[66Scorpio]

I was thinking about Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter and what has been happening to conservative voices and ideas on social media. Would this amount to consumer fraud or a deceptive trade practice?

The starting point is that the idea that the First Amendment only applies to the government and private business can do as they see fit. However, if you advertise that your platform is viewpoint neutral and that you practice first amendment principles, how much evidence is needed to show this is a marketing lie?

YouTube, Facebook and Twitter have billions of customers; how many would bother to support them and their revenue streams if they knew that liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans - and their words and viewpoints - were going to be treated differently? How many principled liberals (they seem few and far between) if everything was out in the open and it was proven as a fact that, despite what they tell you, social media is putting their thumb on the scale of online debate?

These guys seem to be the vacuum cleaner salesmen of the internet selling a false bill .

I'm a Canadian living in Asia so there is not much to do, but isn't there consumer protection legislation in each state and federally that is designed to keep businesses honest? I can't research 51 foreign jurisdictions but others here might be able to look it up locally and discuss a mass consumer complaint campaign.

Regardless of what happens in the House, Trump is still Chief Executive of the administration that could and should investigate this.

[Paracelsus]

(11-06-2018 05:27 AM)66Scorpio Wrote:  

YouTube, Facebook and Twitter have billions of customers; how many would bother to support them and their revenue streams if they knew that liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans - and their words and viewpoints - were going to be treated differently? How many principled liberals (they seem few and far between) if everything was out in the open and it was proven as a fact that, despite what they tell you, social media is putting their thumb on the scale of online debate?

Faceborg, NoobTube, and Twatter have already been established as the Bad Guys. There is ample evidence for anyone who wants to go looking for it or gives a shit about it, one Google search for "Twitter bias" brings you back article after article. Anyone who sees how corporations operate in the real world understands it. Nobody cares.

Faceborg handed over data to Analytica which according to the Shitstream Media helped Trump win the election. Nobody cares.

NoobTube quarantines videos for no reason. Its hamfisted approach to content generation resulted in a mentally ill transgender giraffe shooting up its offices. Nobody cares.

Twatter censors left and right wing speech alike if it threatens to imperil their profits. Scientists warned people its bias is so bad it can't be used by social scientists. Nobody cares.

The principled liberals had years to come out against the digital overlords. They didn't, or can't. There is no cavalry coming to save anyone, if Trump goes for antitrust the fight will go on well after his last day in 2024.

[hv123]

The possible long term problem for social media sites is that they are legally communications companies and not publishers. i.e They're no more liable for what goes on their sites than the phone company is for you getting an abusive phone call or an unsolicited marketing call. The problem with that is the more they censor, or shape content along the lines of their own corporate values the less they are a conduit and the more they become a publisher.

At the moment they are essentially getting away with playing both ends against the middle in so far as they are not legally responsible for what goes on their site (e.g jihadists) but they are able to shape the content to a fairly significant degree (e.g left wing bias).

Potentially they could find themselves on the wrong side law with regards to being responsible for their content. Of course that has already started to some degree with the law in the USA to do with soliciting sex or whatever it was that caused craigs list to close down it's personal ads section.

The acceptability of content is always couched in terms of "community standards" and not their standards, which is what it really is. Funnily enough the community standards align exactly with their standards.

Most social media sites are stage 4 or 5 on this list. Although you could make the claim that these companies started out SJW due to their founders and are therefore SJW by design rather than by infiltration.

However this list is very relevant to other traditional companies that didn't start out SJW. Nearly all large companies are stage 3 at least in my experience. Of course the spread and infiltration of SJW ideology is heavily influenced by the long terms social effects of social media sites.

Twitter doesn't make a profit, so that's something to think about.

*****************************************************************

Convergence describes the degree to which an organization prioritizes social justice. There are five stages of corporate convergence:

1) Infiltrated. The corporation has been entered by people devoted to social justice, but they do not have any significant influence or authority within the company. Employees are hired, fired, and promoted on the basis of either merit or connections. The marketing tends to reflect the company's products and services.

2) Lightly Converged. The social justice infiltrators have begun to move into their preferred areas, such as Human Resources and Marketing, but they don't have any real influence over the corporation's policies or corporate strategies. The company starts to make occasional noises about "outreach" and "diversity", but doesn't actually change its employment practices. The marketing is still mostly about the company's products, but now features improbably diverse scenarios.

3) Moderately Converged. Social justice advocates now control Human Resources, which is used as a corporate high ground to exert influence over other departments as well as the executive team. The corporate marketing begins to devote more attention to signaling corporate virtue than selling its products. Managers are encouraged to hire diverse candidates and to stop holding low-performance employees accountable. HR begins holding mandatory awareness sessions and hiring diversity consultants. The corporation's customer service begins to go downhill.

4) Heavily Converged. Social justice advocates now control the corporate high ground and the strategic centers. Significant elements of the executive team and the board are devoted to social justice, often in a very public manner. Implicit hiring quotas are imposed and it becomes almost impossible to fire anyone for anything short of murder in the workplace. HR openly dictates corporate policy to employees, often without consulting the executives. The marketing materials not only signal corporate virtue, but openly advocate various social justice issues. The corporation shows indifference to its core customer base and begins to obsess over new markets that mostly exist in its imagination.

5) Fully Converged. The corporation devotes significant resources to social causes that have absolutely nothing to do with its core business activities. Human Resources is transformed into a full Inquisition, imposing its policies without restraint and striking fear into everyone from the Chairman of the Board on down. The CEO regularly mouths social justice platitudes in the place of corporate strategies and the marketing materials are so full of virtue-signaling and social justice advocacy that it becomes difficult to tell from them what the company actually does or sells. The corporation now shows open contempt for its customers

[Easy_C]

Trump could end this very easily:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/07/03/g...es-report/

Turn off all subsidies until they stop censoring political speech. Even the threat and resultant NPC/media hysteria would be a win/win situation because either they comply or the left sticks itself out hysterically defending corporate subsidies.