August 12, 2018

"When moderators at Facebook, Google, and Twitter review the appropriateness of posted content, they generally follow First Amendment-inspired principles..."

"... according to Kate Klonick, a legal scholar who analyzed the practices of the three companies in the Harvard Law Review last year. Some of the platforms’ standards are unsurprising, such as their bans on pornography and terrorist incitement. Other rules require moderators to block 'hate speech,' an ambiguous term that, despite Facebook’s efforts at delineation, can be politicized.... Facebook and YouTube have long positioned themselves as neutral platforms, akin to eBay, open to all who are willing to abide by community standards. They’ve resisted the argument that they are in fact publishers—that their human moderators and algorithms function like magazine editors who select stories and photos. But Facebook’s stance has seemed to shift recently. In April, its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, told Congress, 'When people ask us whether we’re a media company or a publisher, what they’re getting at is: do we feel responsible for the content on our platform? I think the answer is clearly yes.'  This is a be-careful-what-you-wish-for intersection; none of us will be happy if Silicon Valley engineers or offshore moderators start editing our ideas.... Practices that marginalize the unconventional right will also marginalize the unconventional left. In these unsettled times, the country could use more new voices, not fewer. From its origins, the American experiment has shown that it is sometimes necessary to defend the rights of awful speakers, for the sake of principles that may help a free and diverse society renew itself."

From "Alex Jones, the First Amendment, and the Digital Public Square/How should we challenge hate-mongering in the age of social media?" by Steve Coll in The New Yorker.

123 comments:

Michael K said...

I can predict the NewYorker's conclusion without reading the article.

The Crack Emcee said...

I think we're getting to a point where we're starting to see that protecting "the rights of awful speakers, for the sake of principles that may help a free and diverse society renew itself" is becoming silly. I mean, the first post, here, when I arrived was:

campy said...

Hating wipipo before it was fashionable.


Now - what about that "may help a free and diverse society renew itself"? Social media is just like American society:

A bunch of decent people, trying to build a nation, surrounded by racists allowed to run wild.

Ralph L said...

Practices that marginalize the unconventional right will also marginalize the unconventional left.

But won't.

Did Zuckerburger just take legal responsibility for Facebook posting fallout?

Tom Grey said...

The First Amendment already has plenty of case law against defamation (of non-public folk), against incitement; perhaps even against obscenity, tho this seems to be gone now.

The purpose of "hate speech" is to allow censorship without responsibility.

Anybody censored should be able to sue to a media company, perhaps for a month of its revenue, for violating First Amendment.

We now need a Public Digital Utilities Commission to provide more clear guidelines, even before going thru the more expensive, higher cost court system.

We need BIG penalities against FB, Google, YouTube, Amazon for 1st Amendment violations, so that lawyers are willing to do the work, and the internal folk who recommend censorship get a corporate message to follow clear guidelines carefully.

Reps are lousy lousy at lawfare.

Freder Frederson said...

But won't.

So tell me, who is the equivalent of Alex Jones on the left? Who on the left generates the kind of ridiculous conspiracy theories similar to those that spring from the fertile imagination of Alex Jones (e.g., Pizzagate and Sandy Hook was staged).

Ralph L said...

I had to look up wipopo in the Urban dictionary:

Internet Slag for "White People". Used to avoid detection from social media policies that unjustly ban, delete, block and suspend melanated people for criticizing the actions, the people or the behaviors of the dominate society.

So, what's your beef here, Crack?

Lyle said...

"Decent people"... haha. Free speech allows you to express that however you would like.

madAsHell said...

they generally follow First Amendment-inspired principles...

What weasel-worded statement!!.....from one of those extra smart academic people at Haaarvard

If they were following First Amendment principles, then they wouldn't have a job as a moderator.

Freder Frederson said...

We need BIG penalities against FB, Google, YouTube, Amazon for 1st Amendment violations, so that lawyers are willing to do the work, and the internal folk who recommend censorship get a corporate message to follow clear guidelines carefully.

These are private, not public, entities. They can post or refuse to post whatever they want.


What ever happened to the concept of individual liberty?

Lyle said...

CNN is the Alex Jones of the left... obviously.

Lyle said...

Corporations aren't allowed to discriminate. What ever happened to equality?

Ralph L said...

(e.g., Pizzagate and Sandy Hook was staged).

This harms people or incites violence how? It just makes Jones look stupid and limits his audience.
Does Antifa tweet?

Birkel said...

Conspiracy theories on the Left?
Al Sharpton.
Rachel Maddow.
Lawrence O’Donnell.
Joe Scarborough.
Mika Bryzenski.
George Stephanopolous.
Dan Rather.
John Kerry.
Hillary Clinton.
Robert Mueller, the DOJ, and the FBI.

They have all pushed conspiracy theories.

Ken B said...

Freder is back to his standup routine. Private companies are regulated in such ways all the time: Standard Oil, ATT, Civil rights act of 1964, firing without cause, hostile environment laws, etc.

Darrell said...

open to all who are willing to abide by community standards

Specifically, everything that agrees with the Left is pure and holy. Everything that differs, must be shunned and silenced.

Birkel said...

Remember when private businesses in the 1950s and 1960s conspired to deprive people of their civil rights?
Those Democrats in the South did terrible things.
And laws were passed to stop the organized actions of the bad actors who did terrible things.
Now it is a crime to deprive people of constitutionally protected civil rights.

Freder Frederson is all wet.
Poor Leftist Collectivist.

Birkel said...

Turns out porn does just fine online.

https://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2018/04/twitter-nsfw-while-conservatives-alone.html?m=1

traditionalguy said...

Facebook is withering away. The issue is YouTube that has a 5 year memory of stored videos exposing the false
Narratives on many false flag CIA staged events. Those
Must be eliminate ASAP.

rhhardin said...

A bunch of decent people, trying to build a nation, surrounded by racists allowed to run wild.

Letting racist run wild as an epithet isn't decent.

Owen said...

One way to put pressure on these platform cartels is to preface every comment with “As a member of [some noisy identity-politics grouo] I think...[something provocative or impolite].” That way, if they ban it as “hate speech” you can rally the relevant group to argue it us really censorship to silence this Very Important and Highly Oppressed Group...

The Crack Emcee said...

Ralph L said...

"Internet Slag for "White People". Used to avoid detection from social media policies that unjustly ban, delete, block and suspend melanated people for criticizing the actions, the people or the behaviors of the dominate society.

So, what's your beef here, Crack?"

Oh, I don't know. Maybe because I've never used the term before he mentioned it. Maybe because I came in peace, bearing gifts, even. Maybe because I wasn't looking for trouble. Maybe because, as a Republican, I was trying to help.

Now - considering all that - how did I get a chance? Or were there racist jackels, just like always, laying in wait to cause trouble? And then to blame me for that trouble - which the rest of you go along with?

Come on - I was told there are "Mobys and out-and-out racists" here - so why would you think I wouldn't have beef at the behavior y'all exhibit?

You're disingenuous liars.

Ralph L said...

Facebook asking banks for users' financial information should be front page news until Facebook collapses. And also banks that don't tell them to fuck off.

Fernandistein said...

I would enjoy seeing more of, er, I meant "being targeted by", Russia’s state-directed interference because it was so goofy.

Virgil Hilts said...

I don't blame s networks for wanting to limit toxicity, but I don't see FB posts unless I follow that person or TW posts unless someone I like posts, RTs or comments on it, etc., so unsure there's such a big problem. BTW, TW is full of xxxx-rated porn, but you won't see it unless you try to see it.
Once they start trying to censor hate/horrible speech, they have huge problem of all the people who say F- the police and/or celebrate/encourage the shooting of cops. Cutting off these assholes would have deactivated/banned Sarah Jeong and lots of other so-called progressives; if don't have the balls to cut off these scum, then you're just going to look like complete hypocritical assholes when you go after less toxic conservatives.

John Borell said...

Why is it that Facebook, Twitter, et al. always find “hate speech” on the right and never on the left?

Alex Jones is “hate speech” but Louis Farrakhan is not?

Just saying.

Tommy Duncan said...

The recent post suggesting the value of taking a few weeks off from politics is looking pretty good right now.

I had forgotten how lame and annoying the view through the racist prism can be.

And escaping the mud slinging tit-for-tat exchanges has considerable appeal, particularly considering the pleasure some seem to get from wallowing in the mud.

The Crack Emcee said...

John Borell said...

"Why is it that Facebook, Twitter, et al. always find “hate speech” on the right and never on the left?"

Probably for the same reason white conservatives only get mad at Farrakhan for his thoughts on the Jews, and not that he runs a cult that's hooking up with Scientology and feeding black people into further mental and financial slavery. Or that he killed Malcolm X. Or that the Million Man March was just a black Numerology meeting in public.

The NewAgers say "You can believe what you want to believe" and all of you are agreeing - BIG TIME!

Sebastian said...

"When moderators at Facebook, Google, and Twitter review the appropriateness of posted content, they generally follow First Amendment-inspired principles . . . Other rules require moderators to block 'hate speech,"

Ah, a contradiction within three sentences: there's no hate-speech exception to the First Amendment, as applied to and by government. So "generally following" means "ignoring when convenient," using the latest prog stick to beat the right.

"that their human moderators and algorithms function like magazine editors who select stories and photos."

How many of their moderators are non-progs?

"Practices that marginalize the unconventional right will also marginalize the unconventional left."

Nah. Progs don't do cruel neutrality. They'll find a way to marginalize just the right.

"In these unsettled times,"

True, it's unsettling for progs to see strong growth, higher employment, and the appointment of originalist judges.

Birkel said...

OT
John Kasich thinks he has a chance to be president, still.
Dumb ass.

Fernandistein said...

Some of us like external propaganda and if the phrase "bot-farmed lies" reminds one of farmed bot-flies, it's still good.

traditionalguy said...

Actually we are ingenious liars, Crack. If there is a problem , it is that the white guilt has left town. That has frustrated the old timers who need an enemy to fight like Patton did When Germany surrendered. Frankly , the war is over. Pax Trump has made it a distant memory.

The Confederate monuments are gone with the wind too.

Sebastian said...

"Who on the left generates the kind of ridiculous conspiracy theories"

John Brennan.

The Crack Emcee said...

Tommy Duncan said...

"I had forgotten how lame and annoying the view through the racist prism can be."

I'm not going to assume that's directed at me, considering the first post after I got here was this one.

I'll just assume you know what's up and are as disgusted as I am.

Cheers.

Ralph L said...

Make Campy look stupid, Crack.
You're already way ahead of the SJWs of all colors.

The funny part is the slang definition bears on Althouse's post. I wasn't aware "white people" are weirding words.

Jay Elink said...

Freder Frederson said...


"So tell me, who is the equivalent of Alex Jones on the left? Who on the left generates the kind of ridiculous conspiracy theories similar to those that spring from the fertile imagination of Alex Jones (e.g., Pizzagate and Sandy Hook was staged)."

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

Oh, how about Rosie O'Donnell ("fire can't melt steel")

Hillary ("Trump and the Russians colluded to deny me the election..")

various Black loons ("the CIA developed the AIDS virus to use on us")

.................

The Crack Emcee said...

traditionalguy said...

"Actually we are ingenious liars, Crack."

But liars - now admitted.

"If there is a problem , it is that the white guilt has left town."

Please show me where I've EVER asked you for guilt, Tg. I'll wait.

"That has frustrated the old timers who need an enemy to fight like Patton did When Germany surrendered."

Don't mention WWII (I'm told it's racist...)

"Frankly , the war is over. Pax Trump has made it a distant memory."

Wow. That's weird. Nobody told me. And I like the guy. But he's not a real Republican, so how can it be over? Did the racists, here, go away? Explain.

"The Confederate monuments are gone with the wind too."

I don't know what that means. Tg, please don't tell me these morons have gotten to you, too:

I know you know how to read, damn it.

Bob Boyd said...

The world of the elite university campus is the best of all possible worlds. Why not run the actual world the same way? What could go wrong?

Birkel said...

Moral preening cannot be dissuaded by sarcasm.
Sarcasm must be ignored.
Sarcasm says ‘I do not take you seriously.’
Moral preening, no matter the cause, cannot admit it is unserious.

Best to ignore.

AMDG said...

We do not need government boards or regulations.

Just declare that they are publishers and as such are responsible for all the content on their platforms. Let them be liable for any defamatory statement on the platforms no matter who makes the statement.

Fernandistein said...

"I wasn't aware "white people" are weirding words.

"... if [belief in witchcraft] is nearly pan-African then perhaps some of it came to the New World. Prominent and not so prominent talkers from the American Black population come out with similar theories of vague and invisible forces that are oppressing people, like "institutional racism" and "white privilege"."

The Crack Emcee said...

Ralph L said...

"Make Campy look stupid, Crack."

Nope. I'm making Campy look like Campy.

"You're already way ahead of the SJWs of all colors."

You guys lack so much nuance, everything you say reads as crazy. I'm "way ahead of the SJWs of all colors" being a Republican? Or supporting capitalism? Or defending blacks (as Republicans used to do)? Or wanting to do away with entitlements? What do you mean?

"The funny part is the slang definition bears on Althouse's post."

Here's the white ASSUMPTION - why do you guys do that?

"I wasn't aware "white people" are weirding words."

I'm not surprised some of you miss anything.

Curious George said...

"Freder Frederson said...
These are private, not public, entities. They can post or refuse to post whatever they want.


What ever happened to the concept of individual liberty?"

So you were for the Christian bakers not wanting to make the gay wedding cake. Good to know you've come around.

Birkel said...

Nature abhors a vacuum.
Self-righteousness is a giant sucking sound.

Ralph L said...

"Steve Coll, a staff writer, is the dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University,"

Great.

Anonymous said...

Given the way people use these social media why should they be moderated at all? Any moderation is going to ultimately express the bias of the moderator. Let the individual users moderate for themselves. I moderate their content to such an extent that I never use social media so I certainly have no need for someone else to filter for me.

As an example of personal filtering on the internet: yesterday's thread on China deteriorated into name calling and personal accusation having little to do with the original post . When I saw that there were over 250 comments on what was essentially a dull column on demographics and central planning I knew right away that the thread had deteriorated into something else completely and read only enough to confirm that was the case.

Can't individual subscribers to Facebook, et. al. make those same judgements? Why do subscribers need some weenie in Silicone Valley to filter their feeds? Uncensored social media would allow each individual to make a decision about its value and there would be no more arguments about whose ox is being gored. Sure there would be a full complement of assholes in some parts of social media. That doesn't mean you have to read them. Most likely the number of subscribers who decide that unfiltered social media is not worth their time and effort would have a large negative impact on earnings and, of course, the people running these sites now won't be able to feel all warm and fuzzy about "protecting" us ignorant plebes.

johnhenry100 said...

Whenever I hear about being judged by community standards I always think of a great George Carlin line:

"When I see a restaurant advertising home style cooking I always wonder, whose home? Jeffrey Dahmer's?" (quoting from memory)

So I want to know whose community standards I'll be judged by. They never seem to be the standards of any community I'd want to be part of.

John Henry

Ralph L said...

What do you mean?

You've taken the braces off your brains, to quote Auntie Mame.

Like you, many of us white right wingers here, and elsewhere, are surrounded by people who think differently about politics, etc, when they think at all. If I understand your situation correctly.

Jay Elink said...

Blogger The Crack Emcee said...
John Borell said...

"Why is it that Facebook, Twitter, et al. always find “hate speech” on the right and never on the left?"

Probably for the same reason white conservatives only get mad at Farrakhan for his thoughts on the Jews, and not that he runs a cult that's hooking up with Scientology and feeding black people into further mental and financial slavery. Or that he killed Malcolm X. Or that the Million Man March was just a black Numerology meeting in public.

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

Crack, Rush Limbaugh has for years mocked "Calypso Louie" for his numerology, specifically so in one spoof regarding the MMM.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVZ8JIP8s9s

As for your claim that conservatives ignore Farrakhan's connections with Scientology:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/scientology-nation-of-islam-troubling-connections/

https://www.redstate.com/slee/2018/04/02/unholy-union-scientology-nation-islam-join-forces/


As for Farrakhan killing Malcolm X, he admits only to helping create the atmosphere that led to the shooting:

"Farrakhan said: "Yes, it is true that black men pulled the trigger. We cannot deny any responsibility in this. Where we are responsible, where our hands are a part of this, we beg God's mercy and forgiveness."

"I genuinely hope that perhaps a healing can come to Miss Shabazz and her family," he continued. "As I may have been complicit in words that I spoke leading up to February 21, I acknowledge that and regret that any word that I have said caused the loss of life of a human being."

Got that? "Complicit in WORDS".

But if you have evidence that those words included, "Shoot him!", why don't you dime him out?




johnhenry100 said...

If you use gmail, Google is reading it. Automated bots, I think, but they are reading it They're looking for key words "to make search better" doncha know. Also to better sell you to advertisers.

How long will it be til they start deciding "sorry, that email is inappropriate to our community standards. We have deleted it."

Or they just delete it without notice. My inappropriate email, sent from a non-Gmail account to a Gmail account jut goes poof.

Not talking about spam.

Be cautious about using Gmail or, even if you don't, sending to people who do.

John Henry

John Henry

Critter said...

I encourage all to go back and read all of the preceding comments on this post. They make the case for a broad interpretation of the 1st Amendment as intended by the brilliant framers of the Bill of Rights and as consistently interpreted by the Supreme Court. Not only is limiting free speech that is short of an imminent threat a slippery slope, it is impossible to agree on ANY standards that even begin to stand up to challenge by people who hold the opposite view.

I suggest people follow the one Constitutional option available to us all, and that is to avoid speech that they don’t want to hear. It’s not your obligation to eliminate speech that I don’t want to hear.

Keep in mind that the same people at Google who purport to make “objective” determinations have agreed with the Chinese government to add censorship to their search engine in order to open the Chinese market for their pmroducts. The so-called Progressives in Hollywood also know-tow to Chinese censors on ALL theatrical releases that they want ,to play in China.

The United States ends like China on free speech if we continue to follow the “community standards” censorship of Pajama Boy and Snowflake.

johnhenry100 said...

Tom Grey,

Why Amazon? What have they done to censor anyone?

They do censor some things sold in their store. No kkk costumes via the portal. I seem to recall they once banned a racially offensive t-shirt. I just looked and you can't buy a National Socialist flag, either. Plenty of soviet flags, though.

But other than that they've always seemed pretty content neutral to me.

They still sell Alex Jones products/infowars products. Ann, should people use your portal for this? Does that make you complicit in supporting Alex jones?

John Henry

Yancey Ward said...

I can call bullshit on this part right now:

"Practices that marginalize the unconventional right will also marginalize the unconventional left."

No, it won't be used against the "unconventional left".....at all. It is a pure double-standard.

Yancey Ward said...

It won't end with YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Linkdin, Pinterest, and others. Every website depends on proprietary software and hardware in order to function, and at some point, if this putsch isn't halted, it will spread to the point that you won't be able to construct a website at all using commercial software.

tim maguire said...

The traditional defense of the societal value of free speech is, the antidote to bad speech is more speech. Censorship is the lazy thinker's way out. It's been my experience that people who have good reasons for believing what they believe don't mind their views being challenged because they are comfortable defending them. Calls for censorship generally come from people who haven't bothered to think about their beliefs and can't explain them.

Rob said...

I tend to agree with what Coll wrote, but seeing it in The New Yorker makes me question myself. On political issues they're so consistently wrong, how can Coll be right? Does not compute. Does not compute.

The Crack Emcee said...

Jay Elink,

You miss my point. Rush is one guy, and a guy few blacks listen to, and two - 2 - articles (in two years!) in publications blacks don't read can't overcome all the references to Farrakhan blacks hear. It's a non-stop barrage of HE TALKED ABOUT THE JEWS!!!!

Don't you think a *little* effort, to act like blacks are in the forefront of conservatives concerns, *might* improve their chances of breaking blacks away from Democrats, rather than this constant, megaphone-level outpouring of passion - for a group we can be antagonistic with - and which is doing better than we are?

I shake my head at how easily Republicans screw up the simplest of overtures.



Birkel said...

Mockery.
Derision.
Sarcasm.

Ralph L said...

When I saw that there were over 250 comments...I knew right away that the thread had deteriorated....

I've noticed that too. Sure wish Killfile worked on the blogger comment page (it does on the blogspot page). I should start reading political-related posts on that page.

Ralph L said...

Comfy chair.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

Make users of platforms like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. sign contracts that they will abide by the companies policies, before they register as users of the service and to continue using the platform if already registered. Millions would drop out, but more would stay.

Don’t all agree with me all at once now.

Annie C said...

Crack, as I think I understand it, you want to get rid of Scientology, numerology, medical quackology from Dr. Oz to homeopathics, cults, and other scams.

How do you propose to rid our world of that? Humans cover a vast landscape of thoughts, deeds and needs. Even if you succeeded with the above, something else will replace them. There a people that simply cannot live with "I don't know."

And if Scientology, then Jehovahs Witness, rasta, seventh day adventists, christianity, islam?

Completely changing human nature across the globe is a big ask. PT Barnum wasn't just whistling dixie to mix a mess of metaphors.

Ralph L said...

I shake my head at how easily Republicans screw up the simplest of overtures.

The Left successfully constrained the Right's tools (and personnel) in many areas, usually in our own minds. Trump breaks the glass often, or at least more frequently than the Old Grand Old Party. Who else would dare to say "Low IQ Maxine?" Whether that's effective is another matter.

narciso said...


1984 is a,how to manual for them:


https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/08/the_real_dossier_story.html

Ralph L said...

Inga, I thought they already did in the fine print of registration, but what does the boilerplate really mean in practice? The next question is Are the policies enforced fairly and consistently? What about shadow-banning on Twitter?

Anonymous said...

@Inga Why sign a contract that you'll be good when what these services now have is a implicit contract you'll be good or you'll be out? Let the individual users decide whether they want to read the rantings of x,y, or z. Isn't that what individual responsibility is about?

Bruce Hayden said...

“I suggest people follow the one Constitutional option available to us all, and that is to avoid speech that they don’t want to hear. It’s not your obligation to eliminate speech that I don’t want to hear. ”

The problem is that leftists are using “hate speech” to try to quiet and deplatform the right. They go out and try to get triggered by what they find in conservative sites so that they can complain about it to the companies running those sites, in order, as I noted, to quiet and deplatform conservative voices. Someone will find something that he (intentionally) finds offensive, tells his friends and accomplices online, and all of a sudden these companies have a avalanche of complaints about the hate speech that supposedly breaches their terms of use policies. Sure, the instigators here could have avoided the whole thing by avoiding speech that they don’t like or agree with but that wouldn’t help them reach their goal of silencing their political opponents.

“Hate speech”, of course, is some of the most highly protected speech under the 1st Amdt. But we have an entire generation, it seems, brought up believing just the opposite, that there is a “hate speech” exception to the 1st Amdt, thanks to academia having been, essentially, taken over by the left. Four (or more) years of knowing that being triggered is the key to silencing philosophical and political opponents, and they bring that away to the real world, and try to silence anyone who triggers them, even when they go out of their way to be triggered. And this is the generation that these companies have making these censorship decisions. Probably half the people in these companiescalled upon to determine whether or not community standards have been violated probably actually believe that there is a “hate speech” exception to the 1st Amdt. And, many of them probably do believe that anyone to the right of Crooked Hillary Clinton is a hater, and their company, and the country, would be better off if they were silenced.

Anonymous said...

@Crack Good to have you back.

My impression of Trump's efforts is that he has as sincere concern about blacks as the rest of the American citizenry. Certainly his economic actions have been beneficial to blacks.

I don't think the people who concentrate on Farrakhan's anti-Semitism are any different from the people who see racism in every action or statement of white politicians, or feminists who view all males as oppressors, etc. etc.. They are a loud minority - and we have always had those in this country.

My question is how do you address the black community as a non-Democrat? The black community seems so irrationally committed to the Democratic party that has done them so little good.; how do you break through that?

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“Why sign a contract that you'll be good when what these services now have is a implicit contract you'll be good or you'll be out?”

Then you agree that these are private companies and can make users abide by their policies? Indeed that is the way it is now. It might be better to make a more formal agreement to drive the point home. Why shouldn’t private entities such as Facebook be able to decide what they want on their forums? Individual responsibility of the user is to adide by the rules of the forum owner.

Lewis Wetzel said...

What does it mean to "generally follow First Amendment-inspired principles"?
It means nothing at all.
Suppose Google/Facebook/Twitter censored your content. Is there anyway that they could be accused of failing to generally follow First Amendment inspired principles?

johnhenry100 said...

Yancey,

Not just FB et al, AirBnB is getting into the act.

They are canceling reservations of anyone they SUSPECT is coming to DC for the Unite The Right rally.

They are booting anyone they SUSPECT is renting TO anyone coming to the rally.

This is going to get ugly. I suspect it will end badly for the fascists at thes companies

John Henry

Inga...Allie Oop said...

Private companies have been known to fire or refuse to hire applicants due to what they post on social media. Should these companies not have that right any longer? If private companies are forced to abide by new laws that state what they can and cannot have as far as internal policies, is this OK with you conservatives? You’re OK with this level of government intervention? That’s not what you were saying two years ago.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

What happened to Indiana when Pence signed the RFRA law? He backed down to a massive amount of pushback by private companies threatening to boycott the state. Hasn’t it been conservatives that consider a corporation a person with a voice?

Lewis Wetzel said...

Why shouldn’t private entities such as Facebook be able to decide what they want on their forums?
Suppose FB allows no negative statements about Russia & Putin? And also any references to the fact that they do not allow negative statements about Russia & Putin?

Birkel said...

The Left believes no cake need be baked.
But only just today when it suits their new fascist purpose.
Not yesterday, though.
Because reasons.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

If a private company can refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple because it violates their religious values, then a secular company should be able to refuse to allow behavior that violates their values.

See what can of worms was opened here?

Bruce Hayden said...

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/08/the_real_dossier_story.html

I have long enjoyed Clarice Feldman, and her Sunday Clarice’s Pieces. I check the site periodically, but have made checking it Sundays a habit. She is a very experienced attorney who brings an exceptional level of analysis to the subjects she talks about. I had read the article that she discussed in her piece today, and the incestuous nature of the Deep State cabal that set out to beat Trump, partially through the use of the federal govt is, frankly, scary. It seems like everyone knows everyone, and went to school (esp apparently Harvard) with them, and/or worked with them. Halper and Downer (and to a lesser extent Misfud), the three foreigners who tried to entrap Carter Page, etc, in order to justify a FISA warrant, starting back in late Spring of 2016, and appear to be CIA assets, are closely tied to Simpson and Jakoby who own and run Fusion GPS. One of the interesting things pointed out is that while Crooked Hillary, the DNC, and the FBI were paying Fusion for their Dossier, that money wouldn’t have come close to funding the research. Figure 25 people, @$200/hr, and their money is exhausted in a couple of weeks. There was some decent money there, and we have no idea whose it was. Some suggestions though that it maybe came from a rich Ukrainian oligarch. It is one thing if it was partially funded by Soros, Steyer etc, but quite different if the funding came from foreigners.

Lewis Wetzel said...

"If a private company can refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple because it violates their religious values . . ."

But this is not true.

n.n said...

Hate mongering inspired by diversity or color judgments.

#HateLovesAbortion

Birkel said...

The state cannot force speech, even via baking a cake.
Private actors may be required to facilitate the free speech of all — common carriers.

Leftist Collectivists cannot get basic arguments correct.
But only always.

Jupiter said...

Blogger The Crack Emcee said...

"Don't you think a *little* effort, to act like blacks are in the forefront of conservatives concerns ..."

Oh, you're in the forefront of our concerns, alright.

Michael K said...

There was some decent money there, and we have no idea whose it was.

I am starting to wonder if China might be involved.

It would be a clever ploy to get Democrats focusing on Russia while China eats their, and our, lunch.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

Rightist idiots like Birkel don’t seem to be able to keep their narrative straight. So now it’s ok with them for the government to meddle with private companies like Facebook, etc. to force them to allow speech that violates their internal policies.

You folks hate government intervention... until you don’t.

hstad said...


""When moderators at Facebook, Google, and Twitter review the appropriateness of posted content....?" LOL, when did these organizations actually believed they had the right to police speech. They are after all oligopolies in this space. Oligopolies are heavily regulated by governments - not a good sign for future communications between human beings.

As a businessman and an enemy of regulation, whether done by private corporations or government entities, this is a sure sign of a negative impact on business models. All regulation results in a heavy concentration of power in a few entities.

Ralph L said...

Hayden, you assume they didn't just make up the Dossier out of thin air.

Clarice hangs out in the comments at JustOneMinute. Narciso is there, too, so bring your decoder ring.

Birkel said...

Common carriers are forced to provide service to all.
That is not controversial.

Those who argue otherwise are supporting the Democrat position of the 1890s.
Regressive to the last.

Yancey Ward said...

Bruce,

Yes, that Apelbaum work from March was truly awe-inspiring. Even though I was already aware of what one could do using the the truly public information databases since I have done similar things myself, though not quite the scale and thoroughness Apelbaum does, I was floored by the powerful addition of facial recognition programs. I am glad that work has started to reach more mainstream writers outside of blog comments sections.

Jupiter said...

Bruce Hayden said...
"It is one thing if it was partially funded by Soros, Steyer etc, but quite different if the funding came from foreigners."

I'm not sure it makes much difference. It is true that Soros bought American citizenship, but he's no American. And there is no one in China or Russia who hates America more than Tom Steyer does.

Bob Loblaw said...

Probably for the same reason white conservatives only get mad at Farrakhan for his thoughts on the Jews, and not that he runs a cult that's hooking up with Scientology and feeding black people into further mental and financial slavery.

Farrakhan's pronouncements on the Jews get the most attention because in a society that no longer believes in right and wrong hypocrisy is the the only sin.

Bob Loblaw said...

“Virtually all political discourse in the days of my youth was devoted to the ferreting out of hypocrisy... Because they were hypocrites, the Victorians were despised in the late twentieth century. Many of the persons who held such opinions were, of course, guilty of the most nefarious conduct themselves, and yet saw no paradox in holding such views because they were not hypocrites themselves-they took no moral stances and lived by none.”

― Neal Stephenson, The Diamond Age: Or, A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer

Bruce Hayden said...

“Hayden, you assume they didn't just make up the Dossier out of thin air.

Clarice hangs out in the comments at JustOneMinute. Narciso is there, too, so bring your decoder ring.”

As I have pointed out several times here, I think that there is a decent chance that at least part of it came from the illegal FISA 702(USPERS) contractor searches of NSA databases discovered and shutdown by Adm Rogers in late spring of 2016. And, I think that the smoking gun there was the wrong Michael Cohen going to Prague. That says to me that that information came from a name search of ICE records. Customs and immigration records were likely some of the first added to the NSA databases after 9/11 and the PATRIOT Act (that added Title VII to FISA), since most of the 9/11 jihadist killers were here illegally, having overstayed their visas. Knowing who is here, and where, and who isn’t, is key counterterrorism information. For the most part, the information about a Michael Cohen being in Prague would only have been (otherwise) known by ICE, and not publicly available but ICE very likely uses better, more accurate, search identifiers, such as passport numbers (knowing, from long experience, about duplicated names in this country of >300 million). Best explanation that I have seen is that it came from a search of NSA records using “Michael Cohen” as the target. And that would tie into that Adm Rogers not only shut down FBI contractor access to the NSA FISA databases, but he also shut down 702(About) searches too - searches that allowed searching based only on names of US Persons, and didn’t require that the search target be a To or From in an electronic message. That he shut down the 702(About) searching strongly implies, and pretty well guarantees, that they were being (illegally) abused at least by the FBI, and likely by their contractors.

Used to follow JOM, and commented on rare occasions but lost interest since the comment threads seemed so incestuous. Everyone knew everyone, and much of the commenting seemed more social than tied to the article being commented upon. Maybe what we have here, with our well know characters on both sides of the political divide. But that did get me reading Clarice’s Sunday articles.

Ralph L said...

Everyone knew everyone, and much of the commenting seemed more social than tied to the article being commented upon.

It still is, but we now have Miss Marple, banned from Ace of Spades, and others scouring the web for links and tweets, including all POTUS's.

For example: Timeline of a Dossier

Jim at said...

So tell me, who is the equivalent of Alex Jones on the left? - Freder

You have entire networks who peddle in stupid shit far more looney tunes than Alex Jones.

Jim at said...

These are private, not public, entities. They can post or refuse to post whatever they want.

Bake the damn cake, Freder.

Bruce Hayden said...

Let me add to my previous diatribe about FISA 702 searching by contractors, that I think that there is a decent chance that Steele’s real job here was to launder the illegally obtained FISA Title VII information for use in the FISA Title I warrants ultimately obtained on Carter Page that allowed FBI surveillance on the Trump campaign transition, and Administration. They couldn’t bring the Title VII information to the FISC, because the first thing that the court would have asked was “WTF - why are FBI contractors searching NSA databases in the first place?” The FBI wouldn’t have been in much better shape, if they claimed that they had done the searching themselves - esp after Adm Rogers had gone to the Court with his preliminary findings on FBI abuses. The Court would not likely grant the Title I warrants, based on Title VII searches, and esp illegal searches. But they might (and did) issue the warrants if that exact same information came from Russian spies.

Making this laundering even more credible is that Steele likely didn’t still have the Russian connections that he had when working for MI-6, better than a decade earlier AND he has refused to identify who they were, despite that supposed to be required for Title I warrant applications. If nothing else, Nellie Ohr very likely had much better Russian contacts than Steele, but putting her name on the Dossier and FISA applications would have been a red flag - since her husband was, at the time, #4 in the DOJ (and she inconveniently had taken his last name).

n.n said...

Jim at:

Bake the damn cake

That is their frame of reference. That is how they attempted to capture and cage the opposition. However, the issue was endorsement, not the baker or cake. The issue was "=" or political congruence, and clearly not equal rights in principle or practice.

narciso said...

The problem is none of this falls remotely into what we could consider intelligence it's laundering rumors and presenting them as facts.

narciso said...

My best guess is he told them Wildman was source a, Milan was source d, perhaps skripal was one of the others.

narciso said...

Now did nsa really tip off miss mensch or was it Ian lobbain of haklyut, who would have had tsi clearance,

narciso said...

Then there is the whole circle with miss verashgina, of Ukrainian foreign intelligence with leads to miss chalupa.

Anonymous said...

@Inga Facebook is not a private company. Its shares are held by the public therefore it is a public company. Its stock is traded on the various exchanges. It is subject to all kinds of rules and oversight. Private companies get to play by a slightly different set of rules - less government involvement. As a public company Facebook is really is not free to discriminate, although I am sure its terms of use are such that it can "discriminate" as it obviously does. I am suggesting that we turn social media into the wild west and let the users decide who and who not to read. Eliminate the Silicone Valley weenies and their biases and let the users decide who to read and not read.

Anonymous said...

@ Bruce Hayden I had intended to read Feldman's piece. Now I have to read the longer one! Conservative Treehouse has been doing an outstanding job of staying on top of this whole dirty business. He has been piecing together the same stuff Feldman has in more detail, plus going back to earlier revelations/testimony which has led to his latest claim that Simpson perjured himself in his Congressional testimony.

Harvard, Yale Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge: always be suspicious of this lineage in anything to do with Intelligence.

Sam L. said...

Maybe it isn't "hate", but simply disagreement. Which is my take.

Anonymous said...

I must admit that I am astonished that well educated, serious people could allow themselves to be swept up in such a conspiracy. The whole thing is dirtier than I ever imagined was possible in this country. As Nunes said in an interview from Georgia - the country - it's the kind of thing we would expect from that part of the world not here.

Anonymous said...

@ Bruce Hayden I agree that the Michael Cohen screw up is a big give away.

narciso said...

Verashgina, is Mrs akhmetshin, the head of the fusion delegation, who had toes to mccain.

Anonymous said...

And while we are at it Speculation about Nellie Ohr and her ham radio.

Bunkypotatohead said...

This won't end with web deplatforming. It's a short leap to finding your phone service terminated because you've spoken words that "big tech's" moderators don't approve of.

Bruce Hayden said...

The JOM timeline is very good:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JOdacaSPRccFxVTth38aXU8mWcxhk76lJuGrxYeJ7AU/edit#gid=1015576364

Just read 2016, up into December. A lot going on that we tend to forget.

One interesting thing that jumped out at me is that ADAG Bruce Ohr was in constant contact with esp Steele, and also Simpson, despite apparently not having a counterintelligence or counter terrorism role at the DoJ. One of the interesting comments in the timeline was the question of how did Steele always know when Ohr was in town. The obvious answer is that his wife worked closely with Steele (and probably contributed more than he did to the Dossier) and both worked for Simpson.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

Khesanh,

You are confused about the meaning of a “Public Company”.

“Some say Facebook is a "private company" and can censor content because of it. Is that accurate given that it is publicly traded?

“William Eilers, Attorney, Eilers Law Group, PA

This is a common misconception about the distinction of private companies versus public companies, in fact, you have probably seen the BS disclaimers posted in your FB feed stating that the user is putting FB on notice in regards to their personal information. When a company is referred to as “public” it means 2 things. 1) The company has filed certain information required by the SEC regarding its business, operations and financials. This is public information. Most commonly, this means the company files reports with the SEC in accordance with their requirements; this includes quarterly and annual reports, proxy statements for shareholder votes, and current events, meaning material changes to the company, e.g. new directors, major acquisitions, substantive financing, etc. 2) When most people say public company, they mean that the company’s equity is traded on a national exchange. This could be NYSE, NASDAQ, Dow Jones, OTCQX, OTCQB, OTCPink or some other lesser known exchanges.


To the heart of your question, being public doesn’t require a company to disclose any private information. Further, it has no bearing on the policies the company implements with its users or customers. The company is still a “private”, i.e. non-governmental, being owned by private citizens.

This, I think, is where the confusion comes in. FB is a private company whose stock is publicly traded. You often see this type of question in other realms of 1st Amendment law. When Dr. Laura was fired, many jumped up and down, stating that her 1st Amendment right had been violated. However, the 1st Amendment is a protection against the government censoring speech. A private company has the right to set its policies as it sees fit so long as it doesn’t otherwise run a foul of other laws, most commonly anti-discrimination rules. So a private company (regardless of whether its stock is traded publicly) can set a policy of censorship of its customers, but it can’t do so if motivated by race.

Hope that helps.”

Quora

Birkel said...

“...anti-discrimination rules...”

Do you mean rules like those in California that prohibit discrimination based on political point of view?
Now I know those laws were passed to protect communists, but they apply neutrally.

Anonymous said...

@ Inga Facebook will be delighted to know that it no longer has to file with the SEC because it is private.

This is a fairly common definition of a private company: "A private company is a firm held under private ownership. Private companies may issue stock and have shareholders, but their shares do not trade on public exchanges and are not issued through an initial public offering (IPO). As a result, private firms do not need to meet the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) strict filing requirements for public companies. In general, the shares of these businesses are less liquid, and their valuations are more difficult to determine."

This is a fairly common definition of a "public" company:
"A public company is a company that has issued securities through an initial public offering (IPO) and is traded on at least one stock exchange or in over-the-counter markets. Although a small percentage of shares may be initially floated to the public, becoming a public company allows the market to determine the value of the entire company through daily trading."

With a little expansion: "Stringent reporting requirements are set by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including the public disclosure of financial statements and annual 10-K reports discussing the state of the company. This ensures that public companies adhere to all rules established by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and as enforced by the SEC. Each stock exchange also has specific financial and reporting guidelines that govern whether a stock is allowed to be listed for trading."

Note that I said "As a public company Facebook is really is not free to discriminate, although I am sure its terms of use are such that it can "discriminate" as it obviously does."

"Terms of use" and "policies" are synonymous.

99 of 100 people would correct you when you say Facebook is a private company and would tell you, no, it is a public company.

JAORE said...


"Practices that marginalize the unconventional right will also marginalize the unconventional left."

Absolutely true.

I say that (as a white man) that has listened to news reports for years. I can not count how many times I have heard the term "radical right" or "far right". I can not recall any MSM use of radical left or far left.

In a fair world, Mad Maxine would always be far left (or worse) Maxine. Keith Ellison would be radically left Keith.

Alas, instead, there are teeming millions of "unconventional right" people while "unconventional left" people are as rare as unicorns.

Char Char Binks said...

Free speech for me, but not for thee.

Vance said...

Fascinating, isn't it? Inga and the left told us repeatedly that one small bakery refusing service for a gay wedding was the end of the world; and the next step was burning people at the stake and we must, must, must force every Christian business owner into compliance with the left's morality or else America would be over!

That was the biggest threat to America--one small baker.

Now, we have Facebook, Google, Apple, Twitter, and more all suddenly deciding that they and they alone can determine what is "hate speech" and the left applauds and says "Businesses have rights!" Governments can burst in with drawn guns to force Christians to service gays, but Facebook has all the right in the world to censor people... as long, of course, those censored are on the right.

We all know that if Facebook shut down Daily Kos, the left would be screaming and California would have forcibly turned the servers back on.

gilbar said...

So, fernandstein linked to an article about how Everyone BUT whites are susceptible to the evil of magic.
This helps explain how whites took over the world. And WHY are whites immune?
One word: DELICIOUS WHOLE MILK

gilbar said...

So, fernandstein linked to an article about how Everyone BUT whites are susceptible to the evil of magic.
This helps explain how whites took over the world. And WHY are whites immune?
One word: DELICIOUS WHOLE MILK

Ralph L said...

If you say it twice, it becomes 2%.

Kirk Parker said...

"if belief in witchcraft is nearly pan-African then perhaps some of it came to the New World. "

Whoa, none of the cautionary hedge words are needed here. YES, belief in witchcraft is nearly pan-African, and YES some of it came to the New World. Duh.

And Jay Elink performs a great community service @ 10:10am, debunking the (un-missed) Crack. Jay, if you ever make it to Puget Sound country, your first three are on me!


Oh, and Crack: you should hire yourself out as a stealth assassin... If you can convince folks that *that* is an overture, then you great ghu you can sneak up on the most strongly protected person in the world!

Kirk Parker said...

"Crack Good to have you back"

The hell it is... Crack didn't learn a damn thing the whole time he was gone. Trust me, if you missed being ranted at and lectured to by Crack... You are the only one.

He and Shouting Thomas should be apprehended in locked into a room together. Talk about birds of a feather... Two very capable people with some great skills, who can't stay focused on the things they do that have actual value to other people, and think that the pathetic ranting they do is valued by anyone else.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“To the heart of your question, being public doesn’t require a company to disclose any private information. Further, it has no bearing on the policies the company implements with its users or customers. The company is still a “private”, i.e. non-governmental, being owned by private citizens.”

Khesanh, you still seem to be having problems understanding that both public and private companies are still “private”, meaning they are non governmental. It’s not that difficult to understand.

narciso said...

What you don't know that santeria/voudoun comes from Africa, 50 demerits, where did you think it came sheesh.

Roy Jacobsen said...


"When moderators at Facebook, Google, and Twitter review the appropriateness of posted content, they generally follow First Amendment-inspired principles..."

Until they don't.

Ask my wife if she would be happy with me "generally following" my wedding vows.

yeng chan said...

Soft Tech Geeks is a chinese underground organisation of computer experts and hackers. We stay discrete in order to prevent the identity of our clients from FEDs and individuals.
• If Truly you Are In Need Of A PROFESSIONAL HACKER Who Will Get Your Job Done Efficiently With Swift Response, You Have Met the Right organisation.

HOW WE WORK:

• We don't ask personal questions about you and we dont give out our personal information.
We strictly do business and don't expose you or your service to you to anyone.
That's how discrete we are.
OUR HACKING SERVICES:
As long as technology is involved anything can be hacked. Most people want to Hack a target's email I.D, social media websites or apps, smartphones, for many reasons such as husband cheating on wife, girlfriend cheating on boyfriend Or important information needed to be dumped/sniffed from the target email address, website, a particular location, or for whatsoever reason you want to hire a Hacker Or As a parent you might need to monitor what your children are doing on social media and on their personal computers or even clone their phones to also hear their calls or see text messages on any app they chatting with, so that they don’t get into trouble. Or if you want to hack a private domain email account(business email), or you want to eraze your name from court’s criminal records, perhaps you might want to Hack into the database of any government agency, or you want to spend someone's money by cloning another credit card to their account without bank or the user's notification, All these are what we can get done within few hours.
OUR ASSURANCE TO YOU:
Fankly speaking, we always give a 100% guarantee on an job we take. Time to complete a job depends on the complication of the job and if we take your job then be rest assured that it will be done, and we give you a 100% assurance that we cover our tracks well enough, so when we do a job its like we were never there. We have also come across FAKE HACKERS claiming they will get the job done in a short time , and sharing testimony of themselves but they are all scams (AVOID THEM).
REMEMBER THIS "AS LONG AS IT'S TECHNOLOGY IT CAN BE HACKED"

We look forward to working for you.
SOFT TECH GEEKS
softtechgeeks@gmail.com