Trump Considers Forming Panel to Review Complaints of Online Bias
Source: Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON President Trump is considering establishing a panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media, according to people familiar with the matter, in a move that would likely draw pushback from technology companies and others.
The plans are still under discussion but could include the establishment of a White House-created commission that would examine allegations of online bias and censorship, these people said. The administration could also encourage similar reviews by federal regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission, they said.
Left-wing bias in the tech world is a concern that definitely needs to be addressed from our vantage point, and at least exposed [so] that Americans have clear eyes about what were dealing with, a White House official said.
-snip-
The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google, Mr. Trump tweeted May 16, adding that his administration is working to remedy this illegal situation.
Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-considers-forming-panel-to-review-complaints-of-online-bias/ar-BB14uMRS?li=BBnbcA1
Those are private businesses. Form your own online social network in the model of Fux Noise if you don't like it.
rocktivity
(44,573 posts)In Time To Help Shut Down Next Election
rocktivity
tanyev
(42,540 posts)iluvtennis
(19,843 posts)CaptYossarian
(6,448 posts)They'll have to heavily manipulate the stats to prove the theory.
He'll need Florida's governor to help with the whitewashing.
kimbutgar
(21,103 posts)Were in the midst of a global life threatening pandemic and he wants to set up a commission to investigate the media telling the truth that he doesnt like to hear?
rickyhall
(4,889 posts)machoneman
(4,006 posts)FakeNoose
(32,610 posts)Caliman73
(11,726 posts)The "radical left" is in total command of four of the largest Capitalist ventures on the internet? Really you stupid idiot? That is what you are saying?
Even if the "radical left" were in total control of the four, so what? Where is the illegality? Is Fox News illegal? Is OANN illegal? Breitbart and Drudge? Since when is it illegal for private companies to determine what their content is?
There is no anti-conservative bias on any of those sites. They are moderated by terms of service. The fact is that right wingers tend to be more racist, bigoted, sexist, and vulgar, which runs afoul of TOS is why they get booted more frequently. Be better people and we will allow you to play online.
Finally, the world, especially tech, is about progress. New ideas and new paradigms which leads to the accurate saying that "reality has a liberal bias". We all change whether we think so or not. We have progressed in fits and starts, but always progressed. That doesn't mean that problems of the past have gone away, but it means that people's attitudes about things tend to move toward change, inclusion, and adaptation to new ideas. This means that while conservatism is powerful, it is fighting a losing battle. It doesn't mean that there is willful bias against conservatives, it just means that being stuck in the past and hanging on to outdated ideas is not a sustainable path.
louis-t
(23,284 posts)Just like everything else.
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,577 posts)elleng
(130,825 posts)Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
ancianita
(36,009 posts)And Parscale's bot armies will "peaceably assemble" to redress against all things Democratic or liberal online. And the astroturfers will haul out the gun humpers for news cycle ops.
I hope this goes nowhere. If it doesn't, Stephen Miller will be driving this theater, most likely.
jpak
(41,757 posts)Watch him squirm
yaesu
(8,020 posts)tRump names it the Snowflake Panel.
Salviati
(6,008 posts)Where he had proposed ending the task force he had put together to deal with the pandemic, he's now wanting a task force to deal with the fact that people are mean to him online?
What a fucking snowflake.
bucolic_frolic
(43,115 posts)always trying to game the system, work the refs, fix the outcome, cheat the opposition.
Always.
relayerbob
(6,543 posts)Don't need a "panel" to discuss that.
Fucking assholes, they all need to be sent to Gitmo and the keys thrown in the ocean
GeorgeGist
(25,315 posts)we're smarter than them.
In the long run that's who wins.
forgotmylogin
(7,522 posts)From Wikipedia:
In response to the 1986 Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. F.C.C. decision,[19] the 99th Congress directed[20] the FCC to examine alternatives to the Fairness Doctrine and to submit a report to Congress on the subject.[21] In 1987, in Meredith Corporation v. F.C.C. the case was returned to the FCC with a directive to consider whether the doctrine had been self-generated pursuant to its general congressional authorization or specifically mandated by Congress.[22]
The FCC opened an inquiry inviting public comment on alternative means for administrating and enforcing the Fairness Doctrine.[23] Then, in its 1987 report, the alternativesincluding abandoning a case-by-case enforcement approach, replacing the doctrine with open access time for all members of the public, doing away with the personal attack rule, and eliminating certain other aspects of the doctrinewere rejected by the FCC for various reasons.[24]
On August 5, 1987, under FCC Chairman Dennis R. Patrick, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 40 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision,[25] which was upheld by a panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989, though the Court stated in their decision that they made "that determination without reaching the constitutional issue."[26] The FCC suggested in Syracuse Peace Council that because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional, stating that:
The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.
(emphasis mine)
paleotn
(17,901 posts)It doesn't apply in the US, since neither the public or the government owns cyberspace. Both the hardware and software is mostly privately owned, with a few academic and government data routes and networks thrown in, and a bunch of non-profits, task forces, boards and consortiums, both national and international, with oversight of bits and pieces of how everything works.. It's a redundant, interconnected mish mash, built that way by design. Not cut and dried like public airwaves, with the government licensing private and public organizations to broadcast over various parts of the publicly owned spectrum.
paleotn
(17,901 posts)Online platforms.....private property....what's so hard to understand here, I don't know. Well unless one is a fascist like Donnie.
Firestorm49
(4,030 posts)Im sick and tired of his poor little boo- hoo, theyre picking on me.
Man up or get the f....k out.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,294 posts)He appears to define "illegal" as "not totally subservient to me".
Initech
(100,054 posts)EarthFirst
(2,899 posts)jgmiller
(391 posts)They might form their little commission but it won't get very far because those very same tech giants he loves to demonize are the favorites of wall street. The GOP is morally bankrupt but they still love their money.
Miguelito Loveless
(4,457 posts)Are not doing enough to foster Russian bots and undermine democracy.
But by God, they are trying hard.