I find it hilarious that the same crew who insists that Twitter/Facebook are “censoring” them, immediately spins around and insists that it’s totally obvious that Parler must remove “trolls, hate speech and harassment” without recognizing their own hypocrisy.
Related:
Roger Stone-Tied Group Claims Dems Are Framing Them as Republican Party Turncoats
Yes, Parler has the right to censor/moderate, but I find it ironic!
Stengel’s appointment appears to be the clearest signal of a coming escalation by the Biden administration of the censorship and suppression of online media that is seen to threaten US imperatives abroad.
Related:
As U.S. president, Donald Trump receives special treatment from Twitter Inc. when he violates the company’s rules around offensive or misleading content. That exemption will end in January if he loses the presidency.
The social network treats transgressions from world leaders differently than those from regular users, and often leaves up tweets that violate its content policies, adding a warning instead of forcing users to delete the posts. This is part of Twitter’s philosophy that people should be able to hear from world leaders even when they share controversial posts because their messages are inherently newsworthy.
Trump’s Special Treatment on Twitter Would End With Biden Win
Redefining Anti-Semitism on Facebook
The objective is to force Facebook to alter its hate speech definition so that its own “detection algorithm” will characterize any criticism of Israel as hate speech and automatically remove the pertinent content from the platform.
Related:
By Helen Buyniski | RT | August 12, 2020 Facebook has expanded its already-prodigious list of banned content to include insults, blackface, and the …
Facebook’s latest ‘hate speech’ update proves no censorship will ever be enough for social media thought police
Social Media Imposing Modern-Day Hays Code on Political Speech
Nearly a century later, lawmakers are once again awakening to the power of centralized speech controls by turning to social media companies to impose constraints traditionally prohibited under the First Amendment. Twenty state attorneys general demanded this week that Facebook considerably narrow its speech rules to outlaw anything the government sees as “hate speech.” While the government itself cannot ban most speech, this novel approach suggests it may be legal for the government to instead ask private companies to ban speech it dislikes, nominally complying with the First Amendment by outsourcing the banning process.
Kat Timpf responds to former Time editor Richard Stengel who recently called for a law against hate speech in the Washington Post.
— Read on www.nationalreview.com/corner/watch-kat-timpf-tells-former-time-editor-that-banning-hate-speech-makes-no-sense/
Exactly!
I’ve seen personally what hate looks like. Back in the 1990s, as a young criminal defense attorney, I represented young men in two different cases who were eventually acquitted after being charged for defending themselves against white supremacists.
— Read on www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-nigel-farage-brexit-party-steve-bannon-minnesota-far-right-a8997371.html
Working on hate speech laws, too, huh?!
Ms. Cat’s Chronicles 