4 ms·

> The quickness by the administration to attack media, promote propaganda, and now censorship is frightening. How exactly is trump promoting censorship here? I

> The quickness by the administration to attack media, promote propaganda, and now censorship is frightening. How exactly is trump promoting censorship here? Isn't he doing the exact opposite? Isn't he promoting free speech? And frankly, I think it's great that the media and the president have an adversarial relationship. The president should attack the media ( free speech ) and the media should attack the president ( free press ). Why would you want the president and the media having a cozy relationship? I can't think of a greater symbol of democracy and free speech than the president and the media keeping each other in check. The media and president should be adversaries, not friends. I'd rather the media tell us everything the president is doing wrong and shining the spotlight on him and vice versa. And this isn't just about republicans. I wish the media would be more adversarial with the democrats as well. With all politicians. It's a great way to keep politicians honest.

cphoover 8y ago
> "How exactly is trump promoting censorship here? Isn't he doing the exact opposite? Isn't he promoting free speech?" We are talking about a president who routinely threatens punitive government actions against detractors. There exists a line between criticizing bad journalism, and using executive powers to threaten critics. The later is what dictators do. In the case of Google, they maintain their search algorithm is not politically biased. Unless we have substantive evidence proving otherwise I see no reason not to believe them. It seems what Trump is suggesting here, is a government regime controlling what search results we see... That is a very scary prospect, right now. I have a brother working as a journalist, who toils away fact checking, all day long. I can assure you he and his colleagues do way more due-diligence, fact-checking, and gathering of supporting evidence, than the Office of the Press Secretary could even try to pretend to. It's so easy to get up in a press-conference say something patently false, when you don't allow any dissent. If you don't like criticism it's "Fake News". If you can't see what Trump is doing when he calls the media "Anti-American", you have the wool over your eyes. It's dictator 101.
stanleydrew 8y ago
Censorship isn't the best word for this, but he's certainly not promoting free speech here. Promoting free speech would mean acknowledging that Google can do whatever it wants, and say whatever it wants to say via its search results, whether the government likes the results or not. Regarding the media, there's nothing wrong with the president and the media having an adversarial relationship and in fact I think that's the norm. But I wouldn't describe a president attacking the media as promoting free speech.
- theandrewbailey 8y ago
  > Promoting free speech would mean acknowledging that Google can do whatever it wants, and say whatever it wants to say via its search results, whether the government likes the results or not. What if Google holds a monopolistic position in the search market, and its actions are detrimental to its users? What if what the government is doing is enforcing anti-trust rules?
  - stanleydrew 8y ago
    Whether Google is a monopoly in search or not is a determination the anti-trust division of the justice department would have to make, which I don't believe is what the current administration is actually suggesting they are going to pursue since they are generally pretty unorganized and that sounds like a lot of work. Anyway even if that were found to be the case (and arguably there's a good case) I don't know if the likely remedy would be to allow the government to control search results. If the government wants to meddle with search results the better approach might be from the FCC which could claim Google needs to operate under some kind of common carrier status I guess.

cphoover 8y ago

> "How exactly is trump promoting censorship here? Isn't he doing the exact opposite? Isn't he promoting free speech?" We are talking about a president who routinely threatens punitive government actions against detractors. There exists a line between criticizing bad journalism, and using executive powers to threaten critics. The later is what dictators do. In the case of Google, they maintain their search algorithm is not politically biased. Unless we have substantive evidence proving otherwise I see no reason not to believe them. It seems what Trump is suggesting here, is a government regime controlling what search results we see... That is a very scary prospect, right now. I have a brother working as a journalist, who toils away fact checking, all day long. I can assure you he and his colleagues do way more due-diligence, fact-checking, and gathering of supporting evidence, than the Office of the Press Secretary could even try to pretend to. It's so easy to get up in a press-conference say something patently false, when you don't allow any dissent. If you don't like criticism it's "Fake News". If you can't see what Trump is doing when he calls the media "Anti-American", you have the wool over your eyes. It's dictator 101.

stanleydrew 8y ago

Censorship isn't the best word for this, but he's certainly not promoting free speech here. Promoting free speech would mean acknowledging that Google can do whatever it wants, and say whatever it wants to say via its search results, whether the government likes the results or not. Regarding the media, there's nothing wrong with the president and the media having an adversarial relationship and in fact I think that's the norm. But I wouldn't describe a president attacking the media as promoting free speech.

theandrewbailey 8y ago
> Promoting free speech would mean acknowledging that Google can do whatever it wants, and say whatever it wants to say via its search results, whether the government likes the results or not. What if Google holds a monopolistic position in the search market, and its actions are detrimental to its users? What if what the government is doing is enforcing anti-trust rules?
- stanleydrew 8y ago
  Whether Google is a monopoly in search or not is a determination the anti-trust division of the justice department would have to make, which I don't believe is what the current administration is actually suggesting they are going to pursue since they are generally pretty unorganized and that sounds like a lot of work. Anyway even if that were found to be the case (and arguably there's a good case) I don't know if the likely remedy would be to allow the government to control search results. If the government wants to meddle with search results the better approach might be from the FCC which could claim Google needs to operate under some kind of common carrier status I guess.