You misunderstand. This IS Trump's chosen stooge. FTC Chairman Carr.
He's complaining about tech companies "censoring" conservatives for "speaking their minds", aka being hateful bigots and spreading misinformation during a public health crisis.
If we wind up in a situation where the EU mandates a form of censorship that the US bans, I assume that the platforms in question would have to separate their EU and US users and sites.
Generally speaking, when a much stronger party forces upon you a mechanism, it doesn't work in your favor. Whether they call it free speech (for bot campaigns too, while you get banned) or moderation (your opponent insults you in every comment, and they are fine, but you insult them once - you're banned).
The super weirdest thing is that people again and again believe that the strong party belonging to "their" side will do things right this time in history.
It should be interesting to see how it plays out, indeed.
I don't expect the US will entirely ban all forms of content moderation. I wouldn't be surprised if the US moved more in the direction of the EU Digital Services Act: required transparency on recommendation algorithms and some sort of NGO trusted flagger system.
If someone got banned on Reddit for calling Clarence Thomas a house slave like Stephen Candie in Django, can he file a complaint with the FC for tech censorship? Asking for a friend.
I know the point of this is probably just intimidation but 35 companies? Are there 35 social networks that moderate content? Why is Apple included? Is there some conspiracy theory that they’re censoring conservative App Store reviews?
27 Comments
breadsmasher@lemmy.world · 97 pts · 1y
so musk will be investigated over how he runs xitter, right?
adespoton@lemmy.ca · 72 pts · 1y
He’s already investigated himself and found that Xitter is a bastion of freedom. Same goes for Truth Social.
ouRKaoS@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 1y
How long until hosting a Lemmy instance is illegal?
adespoton@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 1y
Well, as a lot of us are on instances hosted outside the US, a very long time.
Asafum@feddit.nl · 60 pts · 1y
Compelled speech it is then?
So when are bakers going to be forced to bake cakes for gay couples?
Oh, right, hypocrites. Naturally.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 1y
Reveling in their hypocrisy won't save anything.
They don't care that you think and I see them as hypocrites.
Asafum@feddit.nl · 16 pts · 1y
It slightly saves my sanity. Only slightly though.
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 1y
For them, them being able to be hypocrites is a "cool thing"
theneverfox@pawb.social · 2 pts · 1y
More accurately, they think everyone is as hypocritical as they are, so the fact they did it in their favor means they "won"
reiterationstation@lemm.ee · 4 pts · 1y
Do as I say not as I do is power of no one stops you.
sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml · 36 pts · 1y
When they say tech censorship they mean people should be allowed to say bigoted shit
francisco_1844@discuss.online · 7 pts · 1y
And post as much disinformation as they want without "censorship".
bitjunkie@lemmy.world · 30 pts · 1y
Tomorrow: Trump installs loyalist with zero qualifications as head of FCC.
vonbaronhans@midwest.social · 20 pts · 1y
You misunderstand. This IS Trump's chosen stooge. FTC Chairman Carr.
He's complaining about tech companies "censoring" conservatives for "speaking their minds", aka being hateful bigots and spreading misinformation during a public health crisis.
skepller@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1y
Yeah, I wonder how long until Elmo arrives to "make the FTC more efficient" lmao
Tronn4@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1y
We need fELONs crack team from X -said no one
tal@lemmy.today · 30 pts · 1y
If we wind up in a situation where the EU mandates a form of censorship that the US bans, I assume that the platforms in question would have to separate their EU and US users and sites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splinternet
daddy32@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 1y
It's not censorship, it's "censorship". You know, like banning nazis, calls for harming women etc.
rottingleaf@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1y
Generally speaking, when a much stronger party forces upon you a mechanism, it doesn't work in your favor. Whether they call it free speech (for bot campaigns too, while you get banned) or moderation (your opponent insults you in every comment, and they are fine, but you insult them once - you're banned).
The super weirdest thing is that people again and again believe that the strong party belonging to "their" side will do things right this time in history.
sik0fewl@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 1y
I doubt it. They could just sensor based on location.
techforwhat@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 1y
It should be interesting to see how it plays out, indeed.
I don't expect the US will entirely ban all forms of content moderation. I wouldn't be surprised if the US moved more in the direction of the EU Digital Services Act: required transparency on recommendation algorithms and some sort of NGO trusted flagger system.
Also, similar (but opposite) to Splinternet: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect
beejjorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org · 29 pts · 1y
And by "free speech", we mean you have to publish what we tell you.
Sturgist@lemmy.ca · 33 pts · 1y
Never stops being true.
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works · 20 pts · 1y
Hey government how’s it going
…
…
Jesus fucking christ
IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 18 pts · 1y
MuskyMelon@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 1y
If someone got banned on Reddit for calling Clarence Thomas a house slave like Stephen Candie in Django, can he file a complaint with the FC for tech censorship? Asking for a friend.
ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 1y
I know the point of this is probably just intimidation but 35 companies? Are there 35 social networks that moderate content? Why is Apple included? Is there some conspiracy theory that they’re censoring conservative App Store reviews?
Gingerlegs@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 1y
iamanurd@midwest.social · 4 pts · 1y
DOGE will soon make cuts there…
futatorius@lemm.ee · 1 pts · 1y
AtHeartEngineer@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y