3 ms·

The tech companies are acting in co-ordinated effort to fortify elections (NY Times article). In helping to elect their preferred candidate, hiding negative sto

The tech companies are acting in co-ordinated effort to fortify elections (NY Times article). In helping to elect their preferred candidate, hiding negative stories, and skewed the algorithm for one candidate. At the very least they are making a massive campaign contribution, and section 230 gives them immunity to all the laws that apply. At the worse, they are spreading political propaganda. The anthesis of democracy. They also would not have gotten into market leader position had they disclosed their plans to do this. So I feel its a type of Fraud. Just like Joe Rogan lying to investors about not being censored on Spotify. When it now turns out he is. He personally gained 100 million from this lie. And Spotify investors got scammed. I hope more laws do get made so this kind of manipulation is punished.

URSpider94 6y ago
What are “the laws that apply”? Do you not feel like Fox News and OAN made billions of dollars in campaign contributions to Republican candidates? What repercussion did they face? Heck, remind me how we punished the government employees who violated the Hatch act and campaigned for the president while on the government payroll.
- dukeofdoom 6y ago
  I agree with you. Its a problem that journalists are acting like advocates, or political activists. TV stations don't have section 230 protection. So at least there is some redress for defamation. The Covington kid, Nick Sandman, won a multimillion dollar settlement recently from CNN. However, its not looking like the suit against twitter for being called a "Hacker", by the Store owner, that turned over Hunter Biden's laptop to the FBI will succeed. Twitter called the contents of laptop hacked material, and even banned legitimate newspaper account for a week. The implication of the "hacked material" was that the store owner was a "hacker". The store owner claims the laptop was left behind in his repair store, and he legally gained possession of it. He sued twitter for defamation. Because of section 230 protection, the Judge will likely dismiss this case, on section 230 protection grounds. Something that would not happen if this was done by a newspaper. I think we want conflict of interest laws, that force disclose if you are paid to post, or materially manipulate on behalf of a candidate. In ideal world, I think Journalists should have an ethics body, similar to Engineers. So that at least in the most egregious circumstances, If you are found to be a paid and not disclose it, than you should not get to call yourself a journalist. I watched this American travel Youtuber that lives in China, and does travel promotional content for them sometimes. He come out in favour of a candidate before the election. If he received money for doing that, I think there should be a law, that it should be disclosed by him.
  - URSpider94 6y ago
    I could be wrong, but if Twitter spoke as itself and said “Hunter’s laptop was hacked,” then they can be held liable outside of 230, because that is their own speech. There’s no magic loophole where a platform’s own speech can be immunized. However, this sounds like a horrible case, if they didn’t specifically accuse someone of hacking it. In addition, just because the shop owner reportedly took title to the laptop hardware when it was abandoned, doesn’t mean that he took title to all the material on the laptop. I doubt anyone is going to find someone guilty for defamation for calling the doxxing of someone with data from their own laptop, abandoned or not, “hacking”.
    - dukeofdoom 6y ago
      I feel empathy for the store owner. He legitimately got in a situation in which people get whacked like in the movies. After he disclosed the laptop to the FBI, the FBI threatened him. So in such a political case, judges and the whole corrupt system is legitimately out to get you. The fact that he made copies that he gave to press may have saved his life. So I can't really blame him for any leaking anything either. Under the circumstances it was probably the smartest thing he could have done. The judge in the lawsuit, already made some rulings invoking section 230 protections
rootusrootus 6y ago
> In helping to elect their preferred candidate If they were actually trying, then we don't have much to fear from them.

URSpider94 6y ago

What are “the laws that apply”? Do you not feel like Fox News and OAN made billions of dollars in campaign contributions to Republican candidates? What repercussion did they face? Heck, remind me how we punished the government employees who violated the Hatch act and campaigned for the president while on the government payroll.

dukeofdoom 6y ago
I agree with you. Its a problem that journalists are acting like advocates, or political activists. TV stations don't have section 230 protection. So at least there is some redress for defamation. The Covington kid, Nick Sandman, won a multimillion dollar settlement recently from CNN. However, its not looking like the suit against twitter for being called a "Hacker", by the Store owner, that turned over Hunter Biden's laptop to the FBI will succeed. Twitter called the contents of laptop hacked material, and even banned legitimate newspaper account for a week. The implication of the "hacked material" was that the store owner was a "hacker". The store owner claims the laptop was left behind in his repair store, and he legally gained possession of it. He sued twitter for defamation. Because of section 230 protection, the Judge will likely dismiss this case, on section 230 protection grounds. Something that would not happen if this was done by a newspaper. I think we want conflict of interest laws, that force disclose if you are paid to post, or materially manipulate on behalf of a candidate. In ideal world, I think Journalists should have an ethics body, similar to Engineers. So that at least in the most egregious circumstances, If you are found to be a paid and not disclose it, than you should not get to call yourself a journalist. I watched this American travel Youtuber that lives in China, and does travel promotional content for them sometimes. He come out in favour of a candidate before the election. If he received money for doing that, I think there should be a law, that it should be disclosed by him.
- URSpider94 6y ago
  I could be wrong, but if Twitter spoke as itself and said “Hunter’s laptop was hacked,” then they can be held liable outside of 230, because that is their own speech. There’s no magic loophole where a platform’s own speech can be immunized. However, this sounds like a horrible case, if they didn’t specifically accuse someone of hacking it. In addition, just because the shop owner reportedly took title to the laptop hardware when it was abandoned, doesn’t mean that he took title to all the material on the laptop. I doubt anyone is going to find someone guilty for defamation for calling the doxxing of someone with data from their own laptop, abandoned or not, “hacking”.
  - dukeofdoom 6y ago
    I feel empathy for the store owner. He legitimately got in a situation in which people get whacked like in the movies. After he disclosed the laptop to the FBI, the FBI threatened him. So in such a political case, judges and the whole corrupt system is legitimately out to get you. The fact that he made copies that he gave to press may have saved his life. So I can't really blame him for any leaking anything either. Under the circumstances it was probably the smartest thing he could have done. The judge in the lawsuit, already made some rulings invoking section 230 protections

rootusrootus 6y ago

> In helping to elect their preferred candidate If they were actually trying, then we don't have much to fear from them.