Web Censorship and Political Bias

It’s amazing how free market capitalism is a good thing until private companies make product decisions vocal people don’t like.
 
It’s amazing how free market capitalism is a good thing until private companies make product decisions vocal people don’t like.
I believe these companies have been given status that protects them from lawsuits over content which doesn't really allow this argument to stand up to scrutiny. They've testified to Congress that they are not a publisher, and do not make editorial/publishing decisions, so they should be sheltered from content lawsuits. They are a technology company that does little more than provide avenues for communication--much like the telephone company, or a library, or a newsstand.

But they obviously make editorial/publishing decisions.

They're trying to have their cake and eat it too. That's not free market capitalism. It's crony capitalism.

Platform, or Publisher?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Electric Orange
CNN settles Nick Sandmann defamation lawsuit in Covington Catholic High School controversy

CNN on Tuesday settled a defamation lawsuit filed by Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann over its botched coverage of a viral confrontation with a Native American elder that had portrayed the Kentucky teen as the aggressor.
Fox 19 first reported that CNN settled with Sandmann for an undisclosed amount. The $250 million defamation suit sought damages for the "emotional distress Nicholas and his family suffered" in the fallout of the network's reporting.
A lawyer for Sandmann declined to comment on the settlement but confirmed to Fox News that lawsuits against The Washington Post and NBC were ongoing. Fox 19 also reported that Sandmann attorney L. Lin Wood told the judge they planned to sue media company Gannett, the publisher of the Cincinnati Enquirer among other newspapers, within 60 days. Gannett did not immediately comment either.
...
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
I believe these companies have been given status that protects them from lawsuits over content which doesn't really allow this argument to stand up to scrutiny. They've testified to Congress that they are not a publisher, and do not make editorial/publishing decisions, so they should be sheltered from content lawsuits. They are a technology company that does little more than provide avenues for communication--much like the telephone company, or a library, or a newsstand.

But they obviously make editorial/publishing decisions.

They're trying to have their cake and eat it too. That's not free market capitalism. It's crony capitalism.

Platform, or Publisher?
Cant be both
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Vol1321
NPR is just another DNC communication outlet

As someone who makes the conscious decision to listen to NPR, I find much of the hatred and vitriol towards it to be unwarranted. I listen to NPR because:
  • The news is presented in a "just the facts" manner without spin
  • There is a clear, unambiguous delineation between news and opinion segments
  • Unless sources are protected due to confidentiality agreements or NDA, all source information is provided clearly in a manner where the listener can corroborate.
  • Any accusations of bias are dealt with openly and quickly, including the dismissal of individuals responsible
As for the other programs, stations are allowed to pick and choose their own programming based on donations and donor input. Most NPR stations are like WUoT - classical music, occasional jazz, and just the news. Other stations' patrons may request other shows. If you don't like it, don't donate during that time slot.

When I was younger and angry, I tried listening to Mark Levin. It was just a commercial feed occasionally interrupted by an angry man yelling his opinion into a microphone. I found when I turned off Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin, I became a happier person overall and easier to be around.
 

VN Store



Back
Top