ACLU warns of unchecked power after Trump Twitter ban

John Galt

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
10,193
Reaction score
1,345
Points
113
ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook After Trump Suspension (msn.com)

A legislative counsel member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) warned Friday that the suspension of President Donald Trump's social media accounts wielded "unchecked power," by Twitter and Facebook.

a close up of a hand holding a cellphone: The ACLU warned Friday that permanently banning Trump from social media wields unchecked power by big tech companies. Here, the suspended Twitter account of U.S. President Donald Trump appears on an iPhone screen on January 08, 2021 in San Anselmo, California.
© Getty The ACLU warned Friday that permanently banning Trump from social media wields "unchecked power" by big tech companies. Here, the suspended Twitter account of U.S. President Donald Trump appears on an iPhone screen on January 08, 2021 in San Anselmo, California.
Kate Ruane, a senior legislative counsel at the ACLU said in a statement that the decision to suspend Trump from social media could set a precedent for big tech companies to silence less privileged voices.

While the ACLU has repeatedly locked horns with Mr. Trump and his administration over issues such as the president’s travel ban, the ACLU is worried about the ramifications of tech companies diminishing online speech.

“We understand the desire to permanently suspend him now, but it should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions — especially when political realities make those decisions easier,” said Kate Ruane, ACLU senior legislative counsel, in a statement.
 

Attachments

TruthSeeker

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
5,075
Reaction score
1,604
Points
113
Break up big tech.

Impeach and bar Trump from office.

Expel McCarthy, Boebert, Cruz, Hawley, and all other seditionist legislators.

Prosecute all terrorists who attacked the Capitol.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,500
Reaction score
1,179
Points
113
As an aside to this, Net Neutrality plays a potential role here.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,500
Reaction score
1,179
Points
113
With the exceptions of human trafficking, child pornograp

How so?
Imagine the main on-ramps to the internet doing the blocking instead of the site hosts. Altogether different.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
22,480
Reaction score
3,851
Points
113
Imagine the main on-ramps to the internet doing the blocking instead of the site hosts. Altogether different.
The internet providers blocking it would definitely fall into net neutrality range. Of course....it would be perfectly fine then. Righties are against net neutrality.....especially deuce.

Go figure.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
46,277
Reaction score
2,480
Points
113
Imagine the main on-ramps to the internet doing the blocking instead of the site hosts. Altogether different.
So, instead of Parler partnering with a different web host or server in response to big tech trying to crush them, you propose centralizing this function under the federal government? Want to make sure I’m understanding.
it stinks what big tech is doing to Parler. It should be repudiated and resisted. But ultimately it opens the door to new businesses and competition. Most of these companies didn’t exist a decade ago or so. It’s too soon to say we need the feds to step in. If millions of people want a twitter like service not run by left wing activists, let’s see if one can emerge. Gab is an alternative and avoided going thru AWS. If the major smart phone companies want to try to block it, that opens the door for new smart phone companies. Competition is always the best solution.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,500
Reaction score
1,179
Points
113
So, instead of Parler partnering with a different web host or server in response to big tech trying to crush them, you propose centralizing this function under the federal government? Want to make sure I’m understanding.
You aren't. You've never understood what Net Neutrality is about. This is no exception. Stay in your lane.
 

John Galt

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
10,193
Reaction score
1,345
Points
113
Imagine the main on-ramps to the internet doing the blocking instead of the site hosts. Altogether different.
So you want the web hosting companies to control content instead of the platforms?
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,500
Reaction score
1,179
Points
113
As far as the OP. Reducing barriers to entry for web hosts is a worthy goal, but honestly, I'm not sure how big those are - and I'm not sure I like the government in a very big role there. I can - and indeed have in the past - setup a publicly available web server in my basement on a computer with IIS and a Linux firewall. Granted, I was a sitting duck for attack, but the proof-of-concept held.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
22,480
Reaction score
3,851
Points
113
So you want the web hosting companies to control content instead of the platforms?
You seem to be suggesting that NOBODY controls the content. And Apple, Google Play, Amazon are NOT web hosting companies. Not carrying the Parler app doesn't shut down Parler. As I said....everyone is still perfectly capable of going to the website....including going to the website through their SMART PHONE BROWSERS.
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
10,355
Reaction score
1,948
Points
113
the 1st Amendment is not absolute.

There are limits on Free Speech. You cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre.

If you go on social media and post that someone should kill your boss, you are going to get in trouble.

There have been people on social media openly calling for the Vice-President of the United States to be executed. at the very least, they should have their accounts removed.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
4,707
Reaction score
2,264
Points
113
So you want the web hosting companies to control content instead of the platforms?
Republicons blocked net neutrality so all major sevice providers can block any app or company they want. Wow how short sighted of them.😆😆😆
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
22,480
Reaction score
3,851
Points
113
Republicons blocked net neutrality so all major sevice providers can block any app or company they want. Wow how short sighted of them.😆😆😆
And it hasn't even gotten to that. Apple, Google, Amazon are not internet service providers and they are not blocking access to Parler. You can still get to the site through the browsers on their devices. Now....if they found a way to block access all together....that would be a different story. A story that the righty dotards shouldn't have a complaint about considering their stance on Net Neutrality. Funny how they continue to prove that they are hyper hypocrites on these types of things.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
46,277
Reaction score
2,480
Points
113
You aren't. You've never understood what Net Neutrality is about. This is no exception. Stay in your lane.
Then clarify your statement? Or not. I can smell your fear. Shame on me for operating in good faith. I should know better.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,500
Reaction score
1,179
Points
113
Then clarify your statement? Or not. I can smell your fear. Shame on me for operating in good faith. I should know better.
You've had it explained to you many, many times. I'm quite secure in where I stand. The odor you smell is the stench of your own uninformed, yet very strong, opinion.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
46,277
Reaction score
2,480
Points
113
If Comcast, Charter, Earthlink, etc....put a ban on Parler.....Net Neutrality would suddenly be sectionfraud's #1 new issue.
Except that I explicitly stated the opposite. If millions of people want a product, and they don’t want to supply it, that just opens the door to competitors. Apple google Amazon big tech all WANT net neutrality.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
46,277
Reaction score
2,480
Points
113
Republicons blocked net neutrality so all major sevice providers can block any app or company they want. Wow how short sighted of them.😆😆😆
And it hasn't even gotten to that. Apple, Google, Amazon are not internet service providers and they are not blocking access to Parler. You can still get to the site through the browsers on their devices. Now....if they found a way to block access all together....that would be a different story. A story that the righty dotards shouldn't have a complaint about considering their stance on Net Neutrality. Funny how they continue to prove that they are hyper hypocrites on these types of things.
Except there is no hypocrisy. Hard no to net neutrality. It’s hilarious how you guys are even bringing it up after 100% of your predictions were wrong.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
22,480
Reaction score
3,851
Points
113
Except that I explicitly stated the opposite. If millions of people want a product, and they don’t want to supply it, that just opens the door to competitors. Apple google Amazon big tech all WANT net neutrality.
No....what you've been doing is melting down over Apple, Google, and Amazon removing the Parler app. About Twitter deleting Trump's account. These aren't EVEN on the level of an ISP blocking certain content....which you seem to be fine with.

Principles of soggy newspaper.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
22,480
Reaction score
3,851
Points
113
Except there is no hypocrisy. Hard no to net neutrality. It’s hilarious how you guys are even bringing it up after 100% of your predictions were wrong.
We know. You say no to Net Neutrality. ISPs can pick winners and losers. Except when Twitter, Apple, Google, and Amazon remove the things that espouse the wacky right nonsense that you agree with.

Just one more example of your ridiculous hypocrisy and completely nonexistent principles.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
23,376
Reaction score
1,876
Points
113
Break up big tech.

Impeach and bar Trump from office.

Expel McCarthy, Boebert, Cruz, Hawley, and all other seditionist legislators.

Prosecute all terrorists who attacked the Capitol.
Yeah, the Dem super-majority who just won their elections thanks to Big Tech's money & censorship are going to get right on that.

 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
19,902
Reaction score
4,246
Points
113
So you want the web hosting companies to control content instead of the platforms?
Net neutrality is about consumer ISP. In other words, the "internet pipes" to people's homes.

The idea generally speaking, as I understand it, is that companies providing ISP service to residences don't just want to be "dumb" pipes. They don't think there's enough profit in it for them, in doing only that. They could be right, depending relative to what profit level they're measuring from.

People want very fast service. For the most part, levels that can only be met by laying fiber optic to neighborhoods, even to homes. And they don't want to pay very much for it. Guessing most people would pay around $50-60/mo for ISP, maybe $80 if they want upgraded speed. Certainly not $150 or $200.


So the ISP's idea was to make additional profit on top of just providing the data. One way they could do that is to make agreements with certain websites to prioritize the delivery of their data on the network over other data.

That's basically the heart of net neutrality. The idea that Comcast in Minneapolis shouldn't be allowed to make a deal with Walmart.com to prioritize their data over Target's, Best Buy's, or Amazon's. That type of thing.


I haven't actually heard of any such deals being implemented, yet. It caused a pretty big uproar. But as far as I know, the FCC ruled, under Trump's appointed staff, that it is allowed.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
4,707
Reaction score
2,264
Points
113
Except that I explicitly stated the opposite. If millions of people want a product, and they don’t want to supply it, that just opens the door to competitors. Apple google Amazon big tech all WANT net neutrality.
In deuces magical panacea. In the real world people are lazy. Also the bread and butter of such services is the corporate world and only an idiot would align their company in such a divisive way.
 
Last edited:

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
7,183
Reaction score
2,285
Points
113
Hey, now that you’ve invented this super cool thing at your own expense, we’d like to do the same thing, but using your stuff, cool, huh?
 

jamiche

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
21,794
Reaction score
1,751
Points
113
For years Twitter, FB, Youtube and, more recently
You've had it explained to you many, many times. I'm quite secure in where I stand. The odor you smell is the stench of your own uninformed, yet very strong, opinion.
Arrogant and ignorant. As it applies to melvin yabut, it's meaningless. However, on a national scale we are living with the consequences of this lethal combination.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
4,707
Reaction score
2,264
Points
113
Funny how the right has been railing against the ACLU for years and now its their last best hope. Guess they see the value of liberal values now.
🤣🤣🤣
 
Top Bottom