Thank You President Trump!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Thank You President Trump!

  1. THX1138 says:

    “In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship.”

    Do you have a link to that? YouTube is censoring me from commenting on videos.

  2. Peter Carroll says:

    As he said before he was elected, “I’m not a politician”. No politician has had the guts to take on the left controlled, social media juggernaut. Thankfully Donald Trump has.
    Maybe now we will truly have, “free speech”.

  3. toorightmate says:

    It is amazing. A country has a leader who keeps his promises and gets things done.
    For doing this, the media despises him????
    At present, the term “journalist” does not warrant being classified as a “profession”.

  4. Robert Gipson says:
  5. JPinBalt says:

    While I do agree that platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Google, censure opinion based on political orientation inasmuch as Pravda for an editorial not published to shape public opinion, and blatant propaganda, I do not agree that social networking sites should be held liable like publishers. The impact of this would be more censorship. Youtube would need to take down massive videos less sued for inciting violence. So the treat of liability will cause them to censor less to avoid the fine and lower profits, while if actually implemented would lead to massive more censorship inasmuch as Washington Post published an editorial of violence of heads being cut off if gay, then sued by a victim of a copycat crime.
    It is a treat to hold liable to get to censure less, but if head liable would censure more.
    We do not like the clear political bias of the high tech companies and mass stream media MSM, but government regulation is worse as government decides what is biased. The MSM or social media cold be regulated by FCC like PACs, but do nit want government doing that or in game deciding what is biased, bad enough private companies decide what is biased or publish biasedness, worse for government to decide what is biased.
    Think. What if I put a pro Trump sign in my front lawn and denied neighbors from putting Biden signs there. Should I be sued by the federal gov for not allowing free speech in my front lawn being the public square inasmuch as my twitter feed, ane neighbor can put up Biden signs in my front lawn for free speech? – do not agree. I do not want feds regulating this abet clearly see huge anti-conservative bias for years, CEO of Google wanted to run Hillary Clinton’s campaign and deploy the web, and still shapes news by editing. I do not like this, but gov regulation worse.
    Hold Facebook, Twitter liable like publishers, censorship increases 50 fold, political or not, gets mooted in the abyss.
    So a somewhat independent conservative gov in power now threatens a blatantly biased liberal/socialist/totalitarian meme of social media trying to control public opinion, now what if a blatantly biased freedom oriented group instead dominated social media and a socialist/communist gov shuts down?
    We must have true free speech and not have any gov regulate such on either end of coin. If you have a computer and can have people look at your files or share, then publisher and liable, not good, all free speech to be censored.
    While I do not like massive Pravda bias of CNN, MSNBC, Wash Post, Guardian, et al, and internet censor like Twitter, Facebook, and Google, do not think government should regulate it. Best protection of free speech is adoption not to censor ideas you hate. I do not like KKK or NAZI (aka Socialists), but fully support their right to protest or hold a political rally despite 100% against or despising their opinion. This is true tolerance versus silencing, but do not agree gov should be in control to silence. Tolerance of ideas you hate is true test of free speech. Do not want any gov regulation since can spin other side of dime.
    Yea, you have free market filling other side, shutting down other side not seemingly doing such is 198444444444, you are at a baseball game throwing crap at other side to shut down.

    • Davide says:

      No way.
      Considering them as publisher gives them full free speech: every social media can decide everything about the contents published on them.
      But as a publisher.
      Otherwise, they can be a platform, but this imply real free speech for everyone using those platforms.
      But they can’t have a publisher’s discretionality on opinions, *and* no responsability.
      Trump wants free speech, and this is the legal way to obtain it.

      Anyway, I regret internet changed so much, going from “dispersed” sites (like this one), to a such great degree of concentration, in the hands of a few subjects.
      I regret also there is only one Trump in the world, and nobody similar in Italy: here we have “commissions” to fight “fake news”, ie state propaganda censoring who doesn’t agree with unique thought. Like China.

    • Pedr Davies says:

      All he’s proposing as I understand it, is to make them the SAME as newspapers and TV who CAN be sued, but far too rarely are as legal action can be extremely costly. Somehow these survive and STILL behave in a manner where the label “journalist” is a cover for lefist activists posing as “journalists”. A journalist effective records events in a journal, they current “journalists” are often mere shills for thugs like antifa, blm or the lies of Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, Nadler
      There’s a great deal of difference between Trump’d brash at times exaggeration, and deliberately harmful, deceptive press positions. Current example: The murderous rioters and looters in Minnesota etc., being described as “protesters”
      Trump is not proposing censoring their output, that is a complete distortion – a mere deceptive bleat from the protected species (FB, Twit, Goog, M$ et. al.).

      It is about time that these internet publishers are affected by having to face the consequences of THEIR actions like ALL other publishers have for centuries.
      Publishers are still often in the business of wholesale bias and sometimes outright lying and survive just fine.

      Trump is rightly removing the protections they uniquely have because they have long *violated* the terms of neutrality that these protections were set up for.
      These sites *ARE* publishers and should be treated as such.

      Agree with (Dem-run) KKK and NDSAP (nazis) being socialists (who, it is true, associated or still associate with fascists when convenient).
      The communist-infiltrated “academia” went to work right after WW2 to paint them as fascists.

      Removing excessively violent content, rape, snuff movies etc? I’m all for it.
      Removing/censoring content they simply don’t agree with on deceptive pretexts needs to be stopped once and for all.

  6. Gamecock says:

    Nonsense, JP. “Platforms” get protection from responsibility for content, just like the phone company.

    But these systems are no longer platforms: they manage content. Making them publishers.

    “While I do agree that platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Google, censure opinion based on political orientation inasmuch as Pravda for an editorial not published to shape public opinion, and blatant propaganda, I do not agree that social networking sites should be held liable like publishers.”

    They aren’t platforms any longer. Hence aren’t entitled to protection. “censure opinion based on political orientation inasmuch as Pravda” is not what happens on a platform.

    OH, NO, WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN ?!?! is not a valid defense.

  7. Kenneth Wilson says:

    To: JPinBalt
    So what is your solution to the blatant biased censorship exhibited by the likes of Twitter, Facebook and Google?

  8. Kneel says:

    JP: Newspapers and TV stations don’t have the same protections as your ISP or phone company – why not? Because THEY decide what to show, while your ISP and phone company simply “connect” you, regardless of content.

    This is not a free speech issue, it’s a free enterprise issue – why can Twitter act like the NYT, yet get treated like Bell? That’s unfair to NYT, putting them at a competitive disadvantage.

  9. tom0mason says:

    Well done President Trump!
    Now the rest of the world needs to catch-up and properly tax all these publishers.

Leave a Reply

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