Facebook & Twitter Ban 800 Alt-Media Pages In Biggest Free Press Attack In U.S. History

James Reader, managing editor at one of those banned pages, Reverb Press, argued on Friday that the page did not post fake news: “We have always stood up to fact-checking. Left-leaning, yes. But fake news? NEVER,” he said in a Tweet. https://threatpost.com/facebook...-purge/138245/

[Chris Menahan ] Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey just carried out quite possibly the biggest attack on the free press in the history of America and the corporate media is cheering it on.

During the civil war, Abraham Lincoln shut down a few newspapers.

Mark Zuckerberg just shut down 559 pages and 251 accounts — which include tons of massive independent media sites with millions of followers run by Americans — a few weeks out from the midterms.

Jack Dorsey followed it up by banning many of the same independent news sites and the journalists who ran them on Twitter.

The pages included The Free Thought Project, Press For Truth, Anti-Media, Cop Block, Filming Cops, Right Wing News, Noisy Room, Gun Laws Don’t Work, Voluntaryist Veterans and many more.

http://planetfreewill.com/faceb...pendent-media/

CENSORSHIP CRACKDOWN? TOP 10 ALT-MEDIA PAGES NEWLY BANNED BY FACEBOOK & TWITTER
https://www.blacklistednews.com...ebook-amp.html

Facebook & Twitter Ban 800 Alt-Media Pages In Biggest Free Press Attack In U.S. History - YouTubeFacebook & Twitter Ban 800 Alt-Media Pages In Biggest Free Press Attack In U.S. History Facebook and Twitter both purged over 800 popular alternative media p...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbP_yi01KeU
60% censored 40% censored
Mazes avatar News & Current Events
Share
9 21

I'm just happy they chose Cop Block, instead of Cock Block.

This user has deactivated their account.
@2819520

I think there needs to be a social media bill of rights, a law that spells out what social media companies are allowed to censor and what they're not. Social media is a political forum, so censorship could be used to interfere with an election. That's pretty serious business, national security level stuff. As it is, if Facebook Google and Twitter, 3 multinational corporations, decide to ban somebody, that person's political reach is severely restricted. That's an incredible amount of political power to put in the hands of a few unelected people. I think it's extremely dangerous, there is clearly a need for a fair and impartial system of rules to reign in that power.

This user has deactivated their account.
@2819540

I would suggest that the US should bring in a law that says the free speech rights of Americans extend to social media.

There's no need for social media companies to pick and choose who gets to speak, if you don't want to hear from someone, you can block them. If someone is making threats or calling for violence, that's already a crime. If someone is slandering you, you can sue them.

This user has deactivated their account.
@2820101

Some of the accounts deleted by FB had millions of followers, people who clearly chose to associate with those accounts, and they committed no crime, (all the ones I've heard from say they didn't break any rules, and FB didn't cite any specific violations, just made a vague accusation of misbehavior), isn't banning them violating their users' right to freedom of association?

As long as users can block other users, there is no need for the social media provider to get involved in who people on their platforms choose to associate with, unless someone tries to violate someone else's right to freedom of association by using multiple accounts to harass them, that warrants the company's involvement, but if you don't want to hear from somebody, block them, it should be up to you who you associate with, not the company.

I guess my point is that social media companies, unlike other companies, should not have carte blanche ability to kick people off their platforms, because doing so is a violation of their users' right to free association. They can set a code of conduct, but in order to kick somebody off for a CoC violation, they must cite the specific incident in question and spell out how it violates their CoC, not just make a vague accusation. Because kicking someone off a social media platform without just cause is a violation of the right to free association of that user and all their followers. A company's rights don't invalidate the rights of their customers.

This user has deactivated their account.
@2820112

A private club has the right to select members according to whatever criteria they choose. But you cannot simply declare your business a private club, there is a legal standard that must be met. Other businesses don't have the right to pick and choose who they serve. They can set a code of conduct, but if that code is discriminatory or applied unfairly, it can be challenged in court.

As long as users can block other users, I don't think there's a need for any social media platform to discriminate.

This user has deactivated their account.
@2820242

I'd say we are customers, we're not paying the site directly, but we're an essential part of their financial structure.

There are 2 sets of customers a social media company serves: the first group is users, users don't directly pay for a site, but without users, a social media site has nothing to offer to their other group of customers: advertisers.

It's our clicks and purchases that fund this site, and all sites. Without us, specifically our money, none of this would exist. We pay for all of it. The money flows in to the site through advertisers, but the money to advertise is generated by sales, and that's us. So we're paying customers.

These are privately owned businesses. They can ban whomever they choose. Like this site, the owner has the option to cut any one of us off, at any time, for any reason.
These pages, or whatever you call them, can start their own website and say what they please.

@Carla These are privately owned businesses. They can ban whomever they choose. Like this site, the owner has the option...

Still defending them huh? Not concerned that they're coming for independent voices on the left now too? None of this censorship bothers you? You don't see danger in what they're doing?

If a privately owned business bans all Jews, or blacks, or homosexuals, do you really think that's their right, or is there a line there somewhere they can cross?

@Maze Still defending them huh? Not concerned that they're coming for independent voices on the left now too? None of...

There is a line.
That line is often crossed.
You cannot control what color you are, who you love or where you come from.
What you say, though, in a private business, can be, or not be tolerated by the business owner.
As i think ive said before, newspapers decide who editorializes, advertises and reports. And what is reported on. Websites are no different.

@Carla There is a line. That line is often crossed. You cannot control what color you are, who you love or where you...

Oh I see, so it would be okay to ban gays for talking about being gay, just not for actually being gay, like, you can be a gay as you like as long as you never speak about it. That makes sense. I mean, you can't control who you love, but you can control what you say.

@Maze Oh I see, so it would be okay to ban gays for talking about being gay, just not for actually being gay, like, you...

Maze....it isnt the way i would like it to be. But yes, that's the way it is. If a business owner chooses not to tolerate a persons ideas, that business owner has the right not to. People should be open to listening and at least trying to understand ideas other than their own. But, alas, that is not the case.

@Carla Maze....it isnt the way i would like it to be. But yes, that's the way it is. If a business owner chooses not to...

You're looking at social media like it's the equivalent of a newspaper, I don't think that's an accurate comparison, a newspaper is a unified entity that speaks for itself, like a channel on social media, not the overall platform.

A social media platform is a public communications network, it doesn't have a voice of its own as such, it simply enables people to communicate with each other, like a more advanced version of a telephone network. A telephone company does not have the right or obligation to police the content of conversations, and neither should a social media company.

Anonymous