Trump sues Twitter, Google and Facebook alleging 'censorship'



Former US president Donald Trump has announced plans to sue tech giants Google, Twitter and Facebook, claiming that he is the victim of censorship.

The class action lawsuit also targets the three companies' CEOs.

Mr Trump was suspended from his social accounts in January over public safety concerns in the wake of the Capitol riots, led by his supporters.

On Wednesday, Mr Trump called the lawsuit "a very beautiful development for our freedom of speech".


The lawsuit has been criticised by legal experts, who pointed to Mr Trump's habit of issuing lawsuits for media attention but not aggressively defending the claims in court. His argument of free speech infringement has also been questioned by analysts, as the companies he accuses have those same First Amendment protections in determining content on their sites.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57754435

I'm not going to comment.....

The First Amendment protects us against government limits on our freedom of expression, but it doesn’t prevent a private employer from setting its own rules.

It's a little more complicated than a simple free speech argument, that being due to federal protections afforded to these tech giants not available to the rest of us. At any rate, Twitter banned Trump but allows Louis Farrakhan, Richard Spencer, Ali Khamenei, Maduro and O.J. Simpson to tweet freely. There's no one more outrageous than Farrakhan, so that strikes me as suspicious.

I hope he wins.

\\https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2018/03/24/the-20-worst-quotes-from-louis-farrakhan-liberal-americas-favorite-racist-n2463869

Illegal monopolies are illegal monopolies and should be subject to Sherman Act action . This view of hi tech is the one true bi-partisan issue in Congress. If the Sherman Act isn't sufficient enough when it was used to break up big oil and rail , then Congress needs to pass new regulations to break up these behemoth's that dominate the public square .

The House Judiciary Committee led by Jerry the Toad Nadler came to that conclusion last year and I agree with them .
Nadler said at the time “Our investigation leaves no doubt that there is a clear and compelling need for Congress and the antitrust enforcement agencies to take action that restores competition, improves innovation and safeguards our democracy,”

Trump is keeping his options open while diverting attention from the prosecution of his interests

He is not diverting attention .He is speaking about the tax case against his CFO and organization , and NOT helping himself by doing so . The fault lies in a tax system so full of loopholes that advantage wealthy individuals can hire a staff of lawyers and accountants to find legal ways to not pay taxes.

He is not alone . ProPublica published a story last month that details how many rich people use the tax code to "scheme" tax avoidance (something that Trump boasted about in his debate with Evita in 2016) .Bezos ,Musk ,nanny Bloomy , and many others pay little to no taxes .

The Secret IRS Files: Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid Income Tax — ProPublica (https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax)

Eliminate loop holes and set flat rates and most of this goes away (and the bonus is that many lawyers ,accountants and IRS agents will need to find something else to do for a living ) .

As for his law suit ;he is making a mistake by basing it on 1st amendment grounds. The REAL problem is that these companies have monopolies . If there was REAL competition in the market place then he would have many choices of forums to express his views . The fact that someone like Bezos can use the power of Amazon AND the Washington Compost to dominate the public debate and in fact set the debate ,and decide who can participate is the issue .

Eliminate loop holes and set flat rates and most of this goes away (and the bonus is that many lawyers ,accountants and IRS agents will need to find something else to do for a living ) .

I like the idea of a flat tax, even if it is two-tiered. It could be something like 10% for everyone, and an additional 10% for income over some limit like 100K. No deductions other than some limit for drastic medical expenses. I'd also key it to the budget. Budget goes up, then taxes go up automatically. No more deficit spending. If we had to actually pay for these lunatic budgets we have, the public would raise an outcry and spending would magically go down dramatically.

But I don't expect to ever see it. The "suck up to the crowd" pols we have now would never do it. It's going to take some sort of financial breakdown for us to wake up and see how the Washington crowd is getting us into an enormous, deep hole. And even then we might not see it. Reference Venezuela if you want to see how it all works. So we'll continue with the current idiocy of Robinette Biden proposing new taxes on the wealthy, but then proposing new spending that far outstrips whatever the new taxes would bring in, thus making the hole ever wider and deeper. It's incredible to me that we sit back and allow it to continue. We're like a married couple competing to see which one can max out the most credit cards. Well, enjoy it while you have it because a day is coming.

You Pelicans always invent a way for the poor to pay, how about a 20% tax on all income over $100K and that includes corporate and no deductions, you would soon have the budget back in the black. to do this of course you would have to abolish all state taxes

a 20% tax on all income over $100K and that includes corporate and no deductions, you would soon have the budget back in the black. to do this of course you would have to abolish all state taxesDoing away with state sales and income taxes would leave schools and state agencies without money and destitute, so that's not a good idea. And 20% of income over 100K would not put us in the black or anywhere close to it. That's close to the amount already being paid by those people to begin with, a group that already pays practically all of the fed income tax. And then you would have to do something to replace the multiple hundreds of billions in tax revenues lost from your no state taxes idea.

If you want to comment on our country, you might want to try doing your homework first. Just sayin.

https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/07/florida_man_sues_social_media/

Snigger

Robinette Biden met with Chicago Mayor Lightfoot yesterday to discuss what to do about rising crime rates. Other than electing republicans, what do you think they will come up with?

Biden's first order of business is bringing home Mark Frerichs from Afghanistan.

Inner city Chicagoans dies by the dozens, but since Robinette Biden can only do one thing at a time, there is nothing to be done? That is hardly a rousing endorsement of the man. Now he could put KH in charge of it, now that she has the southern border under control. (sarcasm meter pegged)

Inner city Chicagoans dies by the dozens, but since Robinette Biden can only do one thing at a time, there is nothing to be done? That is hardly a rousing endorsement of the man. Now he could put KH in charge of it, now that she has the southern border under control. (sarcasm meter pegged)
Yep, too bad VP Harris tore down the entire 2,000-mile length of tRump's border wall. [/sarcasm]

Trump built about 400 miles of border fencing. That's what, about 400 miles more than Obama built? And with Robinette Biden in office, Texas has now determined to start on more effective fencing on their own, secure in the knowledge that Biden will do positively nothing other than putting KH in charge. And that, of course, is...doing nothing. [/better sarcasm]

Trump built about 400 miles of border fencing. That's what, about 400 miles more than Obama built? And with Robinette Biden in office, Texas has now determined to start on more effective fencing on their own, secure in the knowledge that Biden will do positively nothing other than putting KH in charge. And that, of course, is...doing nothing. [/better sarcasm]
"Texas has now determined to start on more effective fencing on their own ... And that, of course, is...doing nothing."

Truer words were never spoken.

....And back to the matter of the thread, if you please.

"Texas has now determined to start on more effective fencing on their own ... And that, of course, is...doing nothing."

Truer words were never spoken.The way you twist meaning, you could work for CNN. Apply today!! You'd fit right in.

....And back to the matter of the thread, if you please.
In news items on the internet and in print, I eventually get to some quote from a lawyer that says what I said earlier:
The First Amendment protects us against government limits on our freedom of expression, but it doesn’t prevent a private employer from setting its own rules.

but it doesn’t prevent a private employer from setting its own rules.Actually it does. A private employer cannot make untrue, libelous statements about an employee or client. A private company cannot allow it's employees to make sexually abusive remarks. A private employer cannot mandate some types of speech. Schools cannot require students to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Schools cannot set unreasonable bounds on the free speech of students. The list goes on and on. But I think your point is that Facebook and others can restrict the type of speech and expression they allow. I think that's a fair statement, but the question is do we want them to favor certain political views and punish others. You might think that's fine, but considering that they are practically complete monopolies, I think it's a bad idea. Might be Trump today so you cheer that, but a few years down the road it could be liberal dems, and then you'd feel differently. The open and free exchange and expression of ideas is a valuable freedom in any country. When tech giants feel the freedom to censor the President of the United States, or a former pres, then I would think we'd consider that to be concerning.

I'm not sure what your point is relative to the Trump case.
In this case he's claiming 1st amendments rights, Freedom of Speech, so it does, very clearly.

Yeah. I misread her comment. You will note that I changed my post. Sorry about that.

I'll just say again that when one company has practically complete control over an enormous business sector, and one which, in this case, involves the transmission of an incredible amount of info, then we should be concerned about that. I don't know that Trump has much of a case here, but it is an issue that should be addressed. The manner, for instance, in which big tech was able to essentially squash Parler should alarm all of us.

As for his law suit ;he is making a mistake by basing it on 1st amendment grounds. The REAL problem is that these companies have monopolies . If there was REAL competition in the market place then he would have many choices of forums to express his views

Imo, the problem is size, not monopoly, which is one company dominating a market. There are a number of companies competing - but for what? Ultimately ad revenue. Facebook dwarfs Google in number of users, but Google dwarfs Facebook in ad revenue.


The fact that someone like Bezos can use the power of Amazon AND the Washington Compost to dominate the public debate and in fact set the debate ,and decide who can participate is the issue .

No way does Amazon and WAPO dominate the public debate.

Doing away with state sales and income taxes would leave schools and state agencies without money and destitute, so that's not a good idea

Texas has no state tax...just saying.

If you want to comment on our country, you might want to try doing your homework first. Just sayin.

Ideas are there for discussion, the idea is not to increase taxation but to make it more effective so there is truth. Politicians have confused the issue until the system is burdensome and ineffective allowing the burden to fall on those who can't rort the system

Ideas are there for discussion, the idea is not to increase taxation but to make it more effective
Good point! So why are taxes levied? Aren't they supposed to improve our lives?

So you are going to put us in the black by NOT increasing taxes? I don’t think you realize how bad our budget problem is. Might add that the wealthy in America pay most of the income tax by far.

So you are going to put us in the black by NOT increasing taxes.
Why increase? Why not reallocate and use them more effectively and efficiently?

Ben ,I expressed my opinion about breaking up the hi tech monopolies and about Sec. 230 on a previous OP that was closed by administration . I don't recall the circumstances ;but most likely it had no relevance to the posting


Found previous posting ...
Break up the Big Tech Monopolies .....Parler sues Amazon over anti-trust violations (askmehelpdesk.com) (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/break-up-big-tech-monopolies-parler-sues-amazon-over-anti-trust-violations-847923.html)

Yes Bezos very much does dominate in a cartel with the other hi tech companies . When Trump was bumped from Twitter ,a competing company called Parler was created . Then Bezos used Amazon to deny Parler access to the web through it's web hosting service.

Last time of asking, please stay on topic.
Yes, I have removed some posts and my next action will be to close.
You know the line, stop stomping on it.

There are a number of companies competingThere are? Who is competing with FB? Who is competing with Twitter? Parler, the company they managed to squash?

This is what should be at the core of Trump's complaint. When you are banned from FB, you are effectively banned from that entire sphere of communication. Same is true for Twitter. There are no real alternatives.

Ben ,I expressed my opinion about breaking up the hi tech monopolies and about Sec. 230 on a previous OP that was closed by administration . I don't recall the circumstances ;but most likely it had no relevance to the posting


Found previous posting ...
Break up the Big Tech Monopolies .....Parler sues Amazon over anti-trust violations (askmehelpdesk.com) (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/break-up-big-tech-monopolies-parler-sues-amazon-over-anti-trust-violations-847923.html)

Here's the relevant parts:


This happened before and I believe a populist nationalist waded into the swamp and created the Sherman Anti-Trust act making such monopolistic practices illegal. Parler has filed an anti-trust complaint against Amazon. Depending on the outcome we will see how broken the system is . Also Sec 230 of the Communications Decency Act needs to be repealed or amended . It makes exception for providers who block so called offensive material .The reason it needs amending is because it give broad discretion to the providers to decide what is offensive .


You do realise that removing section 230 will lead to vastly increased censorship on the social streams....
Here included.


fair enough . I worded it incorrectly . Sec 230 needs reform. the words "or otherwise objectionable " is too broad given the intent of the section .It gives sites protection for removing anything they want .Being able to remove anti-terrorism ,child sex abuse and cyber stalking is not the same as suppression of political speech. The goal should be that the net remain free and fair; especially in our current environment when a group of companies can collude to control political thought content .

The intent of 230 was to “to encourage telecommunications and information service providers to deploy new technologies and policies” for filtering or blocking offensive materials online ....not to filter out political thought the site owners do not agree with.
S. Rept. 104-23 - TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPETITION AND DEREGULATION ACT OF 1995 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress (https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/104th-congress/senate-report/23/1)

The importance of the net has grown since the section was adopted . It has evolved into the main public square . 1996 few people spent much time on the net . Today net surfing occupies hours of people's time .It has replaced the news paper as the primary source of information, If you look at it in that content then what the big tech companies did was controlling content by making sure their smaller competition could not get paper and printing ink to publish .

And it has gone even further than that. Political campaigns are conducted on the net. What big tech did this cycle was to be the defacto arbiters of the political debate on the net . Political ideas were filtered through self appointed "fact checkers " ,and at a minimum were labelled as missing content ;at worse they were removed from the sites . The sites became much more than conduits of content .They became the editors of content .

I would not even have much objection to that . As some here have argued ,they are private companies . What they did however by blocking a competitors site from the public forum was to become the FINAL editors of political debate on the net ....and that is wholly unacceptable. If sec 230 protects this type of activity then it must be reformed .


Sites are still privately owned and as such well within their rights to be run by their own Terms of Service and how they see fit.
Facebook is well known for it's moderating style, while user driven, the results tend on the draconian side.

Intent vs the letter can be very different things and that is what keeps many Judges and lawyers employed.


Yes there is intent and unintended consequences . When unintended consequences are harmful then the issue needs reexamination.

There's more if you feel the need to review yourselves.

There are? Who is competing with FB? Who is competing with Twitter? Parler, the company they managed to squash?

This is what should be at the core of Trump's complaint. When you are banned from FB, you are effectively banned from that entire sphere of communication. Same is true for Twitter. There are no real alternatives.

There are many others in the Social media sphere, however, Facebook and twitter are the market leaders in their delivery style.
Remember MySpace, Bebo, etc...
Even Yahoo and AOL, back in the day.

Are you suggesting that the market leaders in a field are artificially limited in their reach ?
This goes back to the absolute heart of what America is about and how the pursuit of profit is seen as the only driver worth considering.
The Ferengi have nothing on Big Business America.

This goes back to the absolute heart of what America is about and how the pursuit of profit is seen as the only driver worth considering.

There are other drivers of America and the pursuit of profit is not the heart of the country. It's right arm, maybe. I could go with that.

I would remind you of the generosity of America helping others recover from the devastation of WW2, including your own country, and the protections offered since then by the American military umbrella, including your own country.

The pursuit of profit, however, is not always a bad thing. It drives innovation, education, invention, ambition, and many other things resulting in better living standards for the great majority of its citizens and citizens elsewhere. It is not without its problems - that's obvious to all - but it also drives social programs that recognize the problems and serves as a source of funds and dedicated people for those programs.

That is not to say we have not been recipients of great gifts from other nations. Chief among them may be your nation's gift of its long history of achieving self-government that was transmitted to 13 separate colonies many years ago leading to unification.


The Ferengi have nothing on Big Business America.

We're better-looking.

As I said ,the drive to control run away hi tech is bipartisan
Biden Targets Big Business in Sweeping Executive Order to Spur Competition (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-targets-big-business-in-sweeping-executive-order-to-spur-competition/ar-AALXAk2?ocid=msedgntp)

There are many others in the Social media sphere, however, Facebook and twitter are the market leaders in their delivery style.
Remember MySpace, Bebo, etc...
Even Yahoo and AOL, back in the day.There are many others? Name one that currently is even 1/10th the size of FB or Twitter. If you can't, and you can't, then why does that not amount to a monopoly?


Are you suggesting that the market leaders in a field are artificially limited in their reach ?
This goes back to the absolute heart of what America is about and how the pursuit of profit is seen as the only driver worth considering.I'm saying that when Parler had a good shot at becoming a legit competitor, Twitter, FB, and Amazon conspired to basically kick them off the web and end that threat. Would you consider that to be "artificially limited in their reach?"

There are many others? Name one that currently is even 1/10th the size of FB or Twitter.
YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp.

YouTube,Really??? A competitor for Facebook or Twitter? Hardly. Not the same type of App at all.

WhatsApp is not the same type of application as Twitter and certainly not as FB.

Instagram is owned by...you guessed it, Facebook. Has been for nearly ten years.

I'm not real familiar with TikTok. It is Chinese owned and has a different approach in some respects from Twitter. It could be considered a legit competitor.

None of them competes with Facebook. No one else really does either.

I'm not real familiar with TikTok. It is Chinese owned and has a different approach in some respects from Twitter. It could be considered a legit competitor.

collects data of users for the CCP and is their mouthpiece

New DOJ Filing: TikTok's Owner Is 'A Mouthpiece' Of Chinese Communist Party : NPR (https://www.npr.org/2020/09/26/917134452/new-doj-filing-tiktoks-owner-is-a-mouthpiece-of-chinese-communist-party)

Why TikTok’s China ties are causing a national security controversy - Vox (https://www.vox.com/open-sourced/2019/12/16/21013048/tiktok-china-national-security-investigation)

The U.S. Is Right to Worry About TikTok - Lawfare (lawfareblog.com) (https://www.lawfareblog.com/us-right-worry-about-tiktok)

TikTok Parent Company ByteDance Spreads Chinese Propaganda: Report (businessinsider.com) (https://www.businessinsider.com/tiktok-parent-company-bytedance-spreads-chinese-propaganda-report-2019-11)

None of them competes with Facebook. No one else really does either.
Now you've added parameters. *sigh*

I did? Where? "There are many others? Name one that currently is even 1/10th the size of FB or Twitter." You didn't even met that criteria.

I did? Where? "There are many others? Name one that currently is even 1/10th the size of FB or Twitter." You didn't even met that criteria.
Yup, I put on my librarian hat and carefully researched it.

I would suggest you get rid of that hat. It worked poorly.

this is becoming a new twitter site

There are many others? Name one that currently is even 1/10th the size of FB or Twitter. If you can't, and you can't, then why does that not amount to a monopoly?

https://revive.digital/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/social-media-graph-Worldwide-2020-1024x576.png

/mike drop

You still haven't done your homework. None of those compete with Facebook. Youtube is strictly video sharing. Facebook owns WhatsApp. Messenger is a text messaging app. WeChat is very large but is predominately used in China and not here. LinkedIn is primarily a professional, job-related app. Pinterest is primarily image sharing. The list goes on.

The fact remains. Facebook owns its market niche and has no real competition. The same is true of Twitter. Nice try, but no prize for you.

You still haven't done your homework. None of those compete with Facebook. Youtube is strictly video sharing. Facebook owns WhatsApp. Messenger is a text messaging app. WeChat is very large but is predominately used in China and not here. LinkedIn is primarily a professional, job-related app. Pinterest is primarily image sharing. The list goes on.

The fact remains. Facebook owns its market niche and has no real competition. The same is true of Twitter. Nice try, but no prize for you.

Firstly, stop with the overly obnoxious homework retort, it's getting tiresome. I'm not a wayward child and will not be addressed in that manner.
Secondly, how you define social media and how the rest of the internet does clearly is out of step. In this case you clearly need to look more closely into how social media is defined.
Finally, I have answered your question clearly, yet you choose to continue to argue.

Interesting to note the reach of FB compared to Twitter.

Social media is many things and you are mixing your platforms. The comparisons you are drawing is like saying Boeing is competing with Ford in the transportation business. Facebook is the dominant player in its market niche by far. It owns Instagram, Messenger, and WhatsApp. So I would suggest you look more closely into how one social medial platform differs from others. There are significant differences. Airplanes are not cars.

You have attempted an answer so good for you, but you are mixing apples and oranges. No one is seriously competing with Facebook. Twitter does have some competition, but is still the dominant player in its area of emphasis. That's the primary difference, in my view, you are not seeing.

The primary point remains that FB and Twitter are engaging in censoring political speech. That should concern everyone. Censoring nudity, profane language, and calls for insurrection are fine, but the selective banning of conservative political speech is alarming. Banning Diamond and Silk? Really?

websites and applications that enable users to create and share content or to participate in social networking.
You are moving the goal posts with your responses making it very difficult to have a meaningful discussion.

Over the years, the Big tech firms have been left to their own devices with very little over sight.
Yet, now we have arrived at this juncture and the US government have finally realised what they have had a hand in developing.
All well and good crying monopolistic behaviour, however the firms have their hands in so many different areas it is very difficult to sucessfully litigate them.
Also, with the amounts of money involved, the Tech firms can afford any fines that are levied against. The recent $2B fine on Google was a mere drop in the ocean.
These firms really are too big to fail or even legislate against effectively...

The US Gov has been complicit in the creation of these monopolies and, as they are effectively no longer under their direct control, they are running scared.

These firms really are too big to fail or even legislate against effectively...
No such thing. Legislation against monopolistic practices started with the oil industry owned by Rockefeller. He was extraordinarily wealthy at the time and controlled something like 90% of the petroleum business in the U.S. His Standard Oil company was divided into 30 or so smaller companies, several of which survive to this day.


The US Gov has been complicit in the creation of these monopolies and, as they are effectively no longer under their direct control, they are running scared.Not sure how you're seeing that. The liberal dems love Facebook and Twitter. They are best of friends in their irrational hatred of Trump. But I am thrilled to see that you are agreeing they are monopolies. That's progress.


You are moving the goal posts with your responses making it very difficult to have a meaningful discussion.I'm not moving goal posts. I'm trying to get you to see that there are a number of different "sports" going on. You cannot just lump them all together. Facebook and LinkedIn are both social media but do not do the same thing. Youtube does not compete with Facebook anymore than Boeing competes with Ford.

Jlisenbe, whatever I'm done with this discussion.
You really should get a job in politics, but avoid pedestrian crossing, once you have proven black is white.
This isn't an either/or choice you can use both, hence classic monopoly definitions fall over.

but avoid pedestrian crossing, once you have proven black is white.
This isn't an either/or choice you can use both, hence classic monopoly definitions fall over.I would comment on that, but since the discussion is over, it's all good.

You are moving the goal posts with your responses making it very difficult to have a meaningful discussion.

Welcome to the club, Ben. We have been dealing with our in-house troll since forever, it seems. Quite often are the goal posts moved in the middle of a discussion, and words added or deleted to change the meaning to suit the troll.

rarely does he do more than confuse the issue and divert the discussion

We now know that Quid's regime is monitoring and directing big tech to censor . Jen Psaki said “we’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.”
That means that it is the government that is doing the censorship ;and it bolsters Trump's case tremendously .If Facebook and the other tech monopolies are colluding with the government to suppress speech, it becomes much harder to hide behind the “we’re a private company” defense. In no way is it acceptable for the government to be providing a list of "problematic "content for Facebook to remove .

Yeah. That is really incredible. Now here is a genuine "collusion" case for Pelosi and the liberal dems to hold hearings on. I won't hold my breath waiting.

We now know that Quid's regime is monitoring and directing big tech to censor . Jen Psaki said “we’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.”
That means that it is the government that is doing the censorship ;and it bolsters Trump's case tremendously .If Facebook and the other tech monopolies are colluding with the government to suppress speech, it becomes much harder to hide behind the “we’re a private company” defense. In no way is it acceptable for the government to be providing a list of "problematic "content for Facebook to remove .

If it is just disinformation we can do with less of it, if it is political opinion then you do have a problem. Social media is responsible for a lot of disinformation and ill informed opinion which led to the capital riots so you can see how they might want to supress it

We now know that Quid's regime is monitoring and directing big tech to censor . Jen Psaki said “we’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.”

We know nothing of the sort! Do you understand the difference between "flagging" and "censoring"? The WH has a perfect right to watch (flag) Facebook for posts that spread disinformation.


That means that it is the government that is doing the censorship

No, it does NOT mean that. Read the First Amendment.


and it bolsters Trump's case tremendously

Trump HAS no "case"! Haven't you learned yet that Trump is clinically insane? Are you watching his behavior the last few months? See what he wrote about today's hearing in Arizona.

Insanity doesn't mean he's a raving maniac. It simply means he lacks the mental capacity to understand what's going on re the election and his "re-instatement" as president.


In no way is it acceptable for the government to be providing a list of "problematic "content for Facebook to remove .

The government has a perfect right to expose disinformation. In fact, it is a legitimate role of government. Facebook has a perfect right to do nothing about any information provided by the government.

If you're suggesting the government is somehow forcing Facebook to act, you're confusing the Trump administration with the Biden administration. Trump was notorious for abusing government powers.

and Mr nowhere to be seen is not? all governments try to bend the narrative to their own advantage

The merging of corporate and state power . Fascism 101 ;something the left accused Trump of . But in fact fascism is a lefty ideology that Quid apparently is very comfortable with as he applies the use of state power to influence and coerce the big tech monopolies to change which content they do and do not allow to be published. .

We know nothing of the sort! Do you understand the difference between "flagging" and "censoring"? The WH has a perfect right to watch (flag) Facebook for posts that spread disinformation.

If you don't find it disturbing that the WH is flagging content for their hi tech allies to remove then you support authoritarian censorship . There is no scenario in a free society where this is acceptable . And yes ;if the government pressures or coerces private actors to censor for them it is a flagrant 1st amendment violation . Going through a back door still makes it government censorship .

See 'Norwood v. Harrison' “For more than half a century courts have held that governmental threats can turn private conduct into state action.”

See 'NRA v Cuomo 'and the ACLU's amicus that defended the NRA because Cuomo was using coercion against companies that did business with the NRA .

“Although public officials are free to express their opinions and may condemn viewpoints or groups they view as inimical to public welfare,” they cannot abuse their regulatory authority to retaliate against disfavored advocacy organizations and to impose burdens on those organizations’ ability to conduct lawful business.”

See 'Bantam Books v Sullivan' when the State of Rhode Island tried to use coercive power to prevent book stores from selling books the state deemed to be obscene and offensive . Rhode Island instituted a commission to notify bookstores when they determined a book or magazine to be “objectionable,” and requested their “cooperation” by removing it and refusing to sell it any longer. Four book publishers sued, seeking a declaration that this practice was a violation of the First Amendment even though they were never technically forced to censor. They "voluntarily " removed the books due to the implicit threat . "The Commission's notices, phrased virtually as orders, reasonably understood to be such by the distributor, invariably followed up by police visitations, in fact stopped the circulation of the listed publications ex proprio vigore . [B]It would be naive to credit the State's assertion that these blacklists are in the nature of mere legal advice when they plainly serve as instruments of regulation."

What will happen when the WH finds books sold on Amazon as "problematic " full of "disinformation " ?
These hi tech companies have made a Faustian deal with the government so they can maintain their monopolies .

The government has a perfect right to expose disinformation. The government is often the conveyor of misinformation .Perfect example is their suppression of information regarding the Wuhan lab as source of covid 19. With the help of their big tech monopoly allies and the compliant press and their so called fact checkers; they covered that up for months .

Now that Trump is gone , suddenly the theory is in vogue and Facebook now permits such postings . Even Herr doctor Anthony Fauci concedes the possibility when he was the prime so called expert who called out the theory as misinformation .

If you don't find it disturbing that the WH is flagging content for their hi tech allies to remove then you support authoritarian censorship . There is no scenario in a free society where this is acceptable .It's all completely predictable. For liberal dems, if a liberal dem like Robinette Biden is doing it, then it must be OK. If Trump had been doing it, their hair would be on fire right now. Situational ethics in the extreme.

Fascism 101 ;something the left accused Trump of . But in fact fascism is a lefty ideology

In fact, Trump DID try to create a fascist state with him as Der Fuehrer, but he failed. Fascism is the far right wing of the political spectrum- not the left wing. You have it backwards.


See 'Norwood v. Harrison' 'NRA v Cuomo .

'Bantam Books v SullivanNone of these apply to the present situation.


What will happen when the WH finds books sold on Amazon as "problematic " full of "disinformation " ?

Are you serious?


These hi tech companies have made a Faustian deal with the government so they can maintain their monopolies .

Dream on.


Even Herr doctor Anthony Fauci concedes the possibility when he was the prime so called expert who called out the theory as misinformation .

Calling him Herr Doctor tells us all we need to know about your theories.

Fascism is the far right wing of the political spectrum I guess it is how you construct the spectrum . The spectrum I go by has liberty on one side and enslavement /tyranny on the polar opposite . Left /Right are meaningless in that spectrum . One is to aspire to ;one to oppose .

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Benjamin Franklin

define essential

That's a great question. I'd say those freedoms contained in our Bill of Rights.

I guess it is how you construct the spectrum . The spectrum I go by has liberty on one side and enslavement /tyranny on the polar opposite . Left /Right are meaningless in that spectrum . One is to aspire to ;one to oppose .

I agree with that. The great example is the Russo-German war of 1941-1945. Communism was the extreme left and Fascism/Nazism the extreme right. Both, however, were tyrannies opposed to any kind of liberty.

both claimed to be socialist regimes and yet the democracies were glad to get into bed with the Russians which they considered the lesser of two evils. So the only spectrum there was survival. We know pure communism doesn't work, socialism has worked in various implementations and capitalism works for some, but every system leaves a large number of poor struggling for existence

both claimed to be socialist regimes and yet the democracies were glad to get into bed with the Russians which they considered the lesser of two evils. So the only spectrum there was survival. We know pure communism doesn't work, socialism has worked in various implementations and capitalism works for some, but every system leaves a large number of poor struggling for existence
What would be a good system for a country? Is there one system that will help the poor and middle class, and still make the wealthy happy?

Well I think ours works pretty well, it is a federal parliamentary democracy where the central government overseas the economy and the states look after service delivery. There are aspects of socialism and of capitalism in play, Universal health care, some state run enterprises like utilities and a strong regulatory regime.

It used to be much more socialist but it has evolved

Well I think ours works pretty well, it is a federal parliamentary democracy where the central government overseas the economy and the states look after service delivery. There are aspects of socialism and of capitalism in play, Universal health care, some state run enterprises like utilities and a strong regulatory regime.

It used to be much more socialist but it has evolved
What are the names of the offices in charge? For central government? For the states? Who oversees universal health care? (I should google this!)

the democracies were glad to get into bed with the Russians which they considered the lesser of two evils. yeah Stalin only murdered 20 million people .

Clete likes the behemoth ,benevolent ,bureaucratic nanny state model .with a proliferation of regulations designed to protected the Aussie citizens from themselves . Some examples are the oft spoken of gun laws . They go from there to taxing alcohol and tobacco to impose behavior penalties ...restrictive speed limits,mandatory lock out laws (close the pub by 10) ,diluted beer at sporting events ,mandatory bicycle helmet laws and mandatory voting laws .

When some Aussies revolt ;like in the case involving covid ;the nanny state gets even more restrictive .Vacuum bans after 10 pm . Who ever heard of such nonsense ?

The Aussies had a reputation of being laid back and a bit defiant of authority . That may have been when Clete was a young man . But now they bleat to the same tune .

Clete likes the behemoth ,benevolent ,bureaucratic nanny state model .with a proliferation of regulations designed to protected the Aussie citizens from themselves . Some examples are the oft spoken of gun laws . They go from there to taxing alcohol and tobacco to impose behavior penalties ...restrictive speed limits,mandatory lock out laws (close the pub by 10) ,diluted beer at sporting events ,mandatory bicycle helmet laws and mandatory voting laws .
Actually what you have just described also includes the rest of the developed world, Europe, UK and the USA.
Much of what you describe codifies, so called, common sense behaviours for civilised living.
Freedom comes at a cost.

common sense to some is nonsense to others . Using the phrase to attack opposing ideas is weak . What the buzz words mean is a justification for policies that aren't automatically popular .It assumes that it is a safe no brainer when in fact the issues are much more complicated and controversial . It is a trap that libs use frequently .

In America it has been used frequently since Thomas Paine made a compelling argument for dissolution with the crown .Most usages since are vague ,nonspecific and a ruse to paint issues of great complexity and nuance into simplified arguments designed to pretend to align with the average person.

Let the children get back to normal lives . - Page 2 (askmehelpdesk.com) (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=848253&page=2&p=3871631#post3871631)


Freedom comes at a cost. No the defense of Freedom comes at a cost . Freedom is an inalienable right .

Freedom comes at a cost.The cost is the voluntary exercising of moral behavior by the citizens. In the words of John Adams, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

What are the names of the offices in charge? For central government? For the states? Who oversees universal health care? (I should google this!)

There are ministers of state who oversee government departments who implement the decisions of the parliaments. these ministers of state are first and foremost elected representatives who sit in the parliament and answer directly to their peers. the department of health overseas the universal health care system and the state governments oversee the hospitals and clinics. there is a parallel private health care system. The federal government overseas aged care which is delivered by private institutions. At a local level medicine is delivered by private clinics and paid for by the government with some co contribution maybe 30% of clinics charge a fee

In our country, the feds have five basic responsibilities. 1. Establish Justice, 2.Insure domestic Tranquility 3.Provide for the common defense 4.Promote the general Welfare. 5.Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

Fascism is the far right wing of the political spectrum- not the left wing




[The left is] in favor of radical change, socialism and republicanism

[The right is] in opposition to radical change and desire to preserve traditional society, the more you were to the right. Tradition, institutional religion and privatization of economy were considered the core values of the right-wing.


Similar sentiments can be found in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_spectrum).

Wikipedia places fascism on the Right, but I think this is a mistake on their part...lets examine the description of fascism there:



Fascists saw World War I as a revolution that brought massive changes to the nature of war, society, the state, and technology.

Massive changes = Left (Conservative is on the right)



The war had resulted in the rise of a powerful state capable of mobilizing millions of people to serve on the front lines and providing economic production and logistics to support them, as well as having unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens.

Powerful State, control of economic production = Left (Communism is on the Left)



Italian Fascism had been subverted by Italian conservatives and the bourgeoisie.[68] Then the new Fascist government proposed the creation of workers' councils and profit-sharing in industry

Still sounds leftish to me.



The October Revolution of 1917—in which Bolshevik communists led by Vladimir Lenin seized power in Russia—greatly influenced the development of fascism.[122] In 1917, Mussolini, as leader of the Fasces of Revolutionary Action, praised the October Revolution

Liberal opponents of both fascism and the Bolsheviks argue that there are various similarities between the two, including that they believed in the necessity of a vanguard leadership, had disdain for bourgeois values and it is argued had totalitarian ambitions.

Loving the other leftists? Not for long (Marxists promoted internationalism, while Fascists promoted nationalism).



In 1919, Alceste De Ambris and Futurist movement leader Filippo Tommaso Marinetti created The Manifesto of the Italian Fasces of Combat (the Fascist Manifesto).[125] The Manifesto was presented on 6 June 1919 in the Fascist newspaper Il Popolo d'Italia. The Manifesto supported the creation of universal suffrage for both men and women (the latter being realized only partly in late 1925, with all opposition parties banned or disbanded);[126] proportional representation on a regional basis; government representation through a corporatist system of "National Councils" of experts, selected from professionals and tradespeople, elected to represent and hold legislative power over their respective areas, including labour, industry, transportation, public health, communications, etc.; and the abolition of the Italian Senate.[127] The Manifesto supported the creation of an eight-hour work day for all workers, a minimum wage, worker representation in industrial management, equal confidence in labour unions as in industrial executives and public servants, reorganization of the transportation sector, revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance, reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55, a strong progressive tax on capital, confiscation of the property of religious institutions and abolishment of bishoprics

Sound familiar? Go leftists!

We know pure communism doesn't work, socialism has worked in various implementations and capitalism works for some, but every system leaves a large number of poor struggling for existence


Socialism does not work. Socialist policies seem acceptable in a capitalist society, however, the end goal of socialism is communism (Lenin)...which doesn't work at all. Capitalism, on the other hand, has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system.

As a matter of fact, socialist policies tend to do the opposite of what people say it does.

Higher taxation (especially the more progressive taxation) slows growth and investment, creates wage stagnation, and provides overall lower government revenue.

Healthcare regulation and policies like ObamaCare have driven healthcare costs through the roof.

An increase in federal stimulus payments has lead to the lowest labor participation rate since the 70's.

The social security program is nearly broke.

Farm subsidies keep food costs high, create billions in waste every year, and largely benefit the rich.

The public school system is a disaster (economically and educationally).

Corporate bail-outs give incentive for poorly run corporations and their leaders.

The government funding of transportation is a boondoggle wasting billions at a time on failed ideas.


And they tell us, we need more government control and more social programs!

Capitalism would work better, if we let it.

Capitalism would work better, if we let it.
Please list three ways capitalism would work better.

Abolish the Federal reserve, reduce banking regulations, force banks to carry their own risk, bring back the gold standard. (FDIC might be OK, if people who wanted pay for it)
--This would nearly stop inflation. This would strengthen the US dollar. Inflation is a government tax on savings. This would be equivalent to a 2-6% raise for everyone while protecting any liquid assets from devaluation.

Eliminate all health insurance regulation, regulate cost and treatment transparency among providers, reduce the FDA footprint in the industry.
--While this would cause quite a stir, the insurance companies would no longer be able to dictate the cost of healthcare when millions drop out of the game, bring down cost among providers, reduce the need for insurance, eliminate the bureaucratic barriers the account for more than 20% of healthcare costs.

End all entitlement programs and progressive taxes and end the minimum wage.
--This would incentivize individual responsibility, allow for increased upward class mobility, reward good behavior, eliminate government debt, and increase private demands on corporations to treat their workers fairly. Regarding the poor, sick, and elderly...there would be less need overall, but that can be subsidized privately by good people as it was for 150yrs of US history.

These, combined with financial literacy training in schools would put the power in the hands of the people and capitalism would take off like a rocket.

1. Reward. Those who have the courage and innovative ideas to start new products get to reap the rewards.

2. General prosperity. There has never been a system more useful for the prosperity of the middle class than capitalism, better known, in my view, as free enterprise. As jobs increase, as they did under the Trump admin, everyone benefits.

3. Freedom. The forgotten word of our age. We have the freedom to either take our own ideas and advance them, or assist someone else in his or her economic adventure.

Capitalism would work better, if we let it.
Please list three disadvantages of capitalism.

Please list three disadvantages of capitalism.


1. Corporatism often results in abuse of workers. This was prominently seen during the industrial revolution.

2. Pollution could greatly increase, if the top players are left unchecked.

3. Again, as seen during the industrial revolution, monopolization is often the result of unchecked capitalism.

I would like to point out though, that we have checks against these, and although lacking, I am not opposed to these things. We could strengthen worker protections, enforce the antitrust laws, and get the EPA out of the corporation's pockets.

so basically slave labour, monopolies, pollution and we should tolerate this, why? it seems both systems lead down the same road, only the propaganda differs

so basically slave labour, monopolies, pollution and we should tolerate this, why?Slave labor? Really? Average annual wage U.S. is 46 U.S. dollars an hour. Average annual wage is Australia is 44 Aussie dollars which converts to about 33 U.S. dollars. Sounds like the slave labor is more on your side of the pond.

What monopolies are you referring to?

What pollution problem in the U.S. is worse than in China or Australia, especially considering that our population is about ten times greater than yours?

Once again, I just don't think your facts are straight.



WG, I don't know of a disadvantage of free enterprise per se other than when monopolies are allowed to run wild. Slave labor and excess pollution have nothing to do with capitalism. What disadvantages would you list?

Slave labor? Really? Average annual wage U.S. is 46 U.S. dollars an hour. Average annual wage is Australia is 44 Aussie dollars which converts to about 33 U.S. dollars. Sounds like the slave labor is more on your side of the pond.
WHo has more million/billionaires, the serious skews these figures...



What monopolies are you referring to?

You ranted about some earlier in this thread....
These mega-corps.

WHo has more million/billionaires, the serious skews these figures...As I understand those stats, salaried employees do affect hourly wage stats, but I don't think incomes from capital gains or incomes from privately owned businesses do. Would have to double check that.

If we go by average annual wage, which is calculated simply by dividing total income by total working population, the U.S. still has a significant advantage by 65K per year vs. 54K in Australia, but that is one that high income earners would skew some. Teachers, for instance, earn an average of 62K in the U.S. They earn 55K in U.S. dollars in Australia. My point, of course, was that any comment about "slave labor" was simply ignorant.


You ranted about some earlier in this thread....
These mega-corps.You mean the ones that your ranted on and on were actually NOT monopolies? Kind of selective with your views, aren't you?

As I understand those stats, salaried employees do affect hourly wage stats, but I don't think incomes from capital gains or incomes from privately owned businesses do. Would have to double check that.

If we go by average annual wage, which is calculated simply by dividing total income by total working population, the U.S. still has a significant advantage by 65K per year vs. 54K in Australia, but that is one that high income earners would skew some. Teachers, for instance, earn an average of 62K in the U.S. They earn 55K in U.S. dollars in Australia. My point, of course, was that any comment about "slave labor" was simply ignorant.



However once you take into account major outgoings and differences, such as health insurance and other costs of living the picture becomes alot clearer.
You are comparing different fruits again.

However once you take into account major outgoings and differencesFine. Show us the numbers. Until then it's just pure conjecture on your part that has the ring of prejudice.

Fine. Show us the numbers. Until then it's just pure conjecture on your part that has the ring of prejudice.

Not at all.
You are the one comparing US and Aus salaries, without addressing the obvious differences.

What's the average monthly outgoing for health insurance for a US citizen.
There's a lot to be said for universal health care.

Canada, Aus and UK pay for basic health care as part of our employment taxation, which is centrally managed by Government.
Private healthcare is available at an additional cost, but not compulsory for a decent life.

Still no numbers. All conjecture. What about the extra tax burden borne by Aussies? Did you factor that in?

Until I see the math, you have no case. But even at that, my original point was that the "slave labor" comment was just ridiculous and had no connection with reality. The comparison of teacher salaries was pretty enlightening considering that their med insurance is typically provided here as well as a generous retirement program.

Still no numbers. All conjecture. What about the extra tax burden borne by Aussies? Did you factor that in?

Until I see the math, you have no case. But even at that, my original point was that the "slave labor" comment was just ridiculous and had no connection with reality. The comparison of teacher salaries was pretty enlightening considering that their med insurance is typically provided here as well as a generous retirement program.

I asked YOU to consider the differences in salary between USA and Aus.
Bearing in mind that Aus has universal healthcare and therefore don't have the mandatory additional outgoings from their salaries.
(The same is true for Canada and UK)
It is YOUR conjecture that Aus salaries are close to slavery, therefore it is up to you to actually give a balanced picture rather than relying on misleading headline figures.

Just to remind what YOU said:


Average annual wage U.S. is 46 U.S. dollars an hour. Average annual wage is Australia is 44 Aussie dollars which converts to about 33 U.S. dollars. Sounds like the slave labor is more on your side of the pond.

I asked YOU to consider the differences in salary between USA and Aus.No, you did not. You are claiming that their lower wages are made up by government programs, but you have done nothing to demonstrate that other than just asking us to take your word for it. Ain't gonna happen with me. Prove your point with data.

Bearing in mind that Aus has universal healthcare and therefore don't have the mandatory additional outgoings from their salaries.
(The same is true for Canada and UK)Again. Do the math.

It is YOUR conjecture that Aus salaries are close to slavery, therefore it is up to you to actually give a balanced picture rather than relying on misleading headline figures.Total lie. I have never said or even implied that. You need to either show where I said it, or correct your statement. That was a statement (slave labor) made by Clete about capitalism. I have presented no conjecture at all. I have SHOWN WITH DATA that wages in the U.S. are higher than in Australia. That is no criticism of Australia or praise of the United States. It was simply to demonstrate that his "slave labor" statement was ridiculous.

And the award for twisting whatever is posted to suit their own agenda goes to.....

Back to the thread in hand please.

nanny state ala Francese .......
Wide scale protests across France with protesters calling for the head (resignation ) of Macron , following his announcement that a digital health pass would be required in all "bars, restaurants, amusement parks, shopping centers, trains, coaches and planes."

All those silly French lacking "common sense "<sarc>

There are also protests in Greece .

Thankfully there are still those abroad who value the worth of freedom.

My characterization of CB's post as a "lie" was too harsh. My apologies. It would have been much better to have said he was mistaken in his understanding of my comment.

You can't make this up (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=848237&page=6&p=3871861&viewfull=1#post3871861)



apparently you can, witness JL's last post

sorry can't resist

The Taliban spokesman got a question about freedom of speech and he said the question should be asked to US companies like Facebook who claim to promote it while still censoring

The Taliban spokesman got a question about freedom of speech and he said the question should be asked to US companies like Facebook who claim to promote it while still censoring
What is "freedom of speech"?

What answer did the Taliban spokesman get?

Spokesperson Suhail Shaheen said prior to that ..The Taliban “believes in freedom of speech” and suggested those rights will extend to women in Afghanistan During an appearance on Sky News on Tuesday, Shaheen said: “We are committed to women’s rights to education, to work and for freedom of speech.”
“We believe all citizens should be equal in the sight of law and there should not be any kind of discrimination."

The Taliban has been spreading the message of jihad on Twitter ;a forum Trump is still banned on .His complaint was that Facebook still considers the Taliban terrorists . They also vowed to honor women's rights ......within the context of Sharia law . This is the more kinder gentler Taliban

I think WG's point is that freedom of speech does not extend to the private enterprises. That's true so fair enough, but when there is a concerted effort to shut down fair and honest exchanges of ideas on these media giants, then perhaps it's time to start looking at their monopolies needing to be broken up.

Also seems strange that FB cannot be compelled to allow free and open exchanges of ideas, but bakeries can be forced to participate in gay weddings. Doesn't pass the smell test.

I think WG's point is that freedom of speech does not extend to the private enterprises. Funny I did not divine that in the question. Guess I have to brush up on my Socratic method .Anyway I'm sure the complaint press did not probe.

My own opinion is public companies like it or not have become the public square . This is doubly true when companies like Facebook has been proven to be the mouthpiece of the government .

This is doubly true when companies like Facebook has been proven to be the mouthpiece of the government .Not to mention most of the media proving to be cheerleaders for the Democrat party.

bakeries can be forced to participate in gay weddings.
Gay dollar bills are just as green as cis dollar bills.

There are gay dollar bills

There are gay dollar bills
Happy, happy money!!!

Freedom of conscience for straight individuals, and for that matter ALL individuals, is more important than anyone's green dollar bills. Some things, amazingly enough, are more important than money.

Happy, happy money!!!

I'm reminded of the opening chorus from South Pacific, don't know why, maybe those were times that were really gay and happy