Should social media by regulated by the government?

[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."

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.

People are not getting bounced for TOS violations.

 

[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.

People are not getting bounced for TOS violations.

It doesn't matter.
Your first amendment right only protects you from the government not from other people or businesses

Since the government is making no law restricting you speech there is no first amendment violation.

The owner of a private entity can boot you if he doesn't like what you say on the venue he is providing.

The first amendment does not guarantee you an audience or a venue

 

[Marion Morrison]

I think so. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. have supplanted the proverbial "public square". Unfortunately, they censor their ideological opponents and the consequences of such censorship is probably unhealthy for our democratic society.

Social Media’s Role In Discourse, Here Are The Stats

When it has a monopoly? Yes. That's what Sherman anti-trust laws are for.

 

[Blues Man]

I think so. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. have supplanted the proverbial "public square". Unfortunately, they censor their ideological opponents and the consequences of such censorship is probably unhealthy for our democratic society.

Social Media’s Role In Discourse, Here Are The Stats

When it has a monopoly? Yes. That's what Sherman anti-trust laws are for.

There is no monopoly on the internet as anyone can obtain a domain and post whatever they want

 

[anynameyouwish]

I think so. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. have supplanted the proverbial "public square". Unfortunately, they censor their ideological opponents and the consequences of such censorship is probably unhealthy for our democratic society.

Social Media’s Role In Discourse, Here Are The Stats

Would a conservative christian republican government censor ITS ideological opponents?

of course.

Would that make you happy?

 

[Marion Morrison]

I think so. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. have supplanted the proverbial "public square". Unfortunately, they censor their ideological opponents and the consequences of such censorship is probably unhealthy for our democratic society.

Social Media’s Role In Discourse, Here Are The Stats

When it has a monopoly? Yes. That's what Sherman anti-trust laws are for.

There is no monopoly on the internet as anyone can obtain a domain and post whatever they want

Oh? Tell that to GoDaddy.

 

[Blues Man]

I think so. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. have supplanted the proverbial "public square". Unfortunately, they censor their ideological opponents and the consequences of such censorship is probably unhealthy for our democratic society.

Social Media’s Role In Discourse, Here Are The Stats

When it has a monopoly? Yes. That's what Sherman anti-trust laws are for.

There is no monopoly on the internet as anyone can obtain a domain and post whatever they want

Oh? Tell that to GoDaddy.

There are more places than go daddy to register a domain name

 

[Marion Morrison]

I think so. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. have supplanted the proverbial "public square". Unfortunately, they censor their ideological opponents and the consequences of such censorship is probably unhealthy for our democratic society.

Social Media’s Role In Discourse, Here Are The Stats

When it has a monopoly? Yes. That's what Sherman anti-trust laws are for.

There is no monopoly on the internet as anyone can obtain a domain and post whatever they want

Oh? Tell that to GoDaddy.

There are more places than go daddy to register a domain name

That may be, but if you buy a domain from them, they will censor you. Plus, they bought up huge swaths of domains just to resell them later. I remember when they were doing it. Google has done the same thing with internet traffic servers.
There should have a limit set on how much they could buy up.

 

[impuretrash]

look at all these big government socialists turning into limited government conservatives all of a sudden at the idea of making facebook stop censoring political opinions they dont like

 

[Blues Man]

I think so. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. have supplanted the proverbial "public square". Unfortunately, they censor their ideological opponents and the consequences of such censorship is probably unhealthy for our democratic society.

Social Media’s Role In Discourse, Here Are The Stats

When it has a monopoly? Yes. That's what Sherman anti-trust laws are for.

There is no monopoly on the internet as anyone can obtain a domain and post whatever they want

Oh? Tell that to GoDaddy.

There are more places than go daddy to register a domain name

That may be, but if you buy a domain from them, they will censor you. Plus, they bought up huge swaths of domains just to resell them later. I remember when they were doing it. Google has done the same thing with internet traffic servers.
There should have a limit set on how much they could buy up.

I have several domain names and have never had a problem getting one nor have I ever been censored on any of them.

How often does it really happen?

From what I see this current whine fest is about privately owned social media outlets

 

[Pilot1]

Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.

However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. Understood in one way, these people have 3.18 times as much clout in the Electoral College as an average American, or 318% (as listed in the pdf chart, downloadable below).

Population vs. Electoral Votes - Fairvote
---------------------------------------

Maj. rule happens in the Federal and State House and Senate and the Supreme Court. Yet the maj vote does not count in the elections for Potus. WHY?

While there is evidence that the founders assumed the electors would be independent actors,
https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/electoral-college

There are 2 Senators from every state and they have their representatives in the house to bring their voices to the congress. We do not need the EC any more. The population of the US in 1800 was about 5 million and only 13 states, people were uneducated and the workers did not vote, or the women or blacks, only the rich white men aka the founders.

Most workers did not even know who was running when the EC was invented.

That is the wrong way of looking at it. Without the EC most states would get left behind. Once you understand the cocept of the sovereignty of each state you’ll understand that the EC is a system that affectively makes sure that all of them have representation in our presidential elections. It’s not about slave owners or any other nonsense you hear on MSNBC

look at all these big government socialists turning into limited government conservatives all of a sudden at the idea of making facebook stop censoring political opinions they dont like

If it were conservative Tech, and Social Media corps acting like Monopolies and censoring Liberal/Progressive/Democrat content and promoting conservative causes and candidates, they'd be screaming for the government to shut them down,

Just like if Hillary won the Electoral Vote and lost the Popular Vote, they would be lauding the Electoral College as the greatest characteristic of the U.S. Constitution!

 

[impuretrash]

Below is a list of states along with their populations, number of electoral votes, and a percentage that demonstrates the relative value of a vote cast in that state compared to the national average For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.

However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. Understood in one way, these people have 3.18 times as much clout in the Electoral College as an average American, or 318% (as listed in the pdf chart, downloadable below).

Population vs. Electoral Votes - Fairvote
---------------------------------------

Maj. rule happens in the Federal and State House and Senate and the Supreme Court. Yet the maj vote does not count in the elections for Potus. WHY?

While there is evidence that the founders assumed the electors would be independent actors,
https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/electoral-college

There are 2 Senators from every state and they have their representatives in the house to bring their voices to the congress. We do not need the EC any more. The population of the US in 1800 was about 5 million and only 13 states, people were uneducated and the workers did not vote, or the women or blacks, only the rich white men aka the founders.

Most workers did not even know who was running when the EC was invented.

That is the wrong way of looking at it. Without the EC most states would get left behind. Once you understand the cocept of the sovereignty of each state you’ll understand that the EC is a system that affectively makes sure that all of them have representation in our presidential elections. It’s not about slave owners or any other nonsense you hear on MSNBC

look at all these big government socialists turning into limited government conservatives all of a sudden at the idea of making facebook stop censoring political opinions they dont like

If it were conservative Tech, and Social Media corps acting like Monopolies and censoring Liberal/Progressive/Democrat content and promoting conservative causes and candidates, they'd be screaming for the government to shut them down,

Just like if Hillary won the Electoral Vote and lost the Popular Vote, they would be lauding the Electoral College as the greatest characteristic of the U.S. Constitution!

If the left is against it, chances are it's good for America

 

[P F Tinmore]

I think so. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. have supplanted the proverbial "public square". Unfortunately, they censor their ideological opponents and the consequences of such censorship is probably unhealthy for our democratic society.

Social Media’s Role In Discourse, Here Are The Stats

What if that censorship is at the behest of the government?

 

[impuretrash]

I think so. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. have supplanted the proverbial "public square". Unfortunately, they censor their ideological opponents and the consequences of such censorship is probably unhealthy for our democratic society.

Social Media’s Role In Discourse, Here Are The Stats

What if that censorship is at the behest of the government?

Americans don't get to vote on who is in charge of the political censorship division at facebook.

 

[OnePercenter]

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.

The monopoly of businesses is why you pay more for services and products.

Being a conservative, what is your opinion of companies that make billions in net profit, but demand taxpayer subsidies to expand then pay their employees so little they qualify for taxpayer based welfare?

 

[OnePercenter]

Pilot1 - Are you going to answer my question?