Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
They are really pushing opinions, but enforcing their TOS. Pretty much everyone who has been removed has been pushing fake news or hate speech.how does it do that?technically speaking
Pretty messy huh? Your position gives corporations more power over the public.
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.how does it do that?technically speaking
Pretty messy huh? Your position gives corporations more power over the public.
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.
"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.But the public relies on it. Its their choice.how does it do that?technically speaking
Pretty messy huh? Your position gives corporations more power over the public.
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.
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.
Maybe it should be then.That's an easy questionI'm all about everybody being allowed their own stupid opinions, and I don't think Facebook has removed anyone for that.The line should be at hate speech and blatant lies, which is pretty much where it's at right now.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.
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.
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?
It's not illegal to lie to the public so the government can lie to the public with impunity
By telling them to not be biased?"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.But the public relies on it. Its their choice.how does it do that?technically speaking
Pretty messy huh? Your position gives corporations more power over the public.
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.
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.
As far as a constitutional amendment, that would amount to nationalizing them.
Maybe it should be then.That's an easy questionI'm all about everybody being allowed their own stupid opinions, and I don't think Facebook has removed anyone for that.The line should be at hate speech and blatant lies, which is pretty much where it's at right now.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.
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.
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?
It's not illegal to lie to the public so the government can lie to the public with impunity
And when has that worked?By telling them to not be biased?"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.But the public relies on it. Its their choice.how does it do that?Pretty messy huh? Your position gives corporations more power over the public.
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.
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.
As far as a constitutional amendment, that would amount to nationalizing them.
We do that shit all the time.
They already do.They are really pushing opinions, but enforcing their TOS. Pretty much everyone who has been removed has been pushing fake news or hate speech.how does it do that?technically speaking
Pretty messy huh? Your position gives corporations more power over the public.
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.
Stay tuned I guess. I hope you're right and social media won't start seeing what it can do to control public opinion.
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.I think so. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. have supplanted the proverbial "public square".
No, they shouldn't be regulated by the government for content. However, if they become monopolies, the anti trust laws should kick in.
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.
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?
But their lying to us is not.I'm all about everybody being allowed their own stupid opinions, and I don't think Facebook has removed anyone for that.The line should be at hate speech and blatant lies, which is pretty much where it's at right now.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?Pretty messy huh? Your position gives corporations more power over the public.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.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.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
I was permanently banned twice from one discussion board. Neither was for a TOS violation. They were both for being "off message."
I see no double standard here. Explain or retract your statement please.But their lying to us is not.I'm all about everybody being allowed their own stupid opinions, and I don't think Facebook has removed anyone for that.The line should be at hate speech and blatant lies, which is pretty much where it's at right now.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.
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.
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?
Why the double standard?