Trump Considers Forming Panel to Review Complaints of Online Bias

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

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 we’re 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]

1. TRANSLATION: Trump Takes First Step Toward Shutting Down Internet

In Time To Help Shut Down Next Election


rocktivity

[tanyev]

2. Ministry of Truth.

[iluvtennis]

3. A waste of our taxpayer money. I'd rather the money go to workers laid off because of CV-19. nt

[CaptYossarian]

4. Is he f**king kidding?

They'll have to heavily manipulate the stats to prove the theory.

He'll need Florida's governor to help with the whitewashing.

[kimbutgar]

5. Blah blah all talk just bs

We’re 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 doesn’t like to hear?

[rickyhall]

6. What about right wing bias in his administration?

[machoneman]

7. So, let's really stick it up his big fat ass: Get Twitter to block him permanently. Fixed!

[FakeNoose]

25. Yep start with him - banned for life!

[Caliman73]

8. Wow he is an idiot.

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]

9. He'll fail at that, too.

Just like everything else.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

10. Doesn't the First Amendment prohibit this?

[elleng]

11. Yes, it would appear to do so.

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]

19. This is a symbolic act to foment "media is the enemy of the people" sentiment.

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]

12. Yank his Twitter account

Watch him squirm

[yaesu]

13. Breaking News!

tRump names it the Snowflake Panel.

[Salviati]

14. In the midst of a pandemic that has killed 100,000 Americans and rising

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]

15. WHINER IN CHIEF

always trying to game the system, work the refs, fix the outcome, cheat the opposition.

Always.

[relayerbob]

16. But harassing and shooting black people for *fill in the blank* is OK

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]

17. The one thing they always forget ...

we're smarter than them.

In the long run that's who wins.

[forgotmylogin]

18. Wasn't this what the Fairness Doctrine was about?

From Wikipedia:

In 1985, under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the FCC released its report on General Fairness Doctrine Obligations[18] stating that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. The Commission could not, however, come to a determination as to whether the doctrine had been enacted by Congress through its 1959 Amendment to Section 315 of the Communications Act.

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 alternatives—including 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 doctrine—were 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 4–0 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]

23. Free speech rights over public airwaves isn't the same....

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]

20. Yea...whatever.

Online platforms.....private property....what's so hard to understand here, I don't know. Well unless one is a fascist like Donnie.

[Firestorm49]

21. If the idiot can't handle it, he should do all of us a favor and quit.

I’m sick and tired of his poor little boo- hoo, they’re picking on me.

Man up or get the f....k out.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. Those radical left, multi-billion dollar businesses

He appears to define "illegal" as "not totally subservient to me".

[Initech]

24. They can dish it out, but they sure as hell can't take it.

[EarthFirst]

26. He sure wasn't complaining when they offered him billions worth of pro bono air time in '16... nt

[jgmiller]

27. Just more red meat for his base

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]

28. Apparently Zuckerberg and Dorsey

Are not doing enough to foster Russian bots and undermine democracy.

But by God, they are trying hard.

[ancianita]

29. Yeah the bots will swarm in over this one. Dictatorship by AI beats down all discourse.