46 Comments

  • @travisbussey1611 on March 2, 2024

    Here's what people don't realize this is spreading past Social media. I've had software that I use for my business that when the license is updated had little morality Clauses in them about what kind of speech I can promote or not when using their software. If you think Microsoft isn't planning this For an upcoming Windows update I don't know what to tell you. As far as I'm concerned any kind of speech media Etc the only censorship that should be allowed in any case whatsoever Is if a crime was committed in the creation of the speech. The problem is if you leave any door open all that happens is you end up with people redefining what constitutes whatever censorship is allowed. He tried to censor any kind of threatening speech all suddenly disagreeing with me is a threat. You want to censor racism and suddenly they redefine what racism means. It just never works.

  • @1Dude2009 on March 2, 2024

    Once the social media companies started working with the government and taking direction from the government, they should be treated like the government. If they want to be publishers, like a newspaper, ok, then they should be able to be sued like a newspaper. Can't have it both ways.

  • @genepothier8398 on March 2, 2024

    If anyone is showing censorship it’s the Demoncrats and left leaning Media and Big Tech not to mention Social Media …

  • @danielrutschman4618 on March 2, 2024

    If, for example, Facebook wants to openly and honestly promote itself as a platform exclusively for left-wingers and ban all conservative content, then that's a repugnant policy but it doesn't violate the 1st Amendment. But if the White House calls Facebook, or the FBI pays Facebook to restrict certain political content then that clearly violates the 1st Amendment and is unlawful.

    The solution, then, is so obvious and logical that it's probably impossible to implement it. Simply remove Section 230 protections from social media companies and also completely / absolutely / totally forbid the government from pressuring / threatening / coercing / bribing social media companies in any way at all to censor particular political content or users.

  • @SamtheIrishexan on March 2, 2024

    Robbie we need to enforce anti-trust to social media and section 230 must go away. Those companies are way too powerful. You could argue social media has become a public utility. The government absolutely should not be using private companies to suppress free speech those involved in the must be prosecuted. They should be sued too. Both of which were in the works but Biden quashed the investigations.

  • @jeanhuelsman1766 on March 2, 2024

    We shall not be denied our right to free speech.

  • @SamtheIrishexan on March 2, 2024

    A company should not be able to legally limit free speech unless it is ruled on as having broken the application of the law. They shouldnt be able to create policies that inherantly violate our constitutional rights.

  • @AstralAquarium on March 2, 2024

    Seriously Bri? How is what is happening in Gaza Trump-adjacent policy? When Trump was president there was peace in the Middle East. BIDEN is funding this conflict. Sounds like you can’t cope with the fact you helped put Biden/Harris in office and now they are taking our money away from the problems at home to fuel this, Ukraine and the migrant crisis.

  • @johnreeves3688 on March 2, 2024

    If it is intentionally curated, they should lose section 230 protection under the Communications Decency Act. And be liable for every crime they facilitate. Don't you agree, Robbie and Bri?

  • @eronthomas6829 on March 3, 2024

    If Facebook is going to editorialize, they are a publisher. Drop 231 protection.

  • @kevinsanders4835 on March 3, 2024

    There should be a provision for politically elected officials and bureaucratic members to be able to have official channels open and not shut down on media platforms within the U.S. Let whatever comments any person of that listed group make be their own reflection of that position the person holds. 1A is for the general public and businesses, but Government officials need to have their voice and merits shown at all times, much like emergency broadcasts and systems. It should be unilateral across both sides with no discrimination on any part. If you don't like what an official has to say then tune it out, but it is not a question if it is within their rights to have a voice. It is an absolute necessity that Government officials may speak fully without being censored, for better or worse. That is what makes or breaks any free society/democracy/theocracy/republic.

  • @donawyo on March 3, 2024

    Totally disagree. The cake baker wasn’t the only place to get cake. There are millions of cake bakers. There are very few social media sites. They have a monopoly. Facebook cannot limit people because then they limit half the country. It is much more like the giant telephone companies than the cake baker. Apples and oranges!

  • @yurawanka773 on March 3, 2024

    "wish to publish in their platform" are tech media publishers? so then they are not warranted on social media protection from being sued. the rising is dumb

  • @Nevsw9 on March 3, 2024

    If they weren't doing something that THEY KNEW WAS WRONG why was the activity of SHADOW BANNING and censorship being concealed and only made public as result of Elon buying Twitter and work of Schellenberg and Taibi???? The clue is in the title, "PLATFORM" They're providing a PLATFORM. Period. Therefore, if they want to exercise that kind of censorship, they should not be allowed to operate at that scale and global monopoly.

  • @nickwells20 on March 3, 2024

    Bri made a good point about the cake makers. This is a tough case because I think the companies should have their own rules but its clear that certain veiws are shutdown which does influencer major elections ans situations. The public form is a big one and im hesitant to allow the government any more power.

  • @SuperDr1ven on March 3, 2024

    Im actually more on bries side on this. They do seem to function more as a common carrier for social media. If they're free to have editorial control section 230 should be abolished completely.

  • @DSTH323 on March 3, 2024

    All of these companies are way too big, broad, and too powerful with vast consequences for the good of the American people. They should be broken up via antitrust laws

  • @rezzurektedpoet on March 3, 2024

    The platforms are NOT enforcing their policies equally with all users. That's the problem. If two people share the same harmful content but have different political, social or economical views are treated in complete contrast.

  • @kerwinbrown4180 on March 3, 2024

    I am fine with social media confession they follow the Antichrist, deceiver, false prophet religion.

    I will point out that the first amendment bans the federal government from censoring even though the federal government speaks for the collective citizens of the USA. The USA admits to being a combination of socialism and corportism thus making the claim that social media companies are private a dubious claim which no libertarian should make since the USA has a command economy.

  • @garyyeo9220 on March 3, 2024

    Remove section 230.

  • @ginapocan on March 3, 2024

    AWE poor Markie-poo is feeling censored. Poor BAby. Let's all cry for the dead heads of social media. They can't even use the word censorship correctly, or they are trying to change it's meaning to suit their narratives once again. Bite the big one Markie.

  • @Itspurple13 on March 4, 2024

    Yes it's a "free" service in a sense. But by using their service and allowing them to collect information about you in every way possible to sell to anyone they choose is what makes them billions. If not for "free" users they wouldn't make a dime from advertisers. The users are the product not Facebook, X, YouTube, etc.

  • @Sunday_Swagger on March 4, 2024

    With the baker example…they’re saying no due to religious reasons which is protected. It seems social media platforms are saying no due to political bias. I believe that’s a Major difference.

  • @brianpatrick108 on March 4, 2024

    Facebook is paid by the USERS through facebooks data mining.

  • @greggkupec on March 4, 2024

    Limited Article 230 is long overdue. Censorship is wrong regardless of motive. Usually the TRUTH is the first casualty

  • @laughingvampire7555 on March 4, 2024

    I think if you wanna censor then you should lose your free speech for the rest of your life

  • @laughingvampire7555 on March 4, 2024

    The size is what matters, the baker was a small company, pretty much an individual’s company.

    Google, Facebook, etc is huge and are the default public space in the time of the internet and as the twitter files proved due to this fact of they being so big & in cooperation with the government it turns them into an effective government agency so they should lose the so called right to moderate

  • @laughingvampire7555 on March 4, 2024

    Yes, you do pay to use facebook with your information

  • @AmandaMarieBrinkley on March 4, 2024

    Independents are banned all the time too. it definitely feels like our rights are being limited as people when we are censored constantly by YouTube constantly by Instagram, constantly by TikTok, constantly by self censorship like the censorship is out of control and we need to elevate dialogue. A lot of people have a lot of racist thoughts, and they need to be dealt with by artificial intelligence artificial intelligence has this glossed over version of humanity that’s entirely skewed towards the white supremacist policies of western civilization in support of Israel in denying the world, peace as possible, all kinds of ways

  • @habi00 on March 4, 2024

    Oh come on. Google and Facebook create a moderated user experience 😂😜😝😆🤣😜😝😆 wow, the experience of shady products…😂

  • @thatchallengechannel5800 on March 4, 2024

    Make them publishers like the Wall Street Journal, New York Post, etc. They want editorial control, then they need to give up their government protection. It's simple, stop letting them have their cake and eat it too. FMZ

  • @MsFrancoisH on March 4, 2024

    Trump didn't violate any policy. These companies have discrimination laws they have to abide by. If they unfairly apply their policies, they are discriminating.

  • @Mollikar on March 4, 2024

    The censorship kings want to accuse someone else of censorship, thats rich.

  • @brandonsheffield9873 on March 4, 2024

    Social media is the literal Town square. They are exactly the same as if a person stood on a crowded street shouting. Facebook is the same thing. The people walking by could listen to the shouter or they can ignore them. Facebook users can do the same thing.

  • @cstout1634 on March 5, 2024

    You both are ignoring that fact that social media is the new public square

  • @TheJester930 on March 5, 2024

    This was an excellent debate, thank you

  • @kellyrogers1765 on March 5, 2024

    How do you Proceed with your Day ‼️every story is my hair is on fire 🔥

  • @WhoDoUthinkUr on March 5, 2024

    You can't even say sleepy joe on a Yahoo news article about Biden . Say Hunters laptop. I have had both blocked.

  • @HollyMoore-wo2mh on March 5, 2024

    I'll say it again – POWER and CONTROL are hard drugs to give up.

  • @TyeDPod on March 6, 2024

    "If it's a free service, you are the product." I don't remember who said it.

    Additionally, they are a public square. Just because it's a bigger public square doesn't make a difference. As long as someone abides by the SCOUTS rulings on The First Amendment they shouldn't be punished.

    Imo.

  • @timothyvanhoeck233 on March 7, 2024

    Last I checked, there is no right to censor enshirined in the Constitution. Censorship is completely antithetical to the 1st Amendment and the notion that somehow gives big tech the right to censor those they don't like completely defeats the entire purpose of the 1st Amendment in the first place. If you don't like what is being said, you have the right to tune yourself out. You do NOT have the right to put a muzzle on the speaker.

  • @richdilorenzo8145 on March 8, 2024

    But doesn't the fact that people have a CHOICE NOT TO READ commentary on platforms matter?

  • @richdilorenzo8145 on March 8, 2024

    Two differennt issues between the cake bakers and the and the platforms. One askes someone to specifically DO something. Make a cake. The other does not force the owner, META etc. to DO anything. It just allows others to read whatever they choose. No one is FORCING them to do anything.

  • @MusingsFromTheJohn00 on March 11, 2024

    I believe this is a complicated issue where I actually end up favoring the Far Right, which is extremely rare for me.

    I can 100% understand and agree that when a private person creates some venue for a "maybe" public discussion they should have the right to limit the topics discussed and censor/ban speech not in alignment with their private venue which "maybe" not so private but public instead. That is the grey area, public vs private.

    Small privately created venues which are opened to the public can be absolutely overwhelmed and corrupted from what the venue was supposed to be by public contributions without some degree of censorship and banning.

    But, in my opinion without question, when a private company creates a venue open to a very large segment of the population, this changes things. On such a scale this becomes a major issue of Constitutionally Protected Free Speech because a venue on such a large scale effects such a large portion of the entire society, thus for such a large venue like Facebook to censor/ban speech protected by the Constitution it can significantly effect politics and social opinions on a large scale where that small private company then gains an unfair level of controlling politics and social opinions by censoring/banning speech they do not like.

    So, I think that once a venue reaches a certain size it should be required to adhere to being a public venue, not a private venue, and thus free speech protected by the Constitution cannot be censored/banned.

    This is one of the things about free speech that the left seems to have FORGOTTEN ABOUT.

    Free speech is very important and the point of free speech is allowing people you do not like who are say things you disagree with, things you do not like, and things you may think are false.

    On the other hand, another important thing is bringing forth what the objective truth is and once upon a time our news used to have strict rules and ethics around telling objective truthful reporting of news. Today truth has been thrown out the window and people report and believe whatever they want to with complete disregard for objective facts. That is a real problem, but a different one from the right of free speech.

    What I'd like to see is where people have their free speech rights protected, but when they post thru some large venue like Facebook that their posts go through fact checking in an objective manner. A post not yet fact checked might have a flag indicating it has "Not Been Fact Checked". A post that is fact checked would then have a section showing the results of that fact check. But, the fact checking needs to be like the old style news which strongly sought to present objective reporting and objective facts, devoid of opinions.

  • @John-yh8oe on March 18, 2024

    Rule that they can be sued

  • @John-yh8oe on March 18, 2024

    There Democrats they censor for Democrats that violation

error: 🔒 ( WEBFI SECURITY )-WEB SHIELD 🛑