...end of story. The 1st amendment has nothing to do with it.
The recourse here is to not use companies you think censor too much. To support SEC oversite when companies gobble up smaller companies, and to support companies you think push ideas you stand behind.
The government should not pick winners and losers based on how those companies support or don't support types of speech. If anything going after a company for censoring something on their own site is breaking free speech of the owners of the companies.
Stop smoking farts, they are ruining your brain
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
Well, let's be clear here: the Constitution DOES say that if you run a public (as is "open to the general public", not a stock-public one) company, you are required to serve everyone. That pesky 14th Amendment "Equal Protection" thing applies. And of course so does several Congressional laws.
But, and it's a HUGE but, the 14th Amendment only applies to certain characteristics, mostly inherent characteristics that people cannot change (race, ethnicity, gender, etc.). It doesn't apply to, and you are allowed to slam the door on, most anyone with a voluntary behavior you don't like.
Social Media, by their nature, are almost exclusively a Public Accommodations. You can't prohibit blacks, Jews, women, Mexicans, pregnant women, old people, parapalegics, or veterans from signing up and posting. But you absolutely can prohibit republicans, left-handed people, green-eyed people, Trump supporters, or Nazis. And you can, for example, ban women who talk about something you don't like. Not because they're women, but because they're talking about something you've said is not allowed on your website.
It's never been about "freedom". It's always been about the ability to control other people. To make others (usually the majority) do what YOU (generally a tiny minority) want them to do with their stuff. It's a kissing cousin to the abortion debate: not about the subject in question, but about the ability of tiny groups of people in special places of power to control what everyone else does.
Upvote
16
(17
/
-1)
The real problem here is that racists hate being called racists, and feel it’s their constitutional right to force that shit on everyone as a totally normal viewpoint. What they call censorship is simply regular people and private companies telling them to fuck off.
Upvote
33
(33
/
0)
I would add a very comprehensive background check, with polygraph, to determine if they not only mean what they claim to support but also if they are trustworthy for the position they are vying for.
I tire of the idiots expecting flaky people to suddenly mature and be responsible just because they won an important role in our society. It is ridiculous. It is a job like any other, not just anyone is qualified for it.
Upvote
-7
(2
/
-9)
Free speech is a promise that the government won't use its special status to restrict your speech- not that you can make other people (even tech companies) help you get it out there.
However, the main argument here is probably the same one as back during the YouTube "adpocalypse": social media platforms have managed to exist because they're platforms, not publishers. They argued that they are simply a means of communicating, like a public place, and not responsible for what you say through them. If they do censor what people say, especially if they go beyond simple profanity filtering and encourage certain narratives, then they should take responsibility for what you say because they choose whether or not you say it.
The internet is interpreting this as a move from the current administration rather than against big tech, so let me put it like this. If X.com chooses to promote certain politicians that it agrees with, or even block links to sites that it disagrees with, can it really be said that what gets posted on it is still not its responsibility?
However, the main argument here is probably the same one as back during the YouTube "adpocalypse": social media platforms have managed to exist because they're platforms, not publishers. They argued that they are simply a means of communicating, like a public place, and not responsible for what you say through them. If they do censor what people say, especially if they go beyond simple profanity filtering and encourage certain narratives, then they should take responsibility for what you say because they choose whether or not you say it.
The internet is interpreting this as a move from the current administration rather than against big tech, so let me put it like this. If X.com chooses to promote certain politicians that it agrees with, or even block links to sites that it disagrees with, can it really be said that what gets posted on it is still not its responsibility?
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
It was town-square-like at one point. Now it's just Musk's propaganda farm. When Twitter was the place, and wanted to be taken seriously as the place, expecting the company to take a light hand to moderation made sense. Now, who cares. It's a dumpster fire.I know, right? Remember the "it's the de facto Town Square and therefore should be regulated as a necessary basic utility!" arguments? lol
Ah, such a simpler time
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
Upvote
-10
(0
/
-10)
And who do you think will set the course content? For example, I'm now reminded of the White Australia immigration policy, where would-be immigrants had to pass a test in a European language. If the individual was deemed undesirable, the test would be given in some language other than English that the individual was considered unlikely to know.
A similar situation could very easily apply here with such a policy - you need to be very careful about applying such rules. I get the intention and desire, but it has the potential to be deeply, deeply problematic.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
Thats the point. You cant allow Xitter to block people for having liberal opinions but then claim its censorship when other companies block misinformation. As you yourself just said "You can't have it both ways."
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)
IMO, this won't work the way you might hope. Unfortunately. It'll just teach the "bad" guys how to game the system better, and the "good" guys how to be that much more frustrated with them. Information and morality are not strictly covariant.
Teaching people how the money system works better, doesn't seem to reduce financial crime.
On the flip, it would be nice to at least argue it out with people who aren't just running in animal brain mode.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Assuming Ron DeSantis can be considered part of the et al., then 6 years ago.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Polygraphs and loyalty oaths--no. Purity tests are a silly idea.
As to your second part, people tend to be on their best behavior when they are trying to get a job. They aren't going to get better after they are hired.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
This will be so, so handy come the next Democrat Administration and Democrat Congress when they force groups like Newsmax to platform liberals 
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
This is true, you just can't do whatever you want while in there. I was being vague on that, but you are correct. You can dictate what is allowable in your place of business.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
IMO, forcing me to see paid links and AI-generated blather is censorship of my ability to see accurate search results. Let's do something about that!
(actually, I did do something already - I use DDG instead of Google nowadays)
(actually, I did do something already - I use DDG instead of Google nowadays)
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
"The Carr-led FCC could act on Trump's calls to reinterpret Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides legal protection for platforms that host and moderate third-party content. Carr has already launched investigations of news organizations accused of bias against Trump and conservatives."
So, anybody who has ever published a factual statement about the shittiest people alive?
So, anybody who has ever published a factual statement about the shittiest people alive?
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
Yes, you have to understand the rules in order to break those rules to your own advantage.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Dear America,
Jesus suffering fuck. Get your shit together and stop being such obvious, blatant assholes about everything. You are not the be-all, end-all of things. We're already tired of your fucking bullshit.
Sincerely,
The World
P.S. Educate your moronic populace so they can make better decisions in the future.
Jesus suffering fuck. Get your shit together and stop being such obvious, blatant assholes about everything. You are not the be-all, end-all of things. We're already tired of your fucking bullshit.
Sincerely,
The World
P.S. Educate your moronic populace so they can make better decisions in the future.
Upvote
22
(23
/
-1)
Yep.
When your parents die because they get cut off from Medicare, remember to laugh and say at least I owned the libs.
When your friends end up homeless because the economy is screwed remember to tell them that at least some liberals are mad.
And if you somehow have kids. Remember to write on their gravestone that the libs were owned.
Upvote
19
(19
/
0)
I see it's Snap Dogg lyrics and not Snoop Dogg lyrics.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921
This was in 2018, by the way. Is this what the poster you quoted was referring to?
The ruling was appealed and overturned a year later in 2019
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/teen-prosecuted-n-word-rap-15874476
We then catch up with our intrepid hero, Chelsea, a few years later, threatening people with a knife having already racked up an impressive criminal record.
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/out-control-woman-waved-knife-22796658
Yes, it’s the same Chelsea. I checked.
It's important to note a few things. This story occurred when UK Conservatives were in power. After Brexit in the UK and Trump getting elected in the US, a certain element of UK society became very emboldened. Hate speech on social media, especially against sports people and celebrities that happened to be born with the wrong amount of pigmentation became prevalent. Not even the UK conservatives were comfortable with this, even though we saw the party slipping right on other political issues to stop the bleeding of voters to the likes of UKIP and so forth. The initial ruling was clearly an overreaction, hence it was overturned on appeal.
Out in the rural areas and small towns casual racism is alive and well across the UK, especially in the older generations.
Last edited:
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)