7000-1. Guess Who Won

[martybegan]

But if people are only getting “one side” it’s not because they don’t have access to the other side.

That’s a personal choice.

Real social media platforms are again, the new digital commons. They need to be treated as such.

 

[colfax_m]

One post. Many I have referenced both. Are you really going to be such an intellectually dishonest hack that you are going to use this tactic?

TV and social media are very different, a fact you refuse to acknowledge because it ruins your position.

So even though Twitter doesn’t have much market share, they have to be treated the same way as bigger market share companies?

Again, you always talk about access to candidates as being necessary. As I’ve pointed out, there is nothing limiting anyone from accessing a candidate.

 

[colfax_m]

Real social media platforms are again, the new digital commons. They need to be treated as such.

The term commons refers to common ownership. Social media is not owned in common. It is owned privately. What you’re suggesting is a socialist takeover of something because it’s valuable to you.

Just like any other authoritarian thug.

 

[martybegan]

So even though Twitter doesn’t have much market share, they have to be treated the same way as bigger market share companies?

Again, you always talk about access to candidates as being necessary. As I’ve pointed out, there is nothing limiting anyone from accessing a candidate.

Twitter's influence outweighs it's market share. It's the go to platform for political discourse. How fair is it when one side isn't allowed into the discourse?

The limit is in the candidate's access to the electorate. If twitter allows access to one and not the other, how is that not a monetary value donation to said politician's campaign?

 

[martybegan]

The term commons refers to common ownership. Social media is not owned in common. It is owned privately. What you’re suggesting is a socialist takeover of something because it’s valuable to you.

Just like any other authoritarian thug.

The area they create by their nature is.

And you ignore it like any good little commie because right now it suits your politics.

 

[colfax_m]

The area they create by their nature is.

And you ignore it like any good little commie because right now it suits your politics.

Lol. I’m the commie but you’re the one trying to nationalize a private industry.

Sorry, the constitution limits your authoritarian impulses.

 

[colfax_m]

Twitter's influence outweighs it's market share. It's the go to platform for political discourse. How fair is it when one side isn't allowed into the discourse?

The limit is in the candidate's access to the electorate. If twitter allows access to one and not the other, how is that not a monetary value donation to said politician's campaign?

You’re creating new reasons all the time and inventing subjective and unprovable assertions that one could apply to anything just by saying so.

So is it the electorate’s access to the candidate or is it the candidate’s access to the electorate that matters here?

 

[martybegan]

Lol. I’m the commie but you’re the one trying to nationalize a private industry.

Sorry, the constitution limits your authoritarian impulses.

How is it nationalizing? They keep their property, they keep the profits. It's like regulating a utility. In fact it actually helps them as it shields them from liability from things posted by others of a political bent, but of a possibly threatening nature.

 

[Papageorgio]

Gee another hijacked thread. How surprising, maybe someone could start a thread on social media instead of hijacking’s those one?

 

[martybegan]

You’re creating new reasons all the time and inventing subjective and unprovable assertions that one could apply to anything just by saying so.

So is it the electorate’s access to the candidate or is it the candidate’s access to the electorate that matters here?

Not new reasons, different reasons for the same objective, which is fair elections.

Both. the argument just made it to discussing the former.

 

[martybegan]

Gee another hijacked thread. How surprising, maybe someone could start a thread on social media instead of hijacking’s those one?

Considering no one else has really posted on the topic...

Yarrrr!!!

 

[Papageorgio]

I tried but…round and round seems to be the new topic.

 

[colfax_m]

How is it nationalizing? They keep their property, they keep the profits. It's like regulating a utility. In fact it actually helps them as it shields them from liability from things posted by others of a political bent, but of a possibly threatening nature.

They keep their property, but they don't get to decide how to use it.

 

[colfax_m]

Not new reasons, different reasons for the same objective, which is fair elections.

Both. the argument just made it to discussing the former.

No, this isn't about fair elections.

People have the right to exercise their first amendments and do so however they feel fit. They do not have to exercise that right fairly.

You now have created a constitutional right to access an audience. This is not a right that has ever existed before. It doesn't exist in the constitution.

Imagine if I said that a candidate has a right to appear on Fox News because if you don't you are limiting their access to the electorate. Same stupid principle applies and in no way would it be constitutional.

 

[martybegan]

They keep their property, but they don't get to decide how to use it.

An electric company can't decide who to service or not (as long as the bills are paid). Private water systems can't decide who to service or not (same caveat).

They get too keep their own 1st amendment rights as well, as persons.

 

[martybegan]

No, this isn't about fair elections.

People have the right to exercise their first amendments and do so however they feel fit. They do not have to exercise that right fairly.

You now have created a constitutional right to access an audience. This is not a right that has ever existed before. It doesn't exist in the constitution.

Imagine if I said that a candidate has a right to appear on Fox News because if you don't you are limiting their access to the electorate. Same stupid principle applies and in no way would it be constitutional.

The whole purpose of the 1st amendment is free exchange of ideas, without limits by government.

Social media is a new concept, a new commons that must be regulated as such.

TV, Newspapers, radio, were never truly interactive.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The whole purpose of the 1st amendment is free exchange of ideas, without limits by government.

Social media is a new concept, a new commons that must be regulated as such.

TV, Newspapers, radio, were never truly interactive.

Why are you arguing with the dishonest hack? He knows he is wrong but being a lib cant admit it.

 

[colfax_m]

An electric company can't decide who to service or not (as long as the bills are paid). Private water systems can't decide who to service or not (same caveat).

They get too keep their own 1st amendment rights as well, as persons.

Because electrical companies are common carriers. They don't engage in speech, they deliver electricity, the same electricity to everyone.

There is no 1st amendment implications about telling them who to deliver electricity to.

Social media are not common carriers. The last time you brought this up you got very confused about the difference between generating content and delivering it.

This is why the internet shouldn't be regulated by ancient people who don't understand it.

 

[martybegan]

Why are you arguing with the dishonest hack? He knows he is wrong but being a lib cant admit it.

Because I like watching him go in circles to defend tyranny.

Corporations are people until we don't want them to be
Social Media is the same as a Website
Trump was banned for breaking the "rules", not for his politics.
Regulation is Nationalizing.

 

[martybegan]

Because electrical companies are common carriers. They don't engage in speech, they deliver electricity, the same electricity to everyone.

There is no 1st amendment implications about telling them who to deliver electricity to.

Social media are not common carriers. The last time you brought this up you got very confused about the difference between generating content and delivering it.

This is why the internet shouldn't be regulated by ancient people who don't understand it.

Yet the power lines and transformers and generating facilities are their property, and they are being made to use their property to supply someone they might not like.

Social media platforms that declare themselves free exchange platforms should be considered common carriers.

Or they can admit they are partisan, and make their contracts read a such. And also own anything published on their sites as their own, with all the liability it entails.