120

did both sides basically do the same thing (using data without the users consent) No, according to your link The people signing up for ["Obama for America"] knew the data they were handing over would be used to support a political campaign. The people filling in the Cambridge University personality quiz were not informed that their data would be ...


79

Mistaken identity It's not clear that the person named by RealClearInvestigations is the actual whistleblower. According to mediabiasfactcheck.com, that website has mixed factual reporting and has frequently run "emotionally loaded headlines" of which they give a few examples. Given the uncertainty as to whether this is the actual whistleblower, it'...


76

I think the misunderstanding comes from how conservatives complain about bias in media and tech. Conservatives often don't call for government action, they just want to shed light on the injustices. For example: “Some of us tell the truth about our government, they call us treasonous and say we’re speaking out of line and they’d like to punish us, and I ...


57

The origins of the "identifying" of the whistle-blower come not from any actual fact or confirmation, but from speculation from a right-wing agenda site that bases the speculation upon similar characteristics matching between this person and the description of the whistle-blower. The obvious problem with the identification is that it has not been factually ...


53

Do European politicians typically do this too (Emphasis mine) Politicians who sport a pronoun in their profile are not typical in the US. I'm struggling to imagine how they might be more common in Europe. If we consider the Democratic candidates for 2020 as a sample, only Warren, Booker, Castro, and Steyer have a pronoun tucked into their Twitter profiles ...


43

According to Facebook, Cambridge Analytica obtained the data from a third party, a Cambridge university researcher, which was in violation of Facebook policy. The Obama campaign got their data openly, under their own name. Whether this is a significant difference from a privacy perspective is perhaps subjective, but there are certainly ethical implications....


40

The constitution only limits and gives power to the branches of government. The constitution does not apply to individual citizens. Basically it tells the federal government what it can and can't do. The original constitution and bill of rights (first 10 amendments) didn't even apply to the state governments until the 14th amendment was passed to essentially ...


34

Interesting question. I compiled a partial answer for Sweden. Swedish is rather similar to English with regards to pronouns and genders. I assumed that if there where any pronouns on twitter pages they would be most common for politicians in the Miljöpartiet (Greens), or Vänsterpartiet (Left). Working from the list of people in the Riksdag we have Party ...


33

It probably depends on what circle of 'conservatives' you're talking to, but the most legitimate complaint I see get thrown around, is that big tech companies should be forced to abide by one of the two legal frameworks that they currently only take the best parts from. Either they are a platform, in which case they shouldn't be censoring anything not ...


33

One legal pathway that has been proposed (ironically, on Twitter) by Republican Senators Marco Rubio and Josh Hawley is some sort of review of Twitter's protections under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Subsection (c) of this section states: (c) Protection for ''Good Samaritan'' blocking and screening of offensive material (1) ...


25

In the US, being a whistleblower is a status that is protected against retaliation by several federal laws. This is to encourage good behavior in government by acting as a check on illegal behavior. President Trump has already engaged in stochastic terrorism by stating that the whistleblower should be executed for treason as a spy. So by refusing to ...


24

You misunderstood that this applies to personal accounts - it was the other way around: they ruled that Trump's "personal" account was de facto a government account and should be treated as such. And it should go without saying that the government can't arbitrarily block people from following and discussing its (even informal) announcements. Trump ...


21

Warning - Polish-centric answer: TLDR: No one tried this in Poland, it would be politically a bad move and linguistically total horror In Polish language we indeed have genders: "kubek" (mug) is "he", "klawiatura" (keyboard) is "she", "drzewo" (tree) is "it". To make everything more complicated "dziecko" (kid) is "it", "osoba" (person) is "she". Gender ...


20

So I'm on the libertarian side with some leftist and some rightist reservations, so I am not a conservative, but I think there are a few points to be made. I think I should note that I don't buy the second point completely, but I have heard the argument be made, so I might not be the best at arguing it. First, expressing dislike about how the market ends up ...


17

You have the right to look for other news sources. "Free speech" is about the government restrictions or compulsions, and the First Amendment was originally about Congress alone. (The Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted as extending those First Amendment protections to cover actions by state and local governments.) It's important to remember that "...


17

I know your question said "legal", and I'm assuming you meant "legal as in profession" vs "legal as in not illegal". However, this being Politics.SE, you would be missing the most obvious retaliatory action, the political one - exemplified by Theodore Roosevelt's pithy phrase describing the Presidency as the Bully Pulpit. In other words, Trump wields one of ...


16

Facebook has stated that: "Any mention of the potential whistleblower’s name violates our coordinating harm policy, which prohibits content ‘outing of witness, informant, or activist.’ We are removing any and all mentions of the potential whistleblower’s name and will revisit this decision should their name be widely published in the media or used by ...


12

For all intents and purposes, nothing. Nothing at all. It's all bluster on his part and wanting to paint himself, yet again, as a victim for his base. The leader of the government unilaterally cracking down on a social media site because he didn't like something they said in response to his posts would be the very epitome of a government "infringing on free ...


11

Okay, this requires a lot to unpack, but I'm going to try here. For the purposes of this discussion, I'll use two "controversial" statements one that will be agreeable to most US society including Facebook ("I like Fireworks on the Fourth of July") and one which is not ("Nickleback is the greatest band ever"). These are meant to avoid actually really nasty ...


11

Attorneys General of 47 states sent a letter to Congress in July of 2013 recommending that the civil and criminal immunity in Section 230 be removed. So there is broad support for doing something to address internet companies' responsibilities, but it is hard to find agreement on what should be done. The ACLU came out in opposition to weakening the law's ...


10

There seems to be a mistaken assumption here that Republicans are one strand of ideology. They're hardly that. They are ranging from Trump's populist protectionism to the now nearly forgotten (inside the party) libertarian thinking. Critics of Trump point out that he has also engaged in a domestic expansion of the state's role in the economy, or at least ...


10

Facebook is not a government organization. It is a private company. As such, the first amendment does not restrict its right to free speech, it protects it. As a private company, they can decide what speech is and is not allowed on their platform. If the government would try to restrict the way Facebook moderates and distributes their content, then it would ...


9

The BBC thinks that it was in regards to Tweets about the poisoning of Skripal: The move is to prevent the WikiLeaks founder from interfering in other countries' affairs, Ecuador said. It comes after Mr Assange questioned accusations that Moscow was responsible for the poisoning of a Russian ex-spy and his daughter in the UK on 4 March. The UK took this ...


9

Are we not entitled as American citizens to expect U.S. based social web empires like Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, etc., to let us determine for ourselves what is factual and what is not as we consume content over the web? You're free to expect it, but you're going to be disappointed. That's because: Conversely, are American content providers ...


8

It might be relevant to read the summary of that proposal on the website of the German Ministry of Justice. I can only find the original German press release and the actual text of the proposed law (also in German) on the website of a lawyer. A short summary of the summary: The only content which needs to be removed is content which is violating existing ...


8

The reason there is a discrepancy that arose your need to ask the question is because the question is based on incorrect understanding of what the media companies do. All of the companies listed (not all media companies, but all the ones listed in the question), mainly function in one of two business models: produce content directly sold to consumer (...


8

Well, there is not really any law authorizing the GFW (Great Firewall) at all. Why do you expect that this has violated a law? If I must pick one law that it violated, then I'd say it violated Article 12 of the Cyber Security Law of the PRC, which forbids using the Internet to "injure the State's security, honor and interests", or to "infringe on other ...


8

Republicans are not anarcho-capitalist. They want free markets for most things, but not a certain set of things. Economic freedom is not the only concern, for republicans as well as democrats. For example they don't want a free market on drugs, because that is perceived to harm society more than the restriction to economic (or personal) freedom caused by ...


7

Yes, the Lords in the UK did debate this in January of 2018. From parliament.uk: Lords debates online news and content publishers Members of the Lords, including a former government digital champion and the shadow spokesperson for digital, culture, media and sport, debated the role played by social media and online platforms as news and content ...


7

Not as far as I can tell. As part of its obligations under the NetzDG law, Twitter is required to publish a biannual report regarding the handling of complaints submitted pursuant to this law, which can be found here. In the latest, Report July - December, 2019, the decision criteria for removal is described: Entscheidungskriterien Jede erhaltene NetzDG-...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible