Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Toronado3800, Sep 5, 2018.
What's the take on who he is listening to?
Well. These social media companies want to be regulated. They have a common interest with the feds in terms of managing the narrative. It's why Zuck showed up in front of Congress, and it's why the others will be showing up next. It's a dog and pony show when Congress acts like they're reprimanding them. They aren't. What they're doing is compromising. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours kind of deal. What we have going on is effectively a merge of corporation and state. And there's a term for that.
Ultimately, when they become regulated, the companies themselves end up penning their own regulation. And, of course, the feds get what they want from the social media companies in return.
Here's Senator Warner's white paper which, btw, came out right before all of the mass censorship started. And after Zuck went to Congress.
Not surprisingly, it's entitled Potential Policy Proposals for Regulation of Social Media and Technology Firms
End of the day, he's listening to the feds. Thus fedbook. Ha.
The number of clicks any website gets is irrelevant to the first amendment.
As I said you are not guaranteed an audience or a venue when you exercise your first amendment right to free speech. As long as you can say what you want, publish what you want, post on the internet what you want there is no issue
Aside from that a private party or business cannot violate your first amendment rights.
I'd counter that if the private party has a monopoly on the medium they can, but your point is valid also, there are other websites. In the 1860's you had freedom of speech but not a guarantee the paper would publish your speech. Perhaps my personal distaste of monopolies is showing.
Curious, would you have supported blocking Faceboo from purchasing Instagram and whatever they have also bought up in the last few years?
Can a private company service provider like Comcast decide not to allow nuts (like me or you!) to upload to the web? My feeling is Comcast or Charter and AT&T are public utilities and we have to compell them to allow "21st Century Stalin Lovers" or whoever to run their website.
Does GoDaddy have to host "Modern Stalin Fans" or a small company like CloudAccess have to?
Since I do not think it is possible for any person or business to stifle anyone's free speech I have no problem with any web business buying other web businesses.
Now I do agree that internet providers such, Com cast, Charter, Verizon, any phone company that offers DSL or any satellite internet provider are public utilities in that they use public infrastructure such as telephone poles, underground wiring conduits and the public airways and cannot deny service for any other reason than nonpayment.
Go Daddy is a private entity and has the option not to host web sites if they so choose.
In the end the first amendment was written to protect the people from the government and not from other people.
And government forcing web hosting sites to accommodate certain content is a bad idea and likely unconstitutional.
That FB is big because it's popular doesn't render it a monopoly, nor does it warrant its regulation.
If there was only one hosting company would or one ISP would you allow forcing content on them?
We disagree a bit but you have made your point well!
Folks should learn from your style sir.
That's not going to happen
I hope you are right!
Excluding isolated places....
Would you support the monopoly busting powers of big government to keep it from happening?
Separate names with a comma.