White House Launches Tool To Report Political Bias On Social Media Sites (theverge.com) 402
On Wednesday, the White House launched a new tool for people to use if they feel they've been wrongly censored, banned, or suspended on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. "No matter your views, if you suspect political bias caused such an action to be taken against you, share your story with President Trump," the site reads. The Verge reports: The tool asks users for screenshots and links regarding specific enforcement actions, specifying Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Youtube as platforms of interest. (None of the companies immediately responded to a request for comment.) The tool also collects significant personal information from the user, and near the end invites users to opt into email newsletters from President Trump, "so we can update you without relying on platforms like Facebook and Twitter." A separate question points users to an extensive user agreement, and makes clear that "you understand this form is for information gathering only."
The Autocracy is already here. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Autocracy is already here. (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no Autocracy. There is no bias. That is a conspiracy theory.
We do not take sides. We believe in freedom of speech. We have the right to freedom of association to ban those whose speech does not adhere to our community guidelines. We have the right to ban those whose speech does adhere to our community guidelines. We are a public platform and not a publisher.
Your speech from five years ago has been found to be offensive.
Oops, you apparently have some political power. The banning was an accident.
No all the sites banning you at once was not collusion.
You are now denied service by the payment processor cartel. Your appeals are also denied.
The hate mob actively working to deplatform and dox you does not violate our terms of service.
We will not allow you to be searched for, only those who debunk your theories.
Your continued insistence to not dissapear from public view has some people feel uncomfortable or unsafe. Therefore you are a dangerous person, an extremist, or a terrorist.
You are a threat to our democracy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Most people don't want to share a social network with Nazis. Therefore he social networks kick them off. If you force them to keep the Nazis, they will either wither and die or move overseas where your draconian laws can't touch them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people don't want to share a social network with Nazis
Where "Nazi" is defined in a suitably flexible way.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, there are true Nazis. The problem is how flexible the term has become and how broad its definition now is. Things like "There are only 2 genders", or "I think merit based hiring is better than hiring for diversity" is now considered to be Nazism by some people who seem to be holding the reins at Social Media "platforms" (ie, let's just call them publishers).
Re: (Score:3)
Sometimes I can't tell if what you post is satire or stupidity.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the biggest load of horse shit I've read on Slashdot going back to its very inception.
The media has been declared an enemy of the people;
No more White House press briefings;
Obstruction of Justice;
Travel bans;
Legislative oversight has been refused, denied, ignored;
Children in cages;
Judiciary has been delegitimized;
Incitements of violence;
Rally after rally after rally filled to the brim with Orwellian lies.
The Autocracy is here.
The DOJ has refused MULTIPLE subpeonas from the House.
THE AUTOCRACY IS HER
obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
“Nothing limits intelligence more than ignorance; nothing fosters ignorance more than one's own opinions; nothing strengthens opinions more than refusing to look at reality.”
Sheri S. Tepper, The Visitor
Re: (Score:2)
But you proved that the hyperbole was first.
Re: The Autocracy is already here. (Score:5, Insightful)
I despise the whining of people who think it is as simple as "left" and "right".
The spectrum of beliefs is a lot more complex than that. Take me for example. I believe in the right to bear arms. But I also believe in universal health care (as in free health care). Awwww shit I don't fit in your stupid left/right box.
I believe in capitalism and the free market, but I also believe you need a social welfare system for those that don't succeed. Damn, what will you do?
Have a little more nuance.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I know I'm now confused. Why mention copyright?
How cute! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Or I think what is really being su
Re:How cute! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
All that has to stop is the stupid opinion pieces. Every single article that hits google on even my news feed has a slant either for or against (mostly against) Trump instead of just reporting what in the actual fuck is going on. It's all become tabloid shit. It's basically gotten rid of any and all real news so in that regard Trump is correct. There is almost no real news anymore because all of it has slanted opinions in its writing saying horrible or great or we'll lose or we'll win. I've got to read other countries news about USA to read actual news anymore.
Even without the very overt opinions and commentary slanting news is also done a bit more subtlety by what you omit. NPR is the biggest offender that jumps to mind, where the will spend 99% of their time on the liberal view with lots of interviews from various sources then only give a sentence or two to an opposing viewpoint. People come away thinking that they are informed when they actually only know half the story.
Re:How cute! (Score:5, Insightful)
then only give a sentence or two to an opposing viewpoint
One of the most pernicious things to happen recently is the supposed "balanced reporting" where "opposing viewpoints" are reported on some sort of even vaguely even footing. Not every side has two reasonable viewpoints.
Re:How cute! (Score:5, Informative)
Back when I was in college, the school newspaper ran an article by a Holocaust denier. (Full blown "the Holocaust never happened and those millions of people weren't actually killed.") When I confronted the editor and asked him why he published this garbage, he replied that he was "just presenting both sides of the argument." There are many topics where there are many different viewpoints, but there are some topics where there aren't two sides. If I claimed that gravity is just a phony idea planted in our head by the Illuminati and we can all actually fly if we just reject it, should media outlets publish my views to present "both sides of the issue"?
A free and open press doesn't mean presenting every opinion regardless of the facts.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Why? It's analogous to bringing the village idiot into an auditorium and listening carefully to them for a day, before everyone trying to explain why they're wrong, getting a double glazed expression, then having exactly the same words reiterated from them.
It gets old fast. Just the other day, I had an evolution denier try to 'debate' with me. Every assertion was false, and I proved it false, then the frothing lunacy started from them (assertions that "they knew science better than I did", irrespective o
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
How would you know if there is an opposing viewpoint if you never let the opposing side talk?
Because the opposite side is actually talking. And talking. And it just wants more platforms, while being completely disinterested in actual discussion.
As an experiment, try to go to Breitbart, find an article that clearly misstates the facts and try to post corrections in the comments. You'll see the result.
Re: How cute! (Score:3)
I don't know when you listen to NPR but I'll have it an an hour or two per day. What I hear are researched stories discussing people in America, their successes and struggles. I've listened to very civil interviews with members of Congress from both political parties. I don't recall a time when the interviewer pushed a certain viewpoint.
Re: How cute! (Score:5, Interesting)
I listen to their podcasts, chiefly up first and npr politics. I find they do a fantastic job of trying to present both sides without blatantly spreading misinformation just because a politician said it. Sometimes you can hear them forcing their own bile down while playing devil's advocate for some stupid crap Sarah Huckabee Sanders decided to throw out there.
I also listen to planet money, and I would say they definitely advance a conservative fiscal viewpoint more often than a liberal one. But people are going to see bias where they have been primed to see bias.
Re:How cute! (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump does say and do a lot of exceptionally stupid stuff, so it would require bias to skew the range of views towards a 50/50 balance of for and against. Maybe NPR just accurately reflects the proportion of views on either side.
It's not secret that even a lot of Republicans don't like Trump. And most experts on any subject tend to disagree with him. Accurately representing that is not bias.
Re: (Score:3)
You know, somewhere in the 90s we seem to have lost sight of the fact that a newsman's job was not only to report what happened, but point out the blatant lies instead of mindlessly parroting them. These days we label fact checking as bias.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How cute! (Score:4, Insightful)
Curiously, the one media stream that still separates news/opinion to some degree is "infamously conservative" fox. The left is (I believe disingenuously) apparently unable to distinguish the difference between the divisions.
Wow, that Kool-aid must be absolutely delicious!
Re:How cute! (Score:5, Insightful)
There is only one major news channel with a conservative tilt, and it gets constantly bashed by the liberals as if one is too many.
No, the issue is that they've been both proven to be a propaganda arm of the GOP, and they've been caught lying repeatedly, and on a regular basis.
For the first (propaganda arm), not only are their actions proof (refusing to report anything negative about Republicans, massively misrepresenting facts, and passing off anything from Republican sources with no fact checking), but there have been leaks of internal memos that have proven that Fox and the GOP have made coordinated efforts to make sure they do the same talking points on the same days, and focus on the same issues at the same time.
For the second (lying), it's not that hard to find - from parroting anything from the Trump administration that is easily proven false, to fabricating stories. They've even been found to have fired reporters who refused to falsify information on stories when the facts didn't support the Fox/GOP narrative.
A true right-leaning news channel would be fine. One that is proven to be propaganda and lies is not.
Oh this is funny as hell (Score:3, Insightful)
It's almost as if 3 years of
"Russia Collusion"
"The President is about to be impeached"
By all the major over the air networks and CNN and MSNBC (maddow had 50% of her output as Russia collusion)
Never happened.
You have achieved a negative level of introspection
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone who thought the president was about to be impeached didn't look at the composition of either the House *or* the Senate. Given the composition of the Senate, there is practically nothing that would lead to a conviction. The House is able to impeach whenever it want to, on any ground it feels sufficient. (The specifications in the Constitution are quite vague and subject to a HUGE amount of interpretation. Wikipedia thinks : The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduc
Re: (Score:2)
"Russian Collusion" is primarily a phrase coined in the White House. Since it has no legal basis one cannot be found guilty or innocent of it.
Actually, the media never said the President is about to be impeached, but if all the networks said it, it should be easy to cite a source to prove me wrong..
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile Trump is also continuing to campaign, with regular rallies. That's how it works now, it's permanent election footing.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
A true right-leaning news channel would be fine.
Except that it wouldn't. It would be labeled, with no evidence, as racist / homophobic / some other claim and dismissed. That's one problem with discourse now, the left is more interested in ad hominem attacks and thinks that if they can discredit the other person's motives then they don't have to deal with the actual arguments. Here's an example: https://www.dailywire.com/news... [dailywire.com]
Re:How cute! (Score:5, Insightful)
Depending on exactly which version of right-wing the news channel was backing, racist and homophobic might be an accurate description. Actual libertarians, or believers in small government are quite thin on the ground, so what do *you* mean right-wing? If it involves denying facts, then I, at least, won't have any respect for it, and will put it in the same bucket as FOX. (The category I label "Why would I watch that garbage?".)
Re: (Score:3)
Great. But if you shot someone, to deny it is to lie. Context is important in understanding the significance of the action, not of what the action was.
If you say "illegal immigration is a problem", that is neither a fact nor a homophobic statement. It's an opinion that does not specify how you would measure it in the real world. There may be measurements that you would promote that would convert the statement of an opinion into a homophobic attack, but you haven't mentioned any.
Equally, being "racist" i
Re: (Score:2)
That's one problem with discourse now, the left is more interested in ad hominem attacks
aaaaahahahahahahahaha.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody seems to hate the right like the right. We all know Hillary was referring to the alt right as the deplorables. For some reason the right wants to paint all everyday Republican voters as those deplorables.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
the left is more interested in ad hominem attacks
Where as you prefer to just label anyone who disagrees and then make sweeping generalizations about the entire group you just assigned them to.
Re:How cute! (Score:5, Informative)
There is only one major news channel with a conservative tilt, and it gets constantly bashed by the liberals as if one is too many.
The right-tilting Sinclair group owns hundreds of local stations as well, and they absolutely have a script to follow. It's quite Orwellian. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
CNN is conservative, it's just anti-Trump, and that only for ratings. MSNBC is a hapless mess. Their top rated show is an anti-Trump conservative, Joe Scarborough.
nice moderation (Score:2)
It must be tough when you don't have a convenient talking point to regurgitate, but at least you can always default to oppressing views you don't like!
Re: (Score:3)
It is not clear how effective the Russian intervention was. Certainly, you have described their intent, and any collaborator should be considered an unregistered agent of the Russian government, but there have been many questions as to how effective the intervention was.
OTOH, the long term effect of Russian, and other, trolls on the social disharmony is pretty clear. The destructive influence of back-biting gossip has long been known, and social media intensify the effect. But note the "and other". How
Re: (Score:3)
The scale and effectiveness of the Russian effort is a lot better known than has been publicized. See for example the slow dribble, two years later, of news about how widespread county-level voting system hacking was.
Re: (Score:2)
The scale and effectiveness of the Russian effort is a lot better known than has been publicized. See for example the slow dribble, two years later, of news about how widespread county-level voting system hacking was.
Citation needed. Of course those 'news' sources are only going to finger Russian attempts at our election systems, not Chinese, not Iranian, not Israel. The whole point of national intelligence agencies is to penetrate other country's government systems, but we're only going to cite Russian attempts and not provide any context or scale for comparison, because Russia is the boogey man the media needs for ratings.
Re: (Score:2)
These are private platforms they can do what they want!
No, they can not.
They must for instance conform to standard accounting practices, obey employment laws and avoid bribing foreign officials.
Is it really so onerous to also expect them to respect protected characteristics such as race, gender and political views?
Re: (Score:2)
Yet now that leftists (for the moment) control large parts of the internet, organized political activism by the corporations with that control isn't a problem, it is a feature.
Uhhh... according to what source? The vast majority of liberals I know find the centralization of power into Facebook and Google to be a concern. Their political influence is also a concern. If you paid any attention there have been mentions by several Democratic politicians about stronger government controls on them and possible anti-trust actions against them.
The only reason there's not a larger push on those directly right now is because FB/Twitter/etc. are currently under a microscope over the foreign i
Re: (Score:2)
Should I show you my feed? It's full of nothing but right wing propaganda. In fact, it's one of the reasons I don't log in to Facebook any more. I'm tired of seeing the same old tropes that are either false (global warming), untrue (the Muller report exonerated the President... it didn't), or just blatant lies (the libs are taking your guns in WA).
If you think the right doesn't get their say on social media, then you really need to re-evaluate what you're looking at because I see a shit ton more stuff from
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hate to bust your bubble, but those attempts have been made already for 'Conservative Friendly' versions of various online sites. https://thehill.com/opinion/te [thehill.com]... [thehill.com] They've failed. Why? Because the reverb in the echo chamber was just too much for most sane people.
Look at what all Gab, Bit Chute, Subscribestar, and other so-called "alt-tech" projects are suffering. The Left said "go make your own platform and payment processor 'muh private corporation!'" and they did, and guess what? You've got the likes of freaking *Mastercard* and others pressuring banking, financial/payment services, internet services, and social media platforms to "de-person" certain social and political voices, ideas, and opinions both online and by blocking their ability to engage in basic fina
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
In recent news, Google and Firefox banning the Dissenter extension. Because you need to be told what to think, and be shielded from any unapproved opinions, that's why.
Re:How cute! (Score:5, Informative)
Look at what all Gab, Bit Chute, Subscribestar, and other so-called "alt-tech" projects are suffering
Yeah gab is stuffed full of death threats to the point where the guy who runs it is asking people to stop because it's edging. I'm sure that's the fault of teh libruhls somehow..
The Left said "go make your own platform and payment processor 'muh private corporation!'"
The left used a right-wing point, Evil fuckers how could the do that?
You've got the likes of freaking *Mastercard* and others pressuring banking, financial/payment services, internet services, and social media platforms to "de-person"
Wait so do you support the typically right wing talking point of freedom of businesses? Or is it only OK when it doesn't affect you personally?
Now as a dyed in the wool lefty (by American standards; I'm pretty centrist by European standards) I think corporations are way too powerful, especially near monopolies like mastercard. Excessive power of corporations has been a bugbear of the left since forever. Funny that a dyed in the wool rightwinger only starts complaining when it hurts you AND then somehow manages to blame the political side that's been against it.
That's some impressive mental gymnastics there my man. I hope you stretched properly first otherwise you might strain yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Gab's loss of credit card processing was nothing to do with Mastercard. They had a deal with "Second Amendment Payments", and it turned out that the boss had previous convictions for financial crimes so they ditched them.
What is your plan for Mastercard? Could nationalize them I guess. Or force them to process all payments, but there would need to be some way for them to handle fraud and boot off users who abused the system.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but there are diseases that can be cured by yoga. Especially if you include awareness meditation and not just "Hatha Yoga for suburbans".
Astrology as practiced by newspapers is bullshit. Astrology as practiced by "Old Farmer's Almanac" is reasonably useful.
If you don't thing any race is oppressed in the US, you must be looking in different places and at different statistics than I have. And if you don't think women are oppressed, you are blind. It would be fair to claim that they are LESS oppress
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, bias is different from being propaganda. If you read something biased you can allow for the bias and figure out what's actually going on. (Well, ok, that's an ideal case.)
EVERYTHING that anyone writes is biased. They observe the world from a particular place and with a particular set of priors, which will affect how they interpret what they see. Etc.
OTOH, in my experience when I've personally observed something being reported on the media bias is in favor of exciting rather than in favor o
For those of you keeping score at home (Score:5, Informative)
Also, where was the libertarian outrage when Trump praised Xi [reuters.com] for declaring himself President for Life? Can you imagine the shit storm if Obama had done that? I can't. It's like trying to imagine infinity. I understand the concept but the human mind just can't grasp some things...
Re:For those of you keeping score at home (Score:4, Informative)
Instead, I think this is genuinely important. All platforms aren't slashdot and on places like reddit political censorship is very real, in part done by mods and in part enforced by the site itself.
After the bomb attacks by a Muslim group on Christians in Sri Lanka
/r/news has a rule that only one post about an event may be kept and the post the moderators allowed was one by Al Arabiya, a media company controlled by the Saudi State, broadcasting primarily in Arabic, which lacked many pertinent facts that were known at the time, such as that the victims were Christians or that the perpetrators were a Muslim group. It also, performed similar censorship in that thread.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, where was the libertarian outrage when Trump praised Xi [reuters.com] for declaring himself President for Life? Can you imagine the shit storm if Obama had done that? I can't. It's like trying to imagine infinity. I understand the concept but the human mind just can't grasp some things...
It turns out POTUS can constantly say dumb things and get away with it. Who knew?
Re: (Score:2)
Why lie about something easily provable?
That's Trumps job.
I like what you're doing (Score:2)
Um... Are you sure about this? (Score:4, Interesting)
This "tool" isn't hosted or mentioned on either the official White House website OR Trump's 2020 campaign site that I have found....
Where I certainly don't know for sure, this may be "fake news"... Just sayin'
Does anybody have actual confirmation from some official source, Sara Sanders, An official announcement or even a Trump Tweet that points to this? We really need to make sure this is official before we start into this debate too far..
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. It is hosted on a "survey" platform, so anyone for $700 could put this up and "claim" to be the White House.
Sorry I don't have any mod points.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the Trump administration makes you think that conducting official business with surveymonkey is out of character?
Oxymoron defined ... (Score:3)
... actual confirmation from some official source, Sara Sanders ...
Re moron defined ... (Score:2)
... actual confirmation from some official source, Sara Sanders ...
Oxymoron : a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction
You mean the official press sectary isn't an official source or she would be unable to officially confirm this came from the White House if it had?
Who's the moron here?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... Are you saying the White House Press Secretary is not an official source?
Re:Oxymoron defined ... (Score:4, Informative)
Well, if you like horseshit [newsweek.com], I guess.
Here's GOP strategist take on it:
Sarah Huckabee Sanders Is a ‘Liar’ Who Spews ‘Horseshit’ For Trump, GOP Strategist Says
Re: (Score:2)
We really need to make sure this is official before we start into this debate too far..
Now that's just crazy talk...
Re: (Score:2)
Good point but real or not (Score:2)
That said, I get this kind of stuff all the time as fundraising crap. I gave Bernie $50 bucks so I'm on every fundraising list on earth now. I get emails from "Nancy Pelosi" of all people hitting me up for "questionnaires" that always seem to end with a place for me to put my CC details in... So it's possible this is nothing more than a way to get names/addresses from politica
Re: (Score:2)
"We are aware of the connectivity issues some players are experiencing. We are investigating and working on a solution."
Before Trump, you still believed the news wasnt fake, and the term "fake news" wasnt even a thing.
The media coined the term "fake news" and then it backfired on them because most people arent stupid.
Re:Um... Are you sure about this? (Score:5, Informative)
Try the Official WhiteHouse Twitter pimping it...
https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1128765001223663617
Re: (Score:2)
Which goes to a shortening service which goes to that site.
This is all a bit shady AF. Or incompetent. Not sure which yet. Doesn't pass the smell test.
Re: (Score:3)
The Verge does not seem to link to any source for this.
All the Verge does is regurgitate a bunch of stuff that has nothing at all to do with the survey specifically, where it came from, or who's behind it. Either that reporter didn't do any digging, or did and didn't find any actual way to tie this to the White House beyond the use of the term "whitehouse" in the URL to the survey.
This is either piss poor reporting or an attempt to manufacture news. Got to find some official way to tie this to the administration or to the 2020 campaign or it wasn't news wor
Irony (Score:4, Interesting)
The greatest irony here is that if Twitter followed their own terms of service, Drumpf would have been banned himself.
I'm surprised people are taking this seriously (Score:2)
Its hosted on a public non .gov website with a aws issued certificate. It doesn't appear to be announced on Trump's crazy twitter, or whitehouse.gov either.
I predict it will take maybe 10 minutes before bots are filling this out with nonsense data.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice - citizenship data getting stored in EU. Awesome.
I know, finally some protection for it.
LOLWUT? (Score:2)
These websites are literally allowed to discriminate against users for any reason. They aren't doing that (users are the product, duh!) but if they desired to then they have the right to do so because they are offering you a service without charge.
I'm pretty sure our President is suffering from stage 4 windmill sound cancer. ;)
Viva! (Score:4, Insightful)
Next, we need a tool on whitehouse.gov where we can report anyone on social media who does not agree that the President's new suit of clothes is exceptionally fine and makes him look young and slender.
Re:Viva! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll bet that sounded smarter in the original Russian.
Typical Trump White House Online Effort (Score:2)
Translation: Those web sites are on to us so let us know how to continue sending you crazy wingnut propaganda, bizarre conspiracy theories, and come-ons for campaign donations.
I hope they go after Breitbart (Score:2)
Wow! Thanks for finally joining the party (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure everyone on Slashdot is aware of the common mantra that's tossed about. Laws need to be modernize. What I'm not at all surprised is how there were tons in the public and early days of the Internet screaming from the hills "Light Touch Internet!!!". Well let's see what happens when we regulate something as absolutely as little as possible.... Oh that's right, folks sitting around a table talking about profit get to set the ground rules.
Absolute shock.
Now someone's feelings are being hur
all for show (Score:2)
It's just a show, you fill in the form, they'll do nothing with it, they say so themselves;
"you understand this form is for information gathering only."
Re: (Score:2)
That's it, you're fired.
Re: (Score:2)
That's it, you're fired.
The new hip term is: cancelled [urbandictionary.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Trump has once again chosen the side of white nationalists.
How do you come to that conclusion? Do you believe that only white nationalists are censored?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The only time the media was united in approval for Trump's actions was when he authorized missile strikes against Syria.
Figure out where their real loyalties are. What actually passes for 'ethics in journalism'. Consider historical support for disastrous foreign policies, of deliberately misinforming when providing unbiased analysis and an accurate world view could have prevented such actions. Consider the journalists who were fired for trying to do exactly that.
There are ramifications of such unreliable, m
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe because it's a cooked up story and not officially blessed by the White House? IDK, Just sayin' it's possible. The Verge is a Vox property and Vox isn't known for it's objective journalistic ethics so it fits that this *could* be manufactured news.
Where I don't put this past Trump's folks to attempt something like this, I'm not going to be surprised if this turns out to be a fake news story, or at least a new story that was started by a fake survey done by somebody not associated with the current
Re: (Score:2)
It's real. From a prior post:
https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse... [twitter.com]
https://wh.gov/techbias [wh.gov]
Re:Lol slashdot is just trolling (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is this not in the whitehouse.gov news?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/
Because at some point the site and information they're using will be used for political and/or re-election mailings and donation requests and using the official Whitehouse site would be illegal for such things.
The tool also collects significant personal information from the user, and near the end invites users to opt into email newsletters from President Trump, "so we can update you without relying on platforms like Facebook and Twitter."
They don't really care about bias and censorship, they care about collecting your info so they can (a) send you misinformation (that may violate the user agreements of sites like Facebook, Twitter, etc... but probably not sites like Gab) and (b) ask you for money -- to help (c) combat bias and censorship and (d) help Trump get re-elected.
Re:Freedom of speech (Score:5, Informative)
Freedom of speech is freedom FROM the government, not BY the government.
Where I agree, you do get that it's not usually the right who are trying to infringe on free speech in any way correct? We don't pass laws limiting speech, we don't advocate policy that infringes on speech, telling you what you can and cannot say, what's acceptable and what's not. In fact, quite the opposite is true of the rank and file on the other side, where violence and riots are commonplace, defining "hate speech" as voicing an opinion contrary to the collective's and even going so far as to pass laws that infringe on speech and religious expression in public circles.
Free speech means that folks get offended from time to time, but being offended does NOT justify violence... Government must PROTECT the freedom to speak, as well as not pass laws that infringe on the right to express one's opinions freely, even when such opinions are odious to the majority. Yet, there are those who will gladly use Government to control your freedoms.. If you let them...
Re: (Score:3)
it's not usually the right who are trying to infringe on free speech in any way correct?
So laws against pornography, laws against violent content, free speech zones, mobs going after people for "political correctness" or being an "SJW" are not coming from the right? It wasn't the right calling for Stephen Colbert to be banned when he described Trump's mouth as Putin's cock holster?
Re: (Score:3)
How is a Platform private when it's stock is publicly traded on the markets?
Private, as in not owned by the people via their government.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any actual evidence that Bezos sponsored this?
Just that DNS records showing the largest hosting provider on the planet happens to host a website demonstrates that the website is hosted there. Nothing more.