It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


White House Drafts Order To Look Into Google, Facebook Practices

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 07:00 AM
a reply to: Ahabstar

Do 90% of US citizens watch either one of those, er any "news" channel?

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 07:08 AM
a reply to: gortex

Are you that blind? The media is completely biased against the administration. It isn't trump that started that war.

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 07:13 AM
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Are those people being forced to use Google? No. There are plenty of other search engines available. Nearly 50% of the population lean to the Right. If Google's bias is so explicit why aren't those people moving to a different service?

The answer is that either the alleged bias is so minor that most people don't notice or they believe that convenience trumps political ideology.

Either way it is those people choosing to use Google. The free market at work.

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 07:17 AM
a reply to: hombero

Are you that blind?

You guys just can't resist can you , my opinion is different to yours so I'm blind.

The media is completely biased against the administration.

Not completely , there's still the bastions of truth that are Fox and Breitbart.

It isn't trump that started that war

I think it is but even if it isn't him who started it he's certainly fueled it.
edit on 22-9-2018 by gortex because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 07:18 AM

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
There are plenty of alternatives to Amazon and Google. Just because they are the largest companies in their field doesn't make them monopolies. If he's going after these two companies why not also target companies like Walmart? Oh that's right. The Waltons are staunch Republicans that support Trump.

This is a clear attack on the free market by a petty man. I don't see how any true Conservatives can support this move.

He's shutting them down? Is he splitting them up? Damn, the part I read is they were going to look into it. Can you quote the part where they are moving forward with bad things?

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 07:20 AM
a reply to: Xcalibur254

The problem is and has been shown on this thread. That a large percentage of the public are unaware of the data manipulation.

But I will agree with your position if google post’s a disclaimer.

*We are biased to the liberal views and will present our search results that way. Do not expect fair non-biased information from our search engine .

I would be cool with that.

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 07:26 AM
a reply to: Xcalibur254
This is the companies curating content. Nothing wrong with that, but it changes their classification.

They have moved from an open platform, to a publisher. Those two definitions are fixed in legal precedent.

This is two things.

* Anti-Trust collusion. Time to subpoena emails and texts between the companies. Was it coordinated? Tied to the DNC?

The only change that is needed to is to reclassify them as Publishers. Which is what they are now... they are curating content beyond what is allowed for open platforms.

This breakdown is worth a read

The dominant social media companies must choose: if they are neutral platforms, they should have immunity from litigation. If they are publishers making editorial choices, then they should relinquish this valuable exemption. They can’t claim that Section 230 immunity is necessary to protect free speech, while they shape, control, and censor the speech on their platforms. Either the courts or Congress should clarify the matter.

They must lose section 230 immunity. They are publishers now.

* If you create your own site, they will censor your server host.

* If you create your own server, they will target your credit card processing ability.

Doing nothing and hiding behind "free markets" (its not), is losers' logic. Just apply EXISTING law.

edit on 22-9-2018 by OneArmedBandit because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 07:29 AM

originally posted by: generik
you really can not break up things like facebook, youtube or twitter. those types of things need to be declared essential, world wide public, communications utilities. and thus be barred from doing things such as censoring or banning people. and being a world wide used utility, you really can not even apply individual country's laws to it. like for instance cock fighting may be illegal in the US, Canada, and many other countries. yet it is perfectly legal to do in many other countries. as such they should not be allowed to ban, or censor talk, video, or pictures of said cock fights. if a cock fight is taking place in an area where it is illegal, than it is for the police and courts in that area to deal with, not facebook, twitter or youtube. marijuana is now becoming legal in different countries and areas. so likewise they should not be allowed to censor or ban people for posting things about marijuana, including pictures of idiots smoking up, and being morons. again if what they are doing is illegal where they are, then again that is up to the police and courts in that area to deal with.

now where they should be breaking things up is where these companies own other comunications sites, such as Google owning youtube and such. thus gaining more power to exert their influance.

I believe that you can break these companies up. In the case of the media conglomerate, I think you should break up the top 5. But with Google, Facebook, and Twitter it isn't whether you can break them up but would that accomplish what we want to do which is open up the internet and discourage political censorship. We need to have large scale censorship to deal with the other factor you demonstrate; variability of laws in different countries. Google and the others already filter content by domain to comply with different laws in other countries.

What we don't want is censorship and manipulation of legal content. The other solution is to regulate the internet as a utility via the FCC. This doesn't break them up but allows a different set of rules.

The idea of Trump having criminal justice agencies look into this for criminal action is interesting. Is it capable of causing wide ranging reform? Recently a group of tech companies urged Sessions to consider using the FTC.

In a letter sent on Friday, tech policy think tanks TechFreedom, which describes itself as "liberty oriented," Lincoln Network and Copia Institute called on Sessions to rethink his pursuit of these companies. Other signatories include tech entrepreneurship group Engine Advocacy, Iain Murray, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, American Legislative Exchange Council CEO Lisa Nelson and law professor Eric Goldman.

With regard to alleged anti-competitive behavior, the activists write that “the degree of a media company’s market power does not change its protection by the First Amendment.” The signatories also urge Sessions to call on the Federal Trade Commission in the event of an investigation. “We do not believe that the Department of Justice, as an arm of an Administration that has so consistently attacked social media companies (as well as traditional media companies), has the independence to act in the neutral, apolitical fashion required by the First Amendment,” they write. “The FTC has already handled multiple investigations into social media companies, and thus already has the relevant expertise in this area.”

Sessions urged not to go after social media companies by technology activists

So, the FTC is already looking into this and the tech companies like what they have done to regulate the situation. In other words - nothing.

Looking at the nature of the problem, we can see that the tech cos. already cooperate closely among themselves. Decades of needing them to agree on technical standards and other matters have taught them to form associations and do this. Now they are doing not just for marketing but for politics. If we break them up, there is no reason to believe they will change this behavior.

Infowars and its host Alex Jones have been banned from a number of services and platforms, including Facebook, YouTube, Apple's iTunes and Podcast app, Spotify, LinkedIn, Pinterest, MailChimp, Vimeo and even porn site YouPorn.

In an announcement on Friday, PayPal says that it has ended its business agreement with the right-wing conspiracy site and its related websites.

PayPal bans Alex Jones' Infowars for promoting 'hate and intolerance'

Next to go will be Alex Jones's bank accounts and insurance coverage if recent experience of the NRA is anything to go by.

I choose the FCC regulation method.

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 07:40 AM

originally posted by: Artemis06
a reply to: generik

Lol why??

They will only be world wide communication nexuses till the next thing comes up.

yes just as telegraphs, then telephones, then cellphones were before. and yet you never saw people being banned from having those devices or having their communications cut off, because the service provider did not like it. and if we deal with this issue now, then there is a least a chance that they will not try to do the same with future versions of communications.

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 08:12 AM
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I am assuming you would have no problem if I stood on the street corner giving the time and date and saying vote Trump? Probably wouldn’t have a problem if I looked homeless and people gave me a dollar or spare change for the service of time and date even though I added the political ad.

Probably wouldn’t have a problem if I wrote the date and general weather conditions (sunny, overcast, chance of rain), sold it for a nickel and it had vote Trump written on it as well.

But what if I had a small crowd gathered around (3-5 people) and I told them the time, date, general weather and what all I saw on that corner so far and summed it up with a vote Trump thrown in at the end? People could either pay or not for this information?

All of those things are covered under the First Amendment. And while you might not like the vote Trump part, it is pretty small scale and harmless. And could have easily been Believe in God as the advertised message or Eat at Joe’s.

So is the problem the action or the scale of audience? Or that Google is a business and not an individual? Maybe the problem is the misconception that since you choose to use the service it should be neutral and unbiased? Or that there must be another street corner loon (in my above example) to balance the vote Trump message?

Part of the acceptance of freedom is that there should not be intrusion unless it is to prevent serious harm to the public. In my above example, if I was shooting those the didn’t repeat back vote Trump, Believe in God or Eat at Joe’s or give me money, then yes, by all means have the cops shut that down quickly.

Or as I said, a PSA of what they are doing is not a problem to point out what isn’t obvious. But forcing a Fairness Doctrine as I said in an earlier post, pretty much means Rush Limbaugh is left with reading the dictionary on air. Thus put out of business quickly all because Liberal Talk Radio doesn’t have a market comparatively.

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 08:17 AM
a reply to: Ahabstar

You must own Google stock.

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 08:27 AM

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: MteWamp

my eyes are open which is why I see what you don't.

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 08:36 AM
Google, bing, ask, Baidu, Yandex and many more are just like television channels IMO. They may have a slant, but not more so than CNN, FOX, MSNBC and all the others.

If you don't like their slant then change the channel or your web browser.

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 08:45 AM

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: MteWamp

So I just ask you, are you simply blind, or are you being purposefully obtuse because you didn't get your way, and your feelings are hurt?
The ONLY voices that are being silenced, are PATRIOTS.

Not blind , not being purposefully obtuse and no my feelings aren't hurt , my eyes are open which is why I see what you don't.

Sorry, I just don't buy it.

However, in the INSANELY unlikely event I'm wrong, why don't you explain to me what it it you "see".

And, if I may ask, can we PLEASE stick to point-by-point specifics?

Care to step into MY parlor?

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 08:54 AM
I might be on the wrong side of this, but Google isn't a government run entity. It's their right to run their corporation as they wish, it's up to the public to be aware of their bias, expose it and seek alternatives if they don't like their politics. Create an alternative to compete with them etc.

If the owners, corporate heads and investors of Google are liberals and want to control or censor content they don't like and/or promote content they do like that is their right.

People need to be aware of it. Outside of that I don't think there is anything that could or should be done about it. It could be a slippery slope if there is, one that leads to a place no one should want.


posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 09:01 AM
a reply to: MteWamp

Trump is using "media bias" and "fake news" as a shield against criticism leveled toward him , it's also something he's using to rally his followers behind him , a weak leader needs an enemy or two to hide his frailties.

The news media is negative against Trump because he's a negative President , he feeds them what they need ,the truth is more fake news comes from him than the media he complains about.

Sorry , no bullet-points.

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 09:10 AM
a reply to: OneArmedBandit

The government messing around in private business. Yeah that's what we need more of.

I am sure you will be happy when more business regulations are made into law.

Regulations are good, right?

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 09:13 AM
a reply to: ColdWisdom

On giving the government more power over the people.

It will for sure get that ball rolling.

But I guess that's what the liberals really want in the end after all. Big government.

They are the party of regulation after all.

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 09:16 AM
Big government.

MORE regulations.

Lets just give the libs what they have wanted for so long.

It's kinda fun to watch the repubs give the libs what they want and then the libs refuse it.....for awhile.
But secretly they are loving all this talk about government control over business.

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 09:24 AM
a reply to: toms54

Hardly. But I understand and respect that my wants and desires do not always coincide with the wants and desires of others.

Ideally there would be no bias or interference of delivering information. That neutrality would be maintained. But it isn’t the case. We all know AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) from TV commercials and mailings when you hit 55. Did you know they are a left bias organization? Snopes, pretty left bias but deny it.

ATS is called right wing or left wing depending on who is griping. But ATS is neutral so long as the T&C’s are followed. And the staff operate by consensus after discussing (sometimes at overwhelmingly great length). That xx staffer delegated a post is only that particular staffer performed the action. I have actioned posts that I personally thought were just inside the line enough but the consensus was that it was out of bounds. Every staffer has done such.

Would I like to see the same neutrality in social media in delivering content? Absolutely. But their house, their rules. Who am I to demand they conform to my expectations? After all, I am still free to decline to use their product, aren’t I? Amazon is a great place for online shopping prices, safe and secure that you are not going to be ripped off on an order. I still price check elsewhere to be sure I am getting the best price. And sometimes that extra browsing history pays off in a price reduction the next time you look at Amazon.

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in