CDZ Do I have to allow you to post on my website?

[Toronado3800]

This is going to be some random thoughts on an issue I am riding the fence on. Generally I don't find modern life that different than that of Ptolemy's time so even with the internet I just draw on existing laws. This one has me though.

Assuming my website is not an absolute monopoly on something do I have to allow your posts?

If I own a bar I have to serve everyone, even Americans of German descent who can't prove they fought the fatherland in the great war. I don't have to let everyone have a microphone though.

If I own a business, lets say a church, I certainly don't have to let everyone speak. I probably have to let everyone in.

The town's square has to reasonably let everyone in and speak.

The internet sorta is public property, there are a lot of power cables and fibers laid across everyone's private property enabling me to have a website. Them posts are going on my server though.

Throw some more analogies at me from each point of view!

 

[Pogo]

This is going to be some random thoughts on an issue I am riding the fence on. Generally I don't find modern life that different than that of Ptolemy's time so even with the internet I just draw on existing laws. This one has me though.

Assuming my website is not an absolute monopoly on something do I have to allow your posts?

Certainly not. And the YouTubes and the USMBs and the Fecesbooks (whatever) all begin with a registration which includes TOS rules. We here all agreed to pass that portal before we posted at all, and the same goes for other sites.

These wags this week who seem to be whining "the internet owes me a website" sound a lot like "the world owes me a living". And inasmuch as the week before they were crowing about 'socialism' the irony therein is deep.

 

[Ringel05]

This is going to be some random thoughts on an issue I am riding the fence on. Generally I don't find modern life that different than that of Ptolemy's time so even with the internet I just draw on existing laws. This one has me though.

Assuming my website is not an absolute monopoly on something do I have to allow your posts?

If I own a bar I have to serve everyone, even Americans of German descent who can't prove they fought the fatherland in the great war. I don't have to let everyone have a microphone though.

If I own a business, lets say a church, I certainly don't have to let everyone speak. I probably have to let everyone in.

The town's square has to reasonably let everyone in and speak.

The internet sorta is public property, there are a lot of power cables and fibers laid across everyone's private property enabling me to have a website. Them posts are going on my server though.

Throw some more analogies at me from each point of view!

Think of the internet as sidewalks, streets and highways, websites as homes and businesses.

 

[candycorn]

Well, I will point out something I put on another thread.

Facebook has a website
Alex Jones has a website

Facebook makes videos
Alex Jones makes videos

Earlier this week, Facebook made the decision to no longer allow Alex Jones to have a channel on their website.

Facebook (FB) removed four videos from the pages last week after determining that they violated its hate speech and bullying policies. It also suspended the personal profile of Jones.

The company said that more content from the pages had since been reported, and it had decided to remove them for "repeated violations of community standards and accumulating too many strikes."

"Upon review, we have taken it down for glorifying violence ... and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies," said Facebook.

Here is my analogy (if you wish to call it that)…
If, as some have pontificated, Facebook should be required to post Alex Jones’s material on their website…
Shouldn’t Alex Jones be required to air Facebook’s videos without edit, commentary, or prejudice?

 

[Toronado3800]

Well, I will point out something I put on another thread.

Facebook has a website
Alex Jones has a website

Facebook makes videos
Alex Jones makes videos

Earlier this week, Facebook made the decision to no longer allow Alex Jones to have a channel on their website.

Facebook (FB) removed four videos from the pages last week after determining that they violated its hate speech and bullying policies. It also suspended the personal profile of Jones.

The company said that more content from the pages had since been reported, and it had decided to remove them for "repeated violations of community standards and accumulating too many strikes."

"Upon review, we have taken it down for glorifying violence ... and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies," said Facebook.

Here is my analogy (if you wish to call it that)…
If, as some have pontificated, Facebook should be required to post Alex Jones’s material on their website…
Shouldn’t Alex Jones be required to air Facebook’s videos without edit, commentary, or prejudice?

ho ho! nice one.

If Alex Jones lets Facebook post then Facebook has to let Alex Jones post! Lets be fair and equal.

Effectively A.J. can't afford to but that is interesting.

This leaves me thinking if special "monopoly" rules need applied to Facebook. For advertising (something I dabble in), Facebook is its own creature, them and Google retargeting are very important to where I work. Craigslist still exists although trends are against them.

 

[TNHarley]

People should be able to do what they want with their property. Period.
Its THEIR property.

 

[dblack]

This is going to be some random thoughts on an issue I am riding the fence on. Generally I don't find modern life that different than that of Ptolemy's time so even with the internet I just draw on existing laws. This one has me though.

Assuming my website is not an absolute monopoly on something do I have to allow your posts?

If I own a bar I have to serve everyone, even Americans of German descent who can't prove they fought the fatherland in the great war. I don't have to let everyone have a microphone though.

If I own a business, lets say a church, I certainly don't have to let everyone speak. I probably have to let everyone in.

The town's square has to reasonably let everyone in and speak.

The internet sorta is public property, there are a lot of power cables and fibers laid across everyone's private property enabling me to have a website. Them posts are going on my server though.

Throw some more analogies at me from each point of view!

This is exactly why l'm opposed to PA laws. This is where they lead.

 

[candycorn]

Well, I will point out something I put on another thread.

Facebook has a website
Alex Jones has a website

Facebook makes videos
Alex Jones makes videos

Earlier this week, Facebook made the decision to no longer allow Alex Jones to have a channel on their website.

Facebook (FB) removed four videos from the pages last week after determining that they violated its hate speech and bullying policies. It also suspended the personal profile of Jones.

The company said that more content from the pages had since been reported, and it had decided to remove them for "repeated violations of community standards and accumulating too many strikes."

"Upon review, we have taken it down for glorifying violence ... and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies," said Facebook.

Here is my analogy (if you wish to call it that)…
If, as some have pontificated, Facebook should be required to post Alex Jones’s material on their website…
Shouldn’t Alex Jones be required to air Facebook’s videos without edit, commentary, or prejudice?

ho ho! nice one.

If Alex Jones lets Facebook post then Facebook has to let Alex Jones post! Lets be fair and equal.

Effectively A.J. can't afford to but that is interesting.

This leaves me thinking if special "monopoly" rules need applied to Facebook. For advertising (something I dabble in), Facebook is its own creature, them and Google retargeting are very important to where I work. Craigslist still exists although trends are against them.

To be fair, my analogy is a bit faulty. Alex Jones has all upside in the deal because he needs to reach more people.
I doubt the folks who frequent prison planet are desirable to Facebook. So it’s not apples to apples. But if you’re going to demand a forum be provided for you, it is only fair that you provide a forum for others in the same conditions.

None of the right wingers have explained to me why this is unfair.

 

[koshergrl]

This is going to be some random thoughts on an issue I am riding the fence on. Generally I don't find modern life that different than that of Ptolemy's time so even with the internet I just draw on existing laws. This one has me though.

Assuming my website is not an absolute monopoly on something do I have to allow your posts?

If I own a bar I have to serve everyone, even Americans of German descent who can't prove they fought the fatherland in the great war. I don't have to let everyone have a microphone though.

If I own a business, lets say a church, I certainly don't have to let everyone speak. I probably have to let everyone in.

The town's square has to reasonably let everyone in and speak.

The internet sorta is public property, there are a lot of power cables and fibers laid across everyone's private property enabling me to have a website. Them posts are going on my server though.

Throw some more analogies at me from each point of view!

No you don't have to let everybody post on your website.

But let's not be too simplistic..facebook isn't just a *website*...nor is twitter.

These are monoliths that the entire world uses and they have no competition. If you get booted from twitter, there is no comparable system by which to tweet and be seen by the world. There is no comparable system by which you can reach out and speak directly to, say, the president...regardless of your locale.

And there is just nothing like facebook. It's the go-to for communication..whether it's sharing events, stories, pictures, selling things...nothing else compares and everybody is on board. People who are banned from facebook are being banned from speaking in the manner that most people speak.

 

[dblack]

But let's not be too simplistic..facebook isn't just a *website*...nor is twitter.

These are monoliths that the entire world uses and they have no competition. If you get booted from twitter, there is no comparable system by which to tweet and be seen by the world. There is no comparable system by which you can reach out and speak directly to, say, the president...regardless of your locale.

And there is just nothing like facebook. It's the go-to for communication..whether it's sharing events, stories, pictures, selling things...nothing else compares and everybody is on board. People who are banned from facebook are being banned from speaking in the manner that most people speak.

Yep. This is these are the excuses liberals use whenever they want a government takeover of some industry or business.

 

[Pogo]

This is going to be some random thoughts on an issue I am riding the fence on. Generally I don't find modern life that different than that of Ptolemy's time so even with the internet I just draw on existing laws. This one has me though.

Assuming my website is not an absolute monopoly on something do I have to allow your posts?

If I own a bar I have to serve everyone, even Americans of German descent who can't prove they fought the fatherland in the great war. I don't have to let everyone have a microphone though.

If I own a business, lets say a church, I certainly don't have to let everyone speak. I probably have to let everyone in.

The town's square has to reasonably let everyone in and speak.

The internet sorta is public property, there are a lot of power cables and fibers laid across everyone's private property enabling me to have a website. Them posts are going on my server though.

Throw some more analogies at me from each point of view!

No you don't have to let everybody post on your website.

But let's not be too simplistic..facebook isn't just a *website*...nor is twitter.

These are monoliths that the entire world uses and they have no competition. If you get booted from twitter, there is no comparable system by which to tweet and be seen by the world. There is no comparable system by which you can reach out and speak directly to, say, the president...regardless of your locale.

And there is just nothing like facebook. It's the go-to for communication..whether it's sharing events, stories, pictures, selling things...nothing else compares and everybody is on board. People who are banned from facebook are being banned from speaking in the manner that most people speak.

Translation: "All websites are equal, but some are more equal than others. When it's convenient".

 

[WillowTree]

Choose one and give that baker back all the money he was sued for plus damages for the hell he was put through!

 

[S.J.]

Another double standard from the left. Try banning black people from posting on your website and see what happens.

 

[WillowTree]

This is going to be some random thoughts on an issue I am riding the fence on. Generally I don't find modern life that different than that of Ptolemy's time so even with the internet I just draw on existing laws. This one has me though.

Assuming my website is not an absolute monopoly on something do I have to allow your posts?

If I own a bar I have to serve everyone, even Americans of German descent who can't prove they fought the fatherland in the great war. I don't have to let everyone have a microphone though.

If I own a business, lets say a church, I certainly don't have to let everyone speak. I probably have to let everyone in.

The town's square has to reasonably let everyone in and speak.

The internet sorta is public property, there are a lot of power cables and fibers laid across everyone's private property enabling me to have a website. Them posts are going on my server though.

Throw some more analogies at me from each point of view!

No you don't have to let everybody post on your website.

But let's not be too simplistic..facebook isn't just a *website*...nor is twitter.

These are monoliths that the entire world uses and they have no competition. If you get booted from twitter, there is no comparable system by which to tweet and be seen by the world. There is no comparable system by which you can reach out and speak directly to, say, the president...regardless of your locale.

And there is just nothing like facebook. It's the go-to for communication..whether it's sharing events, stories, pictures, selling things...nothing else compares and everybody is on board. People who are banned from facebook are being banned from speaking in the manner that most people speak.

Didn’t Facebook go public? Should Congress write laws for equal access?

 

[blackhawk]

Depends on the purpose of your website if your website is being used to sell a product you should be able to decide who can post on it. If your website is one that says it is place for the free exchange of ideas and viewpoints everyone should be allowed to post. That does not however mean there should be no standards and you can just say anything about anyone you have to rules about crossing the line but you must also apply them equally.

 

[koshergrl]

But let's not be too simplistic..facebook isn't just a *website*...nor is twitter.

These are monoliths that the entire world uses and they have no competition. If you get booted from twitter, there is no comparable system by which to tweet and be seen by the world. There is no comparable system by which you can reach out and speak directly to, say, the president...regardless of your locale.

And there is just nothing like facebook. It's the go-to for communication..whether it's sharing events, stories, pictures, selling things...nothing else compares and everybody is on board. People who are banned from facebook are being banned from speaking in the manner that most people speak.

Yep. This is these are the excuses liberals use whenever they want a government takeover of some industry or business.

Yes but as with everything else they do, when they do it, they are trying to do it in a way that actually violates the law.

For example, when they seek to use the government to force Christian bakers to bake special cakes for sacrilegious events...
1. There is no *right to special cake baked by Christians".
2. There are bakeries in every community on every corner and there are no rights that are violated if one baker opts not to create a particular cake.

But they pretended not to get it then, and they will pretend not to get it now.

The bottom line is..the left really is seeking to shut down freedom of speech, and overthrow our government. We have to stop pretending otherwise.

And when you have a movement like that, that is IS the appropriate time for the government to take action.

It is not appropriate for the government to take action against Chrsitians for refusing to bake a very specific type of cake.

It isn't appropriate for the government to take action against any business owner who removes people from their business for disruptive or inappropriate behavior.

It is appropriate for the government to take action against corporations who band together for the purpose of squelching free speech and overthrowing the government. That's sort of why the government exists. To protect us from that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is going to be some random thoughts on an issue I am riding the fence on. Generally I don't find modern life that different than that of Ptolemy's time so even with the internet I just draw on existing laws. This one has me though.

Assuming my website is not an absolute monopoly on something do I have to allow your posts?

If I own a bar I have to serve everyone, even Americans of German descent who can't prove they fought the fatherland in the great war. I don't have to let everyone have a microphone though.

If I own a business, lets say a church, I certainly don't have to let everyone speak. I probably have to let everyone in.

The town's square has to reasonably let everyone in and speak.

The internet sorta is public property, there are a lot of power cables and fibers laid across everyone's private property enabling me to have a website. Them posts are going on my server though.

Throw some more analogies at me from each point of view!

No you don't have to let everybody post on your website.

But let's not be too simplistic..facebook isn't just a *website*...nor is twitter.

These are monoliths that the entire world uses and they have no competition. If you get booted from twitter, there is no comparable system by which to tweet and be seen by the world. There is no comparable system by which you can reach out and speak directly to, say, the president...regardless of your locale.

And there is just nothing like facebook. It's the go-to for communication..whether it's sharing events, stories, pictures, selling things...nothing else compares and everybody is on board. People who are banned from facebook are being banned from speaking in the manner that most people speak.

And?

This rightwing whining about FB doesn't change the fact that FB can't be compelled to host content, the fact that its refusal to host content in no manner violates free speech, and the fact that refusing to host content does not have the effect of silencing anyone or anything.

 

[WillowTree]

Bs

 

[dblack]

And when you have a movement like that, that is IS the appropriate time for the government to take action.

And then we'll have to address the "Jewish problem".

 

[koshergrl]

And when you have a movement like that, that is IS the appropriate time for the government to take action.

And then we'll have to address the "Jewish problem".

They aren't a problem because they're Jewish.
They're a problem because they're progressives.

Just like the Nazis weren't a problem because they were white, or even because they were nazis.
The nazis were a problem because they were PROGRESSIVES.