- Apr 5, 2010
- 80,603
- 32,547
- 2,300
So what are you going to do about it? Get your fascist government thugs to threaten them into submission?Cool. So?Fundamentally no.Doesn't newsmax or infowars have some webstiteThey are owned by SHAREHOLDERS not private individuals. And they are subject to the rules and regulations of the US Congress.Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government
Get it yet?
Shareholders don't make it any less private, Comrade. You're insistence that YOUR desire to use someone else's private property magically make that property 'public' is Marxist.
You don't get to magically turn private property into public property simply because you want to use it. That's not how private property works.
The thing is they hide behind a part of the law that shields them from claiming the posts of others as their content, and then try to censor certain views as if it was their content.
Again, you don't care because it's people you hate being silenced.
And by 'hide behind the law', you mean recognize that a private company is private?
If you don't like facebook, retreat to the safespace of Parler or an Infowars message board. Or make your own.
No one owes you a platform. Your argument is dripping with unearned entitlement.
So power companies can pick and choose who they provide power to? It's called a Utility. Making these companies utilities in the interest of opening political dialogue isn't much of a stretch.
Any company can set standards of conduct. You can get banned here too. And if you want to create your OWN messageboard or online space, you can set the rules of that too.
Instead, in your entitlement, you insist that you have a right to someone else's space, and that they must obey whatever rules you make up.
Nope. Its the other way around. They get to set the rules for their space. You get to set the rules for your space.
See how that works?
So their rules of conduct should explicitly state "we ban conservative speech". Instead they don't say that and pretend to be content neutral.
Just admit you agree with silencing people you disagree with, stop lying to the board and yourself.
They don't serve the purpose of a commons that the social media platforms do.
The internet itself serves the purpose of the commons. You can go to literally millions of sites. You can make your own.
And you can make up the rules for the space you create. Just like they set the rules for the space they create.
Sites and social media platforms are two different things.
Fundamentally yes. When you claim to be an open platform and decide to pick and choose what politics you allow, then you are lying.
From their mission statement:
It is also positioned as a public self-expression media that provides conversation opportunities in real-time. Users can consume, create, distribute and discover any kind of content.
Without Barriers: The company explains that its business seeks to improve a free and global conversation. Twitter is a global platform that claims to have democratized content creation and distribution. It is very simple to create a new account with only an email address. To delete a Twitter account, users must click on Settings, and then click deactivate @username.
From their core values:
Free expression and civil liberties: The company encourages initiatives that defend and respect all voices. It seeks to promote free expression and defend civil liberties.
They promise open expression and censor right leaning content far more than left leaning content.
Nah, rescind section 230 protections from them to start. if they want to play publisher, let them play publisher.
Also, people should sue them for not holding up to their own terms of service.