Will Big Tech Giants, Google, Twitter, Facebook, Be Held Liable For Biased Censorship, New Law?

[Truth7t7]

FoxNews

Hawley introduces bill targeting Big Tech companies over political censorship concerns

June 17, 2020

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduced legislation Wednesday to give Americans the ability to sue major tech companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter if they engage in selective censorship of political speech.
The Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act, cosponsored by Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Mike Braun, R-Ind., and Tom Cotton, R-Ark., would stop such companies from receiving immunity under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, unless they update their terms of service to promise to operate in good faith.

 

[soggykitten]

That is not a new law. It is Senate bill 3983 that has only been introduced onto the floor. As of June 17th of this year it was read on the floor twice, and has since been sent to committee. This doesn't mean it is going to be a law. In fact if you read the language of the bill, it will likely die in committee given the major corporations whom this would affect, due to just the global revenue numbers delineated in the bill.
Typically a bill of this nature is put forward as political hay. Those constituents that pay attention to what their elected representatives do in Congress will give cudos come election time for the mere effort expended to try to get this bill passed. It won't. The sponsors likely know this. However, they bank on those activists who keep track to credit them for this effort. The think that they thought to take on major corporate social media giants in this way will give them brownie points come election time.

Text of SB3983 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3983/text
Actions: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3983/all-actions?overview=closed#tabs


2018Report: 90 Percent of Political Donations from Google Go to Democrats
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018...itical-donations-from-google-go-to-democrats/

2017 Ballotpedia
Fact check: Do 97 percent of journalist donations go to Democrats?https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/Do_97_percent_of_journalist_donations_go_to_Democrats

Conclusion
During an MSNBC interview on July 14, Rep. Dave Brat claimed the media is biased for giving more attention to the Trump administration's alleged Russian connections than to the issue of Hillary Clinton's connections to foreign money through the Clinton Foundation. Brat said, "Why is that? Well, maybe it's because 97 percent of the donations from mainstream [media] folks go to the Democrat Party."[1]

Brat based his claim on the results of a Center for Public Integrity analysis, which found that more than 96 percent of the donations from journalists to either Clinton or Trump between January 2015 and August 2016 went to Clinton.[4]

Ballotpedia reviewed three other analyses of contributions from donors identified as journalists and found that a majority of the donors or a majority of the donations (depending on the study) benefited Democrats or liberal causes.[6][7][8]

And Twitter has no parent company now but Twitter does own Periscope. The first few links are informative.
https://www.google.com/search?q=periscope political donations

I predict SB 3983 will never get out of committee. Politicians are loath to penalize the hand that feeds them.

 

[AndyMaleh]

That is not a new law. It is Senate bill 3983 that has only been introduced onto the floor. As of June 17th of this year it was read on the floor twice, and has since been sent to committee. This doesn't mean it is going to be a law. In fact if you read the language of the bill, it will likely die in committee given the major corporations whom this would affect, due to just the global revenue numbers delineated in the bill.
Typically a bill of this nature is put forward as political hay. Those constituents that pay attention to what their elected representatives do in Congress will give cudos come election time for the mere effort expended to try to get this bill passed. It won't. The sponsors likely know this. However, they bank on those activists who keep track to credit them for this effort. The think that they thought to take on major corporate social media giants in this way will give them brownie points come election time.

Text of SB3983 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3983/text
Actions: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3983/all-actions?overview=closed#tabs


2018Report: 90 Percent of Political Donations from Google Go to Democrats
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018...itical-donations-from-google-go-to-democrats/

2017 Ballotpedia
Fact check: Do 97 percent of journalist donations go to Democrats?https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/Do_97_percent_of_journalist_donations_go_to_Democrats

Conclusion
During an MSNBC interview on July 14, Rep. Dave Brat claimed the media is biased for giving more attention to the Trump administration's alleged Russian connections than to the issue of Hillary Clinton's connections to foreign money through the Clinton Foundation. Brat said, "Why is that? Well, maybe it's because 97 percent of the donations from mainstream [media] folks go to the Democrat Party."[1]

Brat based his claim on the results of a Center for Public Integrity analysis, which found that more than 96 percent of the donations from journalists to either Clinton or Trump between January 2015 and August 2016 went to Clinton.[4]

Ballotpedia reviewed three other analyses of contributions from donors identified as journalists and found that a majority of the donors or a majority of the donations (depending on the study) benefited Democrats or liberal causes.[6][7][8]

And Twitter has no parent company now but Twitter does own Periscope. The first few links are informative.
https://www.google.com/search?q=periscope political donations

I predict SB 3983 will never get out of committee. Politicians are loath to penalize the hand that feeds them.

You lost me at "This doesn't mean it is going to be a law."

That's not how a Christian talks. A Christian believes anything is possible at all times given God's omnipotence. It is just a matter of whether it will be God's will or not for the law to be passed. You gotta pray! Leave the rest to God.

 

[soggykitten]

You lost me at "This doesn't mean it is going to be a law."

That's not how a Christian talks. A Christian believes anything is possible at all times given God's omnipotence. It is just a matter of whether it will be God's will or not for the law to be passed. You gotta pray! Leave the rest to God.

Well, if you stopped reading there you have no knowledge of what I said.

I know activists that prayed and left it to God many decades ago.
And then, prayer was outlawed in public schools, abortion became legal, gays were let to marry and adopt children, and transsexuals were given the right to prosecute any Christian who did not agree a persons gender changed because their mind convinced them they were born in the wrong body.

 

[AndyMaleh]

Well, if you stopped reading there you have no knowledge of what I said.

I know activists that prayed and left it to God many decades ago.
And then, prayer was outlawed in public schools, abortion became legal, gays were let to marry and adopt children, and transsexuals were given the right to prosecute any Christian who did not agree a persons gender changed because their mind convinced them they were born in the wrong body.

So, are you saying you don't believe in God anymore? If so, why are you here? This place is for Christian chat.

 

[Lanolin]

they probably had these laws already but just didnt have the power to enforce them. its cause the internet traffic to those sites was so much.
which is why footage of mass shootings and pornography/rape and cyber bullying were allowed on these platforms and nobody did anything about them, till people actually died or were trafficked.


nobody really does anything about graphic violence in movies, there's ratings, but they arent prevented from being sold. Theres meant to be a censorship body for those but perverse people get on those bodies and basically allow anything.

 

[Lanolin]

in nz there are certain laws surrounding election time campaigning, (so people dont get saturated with so many voices and its an equal playing field) but otherwise, you as a citizen are allowed to have your say.

if you are a poltician it seems a given you are going to offend someone, most people cannot please everyone, and will have their critics.

electionering is a dirty game though, be prepared for a lot of mud slinging and fighting even within political parties as they vie for power.

 

[Truth7t7]

So, are you saying you don't believe in God anymore? If so, why are you here? This place is for Christian chat.

Your failed response in a personal attack, because the poster disagrees.

"You don't believe in God anymore"

 

[acts5_29]

How about the government being held responsible for their censorship of everything willy-nilly? Frequently under the pretext of "national security"? Now they even have the audacity to silence TikTok--a private entity--simply because they were blamed for your feared President's lackluster showing at Tulsa (which he did to himself, by the way...).

After the public entity whom we pay taxes to gets held liable for what they do, then let's discuss where private entities' free speech rights end.

 

[Kojikun]

Ive been reading these type of laws for almost the last decade. These Bill's are always poorly written and written by people who dont know how the delicate internet ecosystem works. This can easily negatively impact many people other than just big tech. 🙄🤦‍♂️

 

[AndyMaleh]

How about the government being held responsible for their censorship of everything willy-nilly? Frequently under the pretext of "national security"? Now they even have the audacity to silence TikTok--a private entity--simply because they were blamed for your feared President's lackluster showing at Tulsa (which he did to himself, by the way...).

After the public entity whom we pay taxes to gets held liable for what they do, then let's discuss where private entities' free speech rights end.

Censorship is OK. Free speech only includes what is good as it assumes good people and good intentions to begin with. Anything that is evil is out! The government's job is to protect the people and censorship is part of that.

 

[Truth7t7]

How about the government being held responsible for their censorship of everything willy-nilly? Frequently under the pretext of "national security"? Now they even have the audacity to silence TikTok--a private entity--simply because they were blamed for your feared President's lackluster showing at Tulsa (which he did to himself, by the way...).

After the public entity whom we pay taxes to gets held liable for what they do, then let's discuss where private entities' free speech rights end.

Tik Tok is (Controlled) by the Communist Chinese Government, you bet National Security is at risk.

The commie Barrack Obama is gone, and so are his Chinese commie counterparts, we have a new sheriff in town, his name is Donald J. Trump

 

[Truth7t7]

Censorship is OK. Free speech only includes what is good as it assumes good people and good intentions to begin with. Anything that is evil is out! The government's job is to protect the people and censorship is part of that.

Censorship for adult content in language, sexual content, etc is understandable and I agree with that, never been an issue.

 

[AndyMaleh]

Your failed response in a personal attack, because the poster disagrees.

"You don't believe in God anymore"

It depends. If they believe in God, then it is not a personal attack, yet simply a question. If they don't believe in God, then everything is a personal attack. After all, Satan is known as Satan the Accuser, who always accuses people of things they did not do.

Either way, are you suggesting they can't handle themselves and need you to defend them? I assure you this is not a personal attack. I love all Christians as my brothers and sisters in Christ and want nothing but the strength and prosperity of the Body of Christ.

 

[Dude653]

I'm pretty sure this would be unconstitutional as a private owned Media company can filter content at their own discretion

 

[Kojikun]

Censorship for adult content in language, sexual content, etc is understandable and I agree with that, never been an issue.

Really? Theres quite a bit of gore and sexual content in the bible too. Do you want to censor that too? Once censorship starts its hard to stop. Now that sjws are controlling more media you can bet christian values to be censored too.

 

[tourist]

So, are you saying you don't believe in God anymore? If so, why are you here? This place is for Christian chat.

This member most definitely believes in God. Why are you giving her a hard time?

 

[Truth7t7]

Really? Theres quite a bit of gore and sexual content in the bible too. Do you want to censor that too? Once censorship starts its hard to stop. Now that sjws are controlling more media you can bet christian values to be censored too.

The tech giants are (Publishers) as they censor conservative voices, they will soon pay the price for their political bias through civil lawsuits.

 

[Kojikun]

The tech giants are (Publishers) as they censor conservative voices, they will soon pay the price for their political bias through civil lawsuits.

Indeed, but you cant expect that the domino effect wont start effecting smaller sites with restrictions and liability as well. Small sites are the first to cave as they dont have the massive money reserves the big tech does. The more small sites are weeded out the more dominant big tech becomes. If there where certain restrictions on the liability so it would only effect big tech it might be a different story.

 

[Truth7t7]

Indeed, but you cant expect that the domino effect wont start effecting smaller sites with restrictions and liability as well. Small sites are the first to cave as they dont have the massive money reserves the big tech does. The more small sites are weeded out the more dominant big tech becomes. If there where certain restrictions on the liability so it would only effect big tech it might be a different story.

Big tech is using their enormous platforms as News rooms, and political campaigns for the liberal Left, while enjoying freedom from liability as a neutral platform.

It has to stop, big tech is out of control, algorithm's in search engines, to promote a political outcome, for the liberal agenda, censorship of conservative voices, while liberals have free reign?