Should social media by regulated by the government?

[TNHarley]

Hell no.
But that big govt bullshit would be consistent with you dem and repub statists.

 

[Confounding]

We are supposed to be team mates here

The moment you're in support of public dialogue being controlled by private entities we are adversaries.

Tehon probably feels the same way.

This isn't a football game.

 

[Crepitus]

If someone on left starts posting blatant lies and hate speech then they should be. TOS applies to everyone.

I'm not pro-censorship so I guess we won't see eye to eye. In my view social media is getting big enough in politics for demands for free speech to be reasonable. I think you don't care because of political bias. We can't allow giant corporations to gain more ability to silence what they see as wrong think. It's dangerous.

I'm not pro censorship. Forcing the privately owned sites to carry content they find objectionable is a form of censorship.

As I mentioned before, the banned folks were removed for violating the TOS and not their political affiliation and there are still many right wing viewpoints represented on Facebook and such, just not ones pushing hate speech and fake news.

And even if they were removing folks for their political views these folks are free to start their own platform for their viewpoint.

As far as I'm concerned this is, if not a non-issue, then at worst a very minor one.

 

[harmonica]

1. no-
2. they don't have the $$$ to waste on what COULD BE/COULD NOT BE/questionable- relevant

 

[Confounding]

Hell no.
that big govt bullshit

What about that big corporate bullshit? Should Alex Jones be silenced because he has some goofy opinions? The precedent is dangerous. These social media platforms are hosting tons of public dialogue now and that will only become more and more of an issue.

 

[Crepitus]

We are supposed to be team mates here

The moment you're in support of public dialogue being controlled by private entities we are adversaries.

Tehon probably feels the same way.

This isn't a football game.

It isn't, technically speaking, public dialogue. It's on a private site.

 

[Confounding]

technically speaking

Pretty messy huh? Your position gives corporations more power over the public.

 

[Crepitus]

technically speaking

Pretty messy huh? Your position gives corporations more power over the public.

I don't necessarily like that, but government censorship is a slippery slope. If we give them the power to regulate private content where does it stop?
At that point you may as well nationalize the media.

 

[Confounding]

technically speaking

Pretty messy huh? Your position gives corporations more power over the public.

I don't necessarily like that, but government censorship is a slippery slope. If we give them the power to regulate private content where does it stop?
At that point you may as well nationalize the media.

Corporate censorship on social media is a slippery slope too. It stops where we stop it. We have to be smart enough to figure out where the lines should be.

 

[Crepitus]

technically speaking

Pretty messy huh? Your position gives corporations more power over the public.

I don't necessarily like that, but government censorship is a slippery slope. If we give them the power to regulate private content where does it stop?
At that point you may as well nationalize the media.

Corporate censorship on social media is a slippery slope too. It stops where we stop it. We have to be smart enough to figure out where the lines should be.

The line should be at hate speech and blatant lies, which is pretty much where it's at right now.

 

[TNHarley]

technically speaking

Pretty messy huh? Your position gives corporations more power over the public.

I don't necessarily like that, but government censorship is a slippery slope. If we give them the power to regulate private content where does it stop?
At that point you may as well nationalize the media.

Why dont you support this? You usually support the govt telling people how to run their business

 

[Confounding]

technically speaking

Pretty messy huh? Your position gives corporations more power over the public.

I don't necessarily like that, but government censorship is a slippery slope. If we give them the power to regulate private content where does it stop?
At that point you may as well nationalize the media.

Corporate censorship on social media is a slippery slope too. It stops where we stop it. We have to be smart enough to figure out where the lines should be.

The line should be at hate speech and blatant lies, which is pretty much where it's at right now.

Why do we not put people in jail for lying and having stupid opinions? That needs to be protected too. The erosion of our ability to say what we want always looks reasonable at first.

I get that they are private entities, but you have to consider how much discussion they host. They are incredibly relevant in politics and not checking their power over it could end up being a huge mistake down the road.

 

[TNHarley]

technically speaking

Pretty messy huh? Your position gives corporations more power over the public.

how does it do that?

 

[Blues Man]

No.

There is no violation of any rights by any social media company because all the people using any of them have agreed to the terms of service

 

[Confounding]

technically speaking

Pretty messy huh? Your position gives corporations more power over the public.

how does it do that?

Social media hosts most of the political discussion that happens online. It has become an incredibly relevant part of public discourse. Saying it's fine for them to decide which opinions are and aren't acceptable is dangerous in my opinion. It gives corporations a lot of ability to control the optics of public dialogue.

 

[TNHarley]

technically speaking

Pretty messy huh? Your position gives corporations more power over the public.

how does it do that?

Social media hosts most of the political discussion that happens online. It has become an incredibly relevant part of public discourse. Saying it's fine for them to decide which opinions are and aren't acceptable is dangerous in my opinion. It gives corporations a lot of ability to control the optics of public dialogue.

But the public relies on it. Its their choice.
Unconstitutional govt is not justified because society is stupid.
I do get what you are saying, though.
I might could get on board with this with a constitutional amendment.

 

[Crepitus]

technically speaking

Pretty messy huh? Your position gives corporations more power over the public.

I don't necessarily like that, but government censorship is a slippery slope. If we give them the power to regulate private content where does it stop?
At that point you may as well nationalize the media.

Corporate censorship on social media is a slippery slope too. It stops where we stop it. We have to be smart enough to figure out where the lines should be.

The line should be at hate speech and blatant lies, which is pretty much where it's at right now.

Why do we not put people in jail for lying and having stupid opinions? That needs to be protected too. The erosion of our ability to say what we want always looks reasonable at first.

I get that they are private entities, but you have to consider how much discussion they host. They are incredibly relevant in politics and not checking their power over it could end up being a huge mistake down the road.

I'm all about everybody being allowed their own stupid opinions, and I don't think Facebook has removed anyone for that.

Lying is a different matter. Lying to law enforcement is a crime. Lying to Congress is a crime. Lying to lots of people is a crime, why isn't it a crime to lie to the public?

 

[Blues Man]

Pretty messy huh? Your position gives corporations more power over the public.

I don't necessarily like that, but government censorship is a slippery slope. If we give them the power to regulate private content where does it stop?
At that point you may as well nationalize the media.

Corporate censorship on social media is a slippery slope too. It stops where we stop it. We have to be smart enough to figure out where the lines should be.

The line should be at hate speech and blatant lies, which is pretty much where it's at right now.

Why do we not put people in jail for lying and having stupid opinions? That needs to be protected too. The erosion of our ability to say what we want always looks reasonable at first.

I get that they are private entities, but you have to consider how much discussion they host. They are incredibly relevant in politics and not checking their power over it could end up being a huge mistake down the road.

I'm all about everybody being allowed their own stupid opinions, and I don't think Facebook has removed anyone for that.

Lying is a different matter. Lying to law enforcement is a crime. Lying to Congress is a crime. Lying to lots of people is a crime, why isn't it a crime to lie to the public?

That's an easy question

It's not illegal to lie to the public so the government can lie to the public with impunity

 

[Confounding]

But the public relies on it. Its their choice.
Unconstitutional govt is not justified because society is stupid.
I do get what you are saying, though.
I might could get on board with this with a constitutional amendment.

Yeah, the public is stupid, but this is reality and we have to work with it. We can't allow ourselves to slip down that slope. I'm glad you are open to considering my view under certain circumstances. We have to stop the government and corporate America from gaining too much influence over the voice of the public. Some of these corporations have power that probably couldn't have even been imagined by the founders.

 

[Confounding]

why isn't it a crime to lie to the public?

Because sometimes the truth is subjective enough for that to be a dangerous precedent.