Should social media by regulated by the government?

[Pilot1]

No, they shouldn't be regulated by the government for content. However, if they become monopolies, the anti trust laws should kick in.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

They are really pushing opinions, but enforcing their TOS. Pretty much everyone who has been removed has been pushing fake news or hate speech.

 

[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.

They are really pushing opinions, but enforcing their TOS. Pretty much everyone who has been removed has been pushing fake news or hate speech.

Stay tuned I guess. I hope you're right and social media won't start seeing what it can do to control public opinion.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

"Choice" is the key word in that post. It's not like Facebook is the only place these people can go. I fact I wish nobody went to Facebook for news and political opinions.

As far as a constitutional amendment, that would amount to nationalizing them.

 

[Crepitus]

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

Maybe it should be then.

 

[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.

"Choice" is the key word in that post. It's not like Facebook is the only place these people can go. I fact I wish nobody went to Facebook for news and political opinions.

As far as a constitutional amendment, that would amount to nationalizing them.

By telling them to not be biased?
We do that shit all the time.

 

[Blues Man]

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

Maybe it should be then.

That will never happen.

The government has the upper hand as long as it is legal for them to lie to you and illegal for you to lie to them

 

[Crepitus]

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.

"Choice" is the key word in that post. It's not like Facebook is the only place these people can go. I fact I wish nobody went to Facebook for news and political opinions.

As far as a constitutional amendment, that would amount to nationalizing them.

By telling them to not be biased?
We do that shit all the time.

And when has that worked?

 

[Tehon]

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.

They are really pushing opinions, but enforcing their TOS. Pretty much everyone who has been removed has been pushing fake news or hate speech.

Stay tuned I guess. I hope you're right and social media won't start seeing what it can do to control public opinion.

They already do.

 

[OnePercenter]

I think so. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. have supplanted the proverbial "public square".

I have never used Facebook or Twitter. And the only reason I ever use YouTube is to occasionally look up old music or movies. Stuff like that.

That's because you're old.

 

[OnePercenter]

No, they shouldn't be regulated by the government for content. However, if they become monopolies, the anti trust laws should kick in.

You mean illegal monopoly? There are many types of legal monopolies.

 

[Pilot1]

No, they shouldn't be regulated by the government for content. However, if they become monopolies, the anti trust laws should kick in.

You mean illegal monopoly? There are many types of legal monopolies.

You mean like Utilities which are HIGHLY REGULATED by government?

 

[OnePercenter]

No, they shouldn't be regulated by the government for content. However, if they become monopolies, the anti trust laws should kick in.

You mean illegal monopoly? There are many types of legal monopolies.

You mean like Utilities which are HIGHLY REGULATED by government?

No. Gasoline/diesel and healthcare insurance companies.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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?

But their lying to us is not.

Why the double standard?

 

[Pilot1]

I fear the Monopoly of Government more than the potential monopoly of private, big corporations. However, big TECH and Social Media has demonstrated an arrogance not seen since the Robber Barons. Their success ins CENSORING and Punishing conservative views, and promoting Far Left issues, and candidates is criminal. They have overstepped their bounds as companies, and entered the realm of SOCIAL ENGINEERING. That is unacceptable.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Interesting conversation. There was, in the past, questions about protesting in places like a mall. It is private property but at the same time it is a public place. I think the ruling came down that free speech is a right in public spaces even if privately owned. Somebody can correct me if I am wrong.

Social media, even though privately owned, is a public place. It is like a restaurant not allowing black people into a public place.

 

[Blues Man]

Interesting conversation. There was, in the past, questions about protesting in places like a mall. It is private property but at the same time it is a public place. I think the ruling came down that free speech is a right in public spaces even if privately owned. Somebody can correct me if I am wrong.

Social media, even though privately owned, is a public place. It is like a restaurant not allowing black people into a public place.

Irrelevant as every single person who uses any social media outlet must first agree to the terms of service.

Granted no one reads those terms but they agree to them anyway

Caveat emptor

 

[P F Tinmore]

Interesting conversation. There was, in the past, questions about protesting in places like a mall. It is private property but at the same time it is a public place. I think the ruling came down that free speech is a right in public spaces even if privately owned. Somebody can correct me if I am wrong.

Social media, even though privately owned, is a public place. It is like a restaurant not allowing black people into a public place.

Irrelevant as every single person who uses any social media outlet must first agree to the terms of service.

Granted no one reads those terms but they agree to them anyway

Caveat emptor

Is it mentioned in the TOS that everyone must tow the government line? Surely there should be limits on promoting or threatening violence. Sex and gore are usually limited. But when people are taken down for posting facts or opinions there is a problem.

I was permanently banned twice from one discussion board. Neither was for a TOS violation. They were both for being "off message."

 

[Blues Man]

Interesting conversation. There was, in the past, questions about protesting in places like a mall. It is private property but at the same time it is a public place. I think the ruling came down that free speech is a right in public spaces even if privately owned. Somebody can correct me if I am wrong.

Social media, even though privately owned, is a public place. It is like a restaurant not allowing black people into a public place.

Irrelevant as every single person who uses any social media outlet must first agree to the terms of service.

Granted no one reads those terms but they agree to them anyway

Caveat emptor

Is it mentioned in the TOS that everyone must tow the government line? Surely there should be limits on promoting or threatening violence. Sex and gore are usually limited. But when people are taken down for posting facts or opinions there is a problem.

I was permanently banned twice from one discussion board. Neither was for a TOS violation. They were both for being "off message."

The first amendment protects you from government not from private entities.

You have no first amendment rights at your place of employment, in a private business, in someone else's home etc.

And if you really want to put your message out on the internet you are free to get a domain and start a forum or post a blog so no one is stopping you from expressing yourself.

 

[Crepitus]

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?

But their lying to us is not.

Why the double standard?

I see no double standard here. Explain or retract your statement please.