The US Supreme Court docket is listening to arguments in circumstances that would have an enormous affect on the 2024 election. For the primary time, …
source
The US Supreme Court docket is listening to arguments in circumstances that would have an enormous affect on the 2024 election. For the primary time, …
source
The big social media platforms all heavily rely on advertisers to make money. If these platforms are now forced to host any content no matter how unsavory or contentious (most) advertisers will no longer want their ads on them. The companies owning these platforms would have to change to a purely subscription based business model. So have fun paying for YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc. if you want to keep using them.
It's actually espionage of isis in Facebook being hostage of asian isis technology like usa in a way,I feel japanese rigged USA against china through these Hollywood movies etc, because they have no way to migrate,so their counterparts in Korea and rest of asia, India etc should also be investigated in the same deep level as isis bugged hypnotized recruitment etc😅
Ruling No "could amplify… hate speech and mis(dis)information"; what's amplifying hate speech and mis(dis)information now, prior to any ruling?
Apparently, one can amplify what one agrees with, and with greater "amplitude" and frequency when denigrating what you disagree (hate) with; right Phil?
DW and their assumptive bias statements to a their acquiescent base is a proof of illusory truth effect.
Legislate AI generated content.
Conservatives need protection from reality. It has a well-known liberal bias.
I don't understand. The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". "CONGRESS shall make no LAW" These social media companies are not Congress. They are not making law. Rather, the social media companies, privately owned, are delineating corporate business policy. Isn't it clear that the Supreme Court is being asked to over-step its authority?
The 1st Amendment only applies if we're talking about the US government; As Facebook, Tiktok, Youtube, etc. are all corporate entities, the First Amendment doesn't apply. They can censor whatever they want. Don't like it? Then create your own social media company or get offline and quit complaining.
ALLAHU AKBAR empires of lies, free speech, truth over lies, u are committed evil crimes and Censors the truth ALLAHU AKBAR
hahahahahaha : "Titter" at 4:06
Boycott EU 🇪🇺 company car, and other materials. I always friend ❤🇷🇺🇮🇳💪
Remember when saying that the vaccine isn't safe was "disinformation" ?
🤡
The American politicians are all the same, lies, hypocrisy, dodge questions, hidden agenda
вот это да, боролись против путина и сами превратились в рашку)
These companies do not have rights when they went public.
These CEO that are insanely over paid also have way too much power. Google is a monopoly
Yea sorry but YouTube/Google NEED to fix their 'AI',
I don't post any insults or 'hateful' but my comments get deleted al lthe time for 'harassment and bullying' by YouTube.
Good job if the AI can't detect words and acts like i'm harassing someone.
Like last time here in the DW News comments – some guy was spreading lies about some pamphlet in Sweden and all i did was saying 'You are lying' and exlained that this pamphlet aleady exists since 1916..
I got banned for 'harassment and bullying' for calling someones bs out. Good Job Google
Disinformation is control of any kind of discussion
youtube ，推特，抖音，微信，FB，
"To protect conservatives"
No, social media has been heavily liberal media based for year. This is proven with the Twitter details and Zuckerberg has said he's basically been told to only show the narrative they want.
The west and their values are under attack and they don't even know it
Freedom of speech only for me, those who don't agree are just hate speech and must be censored.
Wasn't it the Republicans who wanted platform owners to moderate content in the first place? Of course they wanted to suppress things like sex ed, pop culture and progressive ideas, now that they are at the receiving end, they are of course crying for mommy. So much for being against regulation and for "small government".
What will government do if platforms refuse to comply??.. Ban it.. Be realistic.. DOJ will be more than happy to settle with 1 million fine..
On a serious note.
Ideas, thoughts, believes have to be challanged. Usually, that's done by the simple fact tact that you're comming against different people and ideas.
Now, as the "search" engines are now geared toward "offering you personalized content", you're bumbing against the same thoughts and believes.
What I'm saying is that confirmation bias is a given nowadays, it's not thought process fault, it is the world you consume.
Free Speech means the government CAN NOT meddle!
Oh dear, we're going back to grunting while swinging clubs outside the cave, aren't we?
Here I thought laws and regulations were meant to make it possible for large groups of people to live together without all that.
The anchorman is a Marxist interviewing another Marxist, who tells us that a "corporation" has the freedom to control speech, which in turn controls the information/views/ideas that can be talked about. Sounds very CCP Mao China to me!
😂
It's about time !!! Liberal News Media CNN/MSNBC/ABC are all complicit !! I live in Seattle area and for the first time the News station Channel 4 did a segment on how trump has been unfairly treated politically over Biden….Almost to late as they have brainwashed the Left. But there is hope as there lies and twisting Biden into a good president is back firing ! And Democrats know they have been fooled.. Look at the country after Biden has been president…That's all I have to say ?
Shoeing you biases st the start of the interview, someone's been paid by the government for too long now
I support this bill, DW is highly biased against india.
Shame on DW
Free speech must be reciprocal!
– We can't give free speech to Chinese🇨🇳 officials when our officials can't have free speech in China.
Who gives Google, FB, Youtube, and TikTok the power of censoring user's freedom of speech anyway?
While, traditional media have to be held accountable if they publish/print a lie, hate speech, etc written by their subscriber, social medias do not have to do so.
How about protecting all people from Republican lies.
hate speech is free speech weather you like it or not
Free speech is free speech
3:00 "They are giving us the content that we want to see" No, they are not! I don't want a company to decide what "I want to see". The internet has become more and more boring due to these big companies deciding what people want to see. I want to decide myself what I see or don't see, because I can use a search engine as long as it is functional, and I am a independent human being. I don't need an company to hold my hand on the internet.
Youtube for example has decided to make its search worse and worse with every year, because they don't want the user to see what the user wants to see. They want the user to see what gets youtube the most income.
Reality leans left.
The First Amendment is applicable to public processes/places. Non government services are not "public" services. Even if the service is hosted in a US territory, that does not mean you have the constitutional right to "freedom of speech" on the platform. You are still beholden to their terms and conditions that you most likely had to agree to, to even have an account. You do not have the same "free speech" as you do as an American Citizen, the constitutional law/right is a completely different thing.
It's ironic that "conservatives" want laws like this considering how "anti government", and "pro business/state" they claim to be. This would be like making a law that says "businesses do not have the right to refuse you service at their own discretion." Which given how conservatives project themselves, they should be completely opposed to. However, in cases like "Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission", they're all for it. They're all for giving private business the "right" to deny services, as long as they agree with the reasoning. When they're on the receiving end, though, there's suddenly a problem and their "rights" are being violated; which is completely incorrect anyway. Because again, this is not about a constitutional "right" to post hate speech on private platforms.
I actually believe that in the case of "Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission", business should be allowed to deny someone service for any reason. I think their reason is ridiculous, and deplorable, but they should have the right to do it. They do, and should, have the right to dictate who they provide their business/service to. Short of committing assault, or a hate crime? They're just a nasty, bigoted person. We have the right to be nasty, bigoted people, it isn't illegal. Anti discrimination laws are tricky. In my opinion, if someone doesn't want to serve gay people then let them show the world what kind of person they are. I'd rather know and not support their business.