Regulating social media.

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
36,361
Reaction score
4,515
Points
1,130
My biggest worry, politically, since Trump was elected in 2016, has been what would happen in the aftermath. The liberal backlash is going to be ugly. Liberals used to at least pretend to care about liberty. Now they openly despise it. And while political expedience has them currently opposing Trump's efforts to "regulate" social media, that's sort of thing they usually support. The only thing currently keeping it in check is partisan gridlock.

Which worries me.

If Republicans lose the Senate, and the White House, I think we'll see a major effort by Democrats to seize control of (aka "regulate") major social media companies. And, given that Trumpsters have been clamoring for just that, and the fact that they'll be in the minority, Republicans will offer precious little resistance.
 

kyzr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
16,322
Reaction score
7,481
Points
390
Location
The AL part of PA
Trump and Republicans don't want to "regulate" social media, they want to remove section 230 protection so that they can be sued just like any other media outlet in the US.
 

Synthaholic

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
47,670
Reaction score
8,826
Points
2,030
Location
Kicking PoliticalChic's ass up & down the forum
There needs to be regulation and breakups, along with a major restructuring of the FCC, with more funding and authority over what can be broadcast over publicly-owned airwaves and digital frequencies. The people own the frequencies and will not allow them to be abused or used to spread lies to the American public.
 

Thinker101

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2017
Messages
18,257
Reaction score
5,373
Points
290
My biggest worry, politically, since Trump was elected in 2016, has been what would happen in the aftermath. The liberal backlash is going to be ugly. Liberals used to at least pretend to care about liberty. Now they openly despise it. And while political expedience has them currently opposing Trump's efforts to "regulate" social media, that's sort of thing they usually support. The only thing currently keeping it in check is partisan gridlock.

Which worries me.

If Republicans lose the Senate, and the White House, I think we'll see a major effort by Democrats to seize control of (aka "regulate") major social media companies. And, given that Trumpsters have been clamoring for just that, and the fact that they'll be in the minority, Republicans will offer precious little resistance.
Democrats would seize control of major media companies? You mean more than they control it now?
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
67,464
Reaction score
29,886
Points
2,300
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
My biggest worry, politically, since Trump was elected in 2016, has been what would happen in the aftermath. The liberal backlash is going to be ugly. Liberals used to at least pretend to care about liberty. Now they openly despise it. And while political expedience has them currently opposing Trump's efforts to "regulate" social media, that's sort of thing they usually support. The only thing currently keeping it in check is partisan gridlock.

Which worries me.

If Republicans lose the Senate, and the White House, I think we'll see a major effort by Democrats to seize control of (aka "regulate") major social media companies. And, given that Trumpsters have been clamoring for just that, and the fact that they'll be in the minority, Republicans will offer precious little resistance.
They need no further regulation, though the existing protections that give them their monopoly powers do need paring back.....Zucc and Dorsey welcome regulation, as it would help them to further consolidate their power.
 

kyzr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
16,322
Reaction score
7,481
Points
390
Location
The AL part of PA
Trump and Republicans don't want to "regulate" social media, they want to remove section 230 protection so that they can be sued just like any other media outlet in the US.
They aren’t publishers any more than US Messageboard is a publisher.
1. When Kayleigh McEneny, the Trump press secretary is blocked from posting on twitter, they are a publisher.
2. When US senators are blocked from posting on twitter, they are a publisher.
3. There are numerous examples of twitter & facebook censoring posts.
 

Canon Shooter

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Messages
3,696
Reaction score
3,582
Points
1,918
Trump and Republicans don't want to "regulate" social media, they want to remove section 230 protection so that they can be sued just like any other media outlet in the US.
They aren’t publishers any more than US Messageboard is a publisher.
They most certainly are.

The distinction lies in the fact that Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etal will removed posts they deem inappropriate. In doing so, they become, technically, a publisher. In that regard, USMB is also a publisher...
 

Natural Citizen

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
12,631
Reaction score
5,579
Points
430
The only thing currently keeping it in check is partisan gridlock.
This is precisely why I always contend that we need as much division as possible.

Without that, we'll be at the mercy of all of the anti-liberty legislation coming from both sides of the party of one. To that extent, it must be considered that the moderate vote is the most dangerous faction to Individual liberty in America today. Because they're historically quite content to just accept all of the anti-liberty legislation coming from both sides of the duopoly.
 
Last edited:

BrokeLoser

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
22,892
Reaction score
6,970
Points
360
Location
MEXIFORNIA
Trump and Republicans don't want to "regulate" social media, they want to remove section 230 protection so that they can be sued just like any other media outlet in the US.
Since you’re so vocal on the matter I bet you are taking the necessary action to make sure that doesn’t happen…right? I bet you’re voting against Democrats...right?
There’s no way in hell you’d cast a fence sitting vote for Jo or Mickey Mouse right now...right?
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
54,235
Reaction score
11,514
Points
2,040
There needs to be regulation and breakups, along with a major restructuring of the FCC, with more funding and authority over what can be broadcast over publicly-owned airwaves and digital frequencies. The people own the frequencies and will not allow them to be abused or used to spread lies to the American public.
That's censorship, and not what we are talking about.

Fascists gotta fascist.
 

Natural Citizen

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
12,631
Reaction score
5,579
Points
430
Trump and Republicans don't want to "regulate" social media, they want to remove section 230 protection so that they can be sued just like any other media outlet in the US.
Ultimately, that will regulate your own First Amendment.

The electorate would do well to think it through a little better before just blindy going along with it.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
87,362
Reaction score
20,340
Points
2,180
Location
in between
My biggest worry, politically, since Trump was elected in 2016, has been what would happen in the aftermath. The liberal backlash is going to be ugly. Liberals used to at least pretend to care about liberty. Now they openly despise it. And while political expedience has them currently opposing Trump's efforts to "regulate" social media, that's sort of thing they usually support. The only thing currently keeping it in check is partisan gridlock.

Which worries me.

If Republicans lose the Senate, and the White House, I think we'll see a major effort by Democrats to seize control of (aka "regulate") major social media companies. And, given that Trumpsters have been clamoring for just that, and the fact that they'll be in the minority, Republicans will offer precious little resistance.
A couple of questions here, first, the unserious: sounds like you conservatives are pro-regulating social media when it's your side in charge, and against it when it's the other guy?

Then...the serious.

DOES there need to be some sort of regulation of social media? From what it sounds like - the right just wants to regulate it so it can't prevent their side from being abridged (as they see it). To do this it seems that they want them to be treated as "publishers" instead of "platforms".

What I don't understand here is how that would get what you want. Publishers do not have to publish everything or anything (look at all the media outlets, they pick and choose). It DOES mean though that people can sue these companies for libel and defamation (a good thing imo) if the content they allow is libelous. But it also means they will have to be much stricter about the content they allow.

It seems to me the laws about "platforms" are outdated at best and need to be re-examined. That means some sort of regulatory process is in the offing.

In an era where foreign nations and individual actors can deliberately manipulate public opinion around the world through false stories, deep fakes, or amplifying false and misleading stories and adds - maybe they should be treated like publishers. Apparently there is an entire international black market in hacked or fictitiously created "information" (for example supposed Hunter Biden emails were for sale in Ukraine a few years ago for 5m). Should there be liability for platforms circulating this stuff without checking for authenticity first as traditional news does? I still remember the big scandal when Dan Rather had that reported on that supposed letter about Bush's military service that proved fraudulent.

Should there be regulation here and if so, what sort?

I am glad that the (Democrat led) House is investigating tech giants, and that this Administration with bipartisan support is looking at anti-trust activities with these tech giants. About time.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
54,235
Reaction score
11,514
Points
2,040
Trump and Republicans don't want to "regulate" social media, they want to remove section 230 protection so that they can be sued just like any other media outlet in the US.
They aren’t publishers any more than US Messageboard is a publisher.
They most certainly are.

The distinction lies in the fact that Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etal will removed posts they deem inappropriate. In doing so, they become, technically, a publisher. In that regard, USMB is also a publisher...
USMB removes posts that violate terms of service regardless of the side of the political debate the posts are about.

Facebook et al are scrubbing posts from the right mostly, picking sides in the political debate.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
87,362
Reaction score
20,340
Points
2,180
Location
in between
Trump and Republicans don't want to "regulate" social media, they want to remove section 230 protection so that they can be sued just like any other media outlet in the US.
They aren’t publishers any more than US Messageboard is a publisher.
1. When Kayleigh McEneny, the Trump press secretary is blocked from posting on twitter, they are a publisher.
2. When US senators are blocked from posting on twitter, they are a publisher.
3. There are numerous examples of twitter & facebook censoring posts.
If they are a publisher, then they would be justified in blocking false or misleading content regardless of who is the tweeter.
 

Natural Citizen

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
12,631
Reaction score
5,579
Points
430
Relevant reading...


Aside from that, these monopolistic companies want to be regulated. They want to be regulated because they know they'll be the ones writing the regulation. They'll effectively kill off any and all competition while they're at it.

And the feds will allow them to pen their own regulation for reasons like this...

Senate votes down anti-surveillance amendment, as both parties back warrantless spying on Americans' browser history

And Barr has been pushing for social media back doors for some time. I've posted on that, but only searched so far into my old threads.

You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours kind of deal with the feds and the tech companies. Though, they do put on a good show.

Kind of like the scenario we saw while Trump was being impeached, and Pelosi simultaneously gave him precisely what he wanted in what was, at the time, the largest spending bill in American history. That thread is around here some place, too. And, she rushed it through so the American people couldn't read it. Completely bypassing scrutiny. Nobody seemed to notice. Nobody seemed to care.

They're all on the same team. It's war on us!
 
Last edited:

BrokeLoser

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
22,892
Reaction score
6,970
Points
360
Location
MEXIFORNIA
Trump and Republicans don't want to "regulate" social media, they want to remove section 230 protection so that they can be sued just like any other media outlet in the US.
They aren’t publishers any more than US Messageboard is a publisher.
1. When Kayleigh McEneny, the Trump press secretary is blocked from posting on twitter, they are a publisher.
2. When US senators are blocked from posting on twitter, they are a publisher.
3. There are numerous examples of twitter & facebook censoring posts.
If they are a publisher, then they would be justified in blocking false or misleading content regardless of who is the tweeter.
“Publishers” are prohibited from acting discriminatory in nature. They are exposed to lawsuits if they are.
 

Synthaholic

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
47,670
Reaction score
8,826
Points
2,030
Location
Kicking PoliticalChic's ass up & down the forum
Trump and Republicans don't want to "regulate" social media, they want to remove section 230 protection so that they can be sued just like any other media outlet in the US.
They aren’t publishers any more than US Messageboard is a publisher.
1. When Kayleigh McEneny, the Trump press secretary is blocked from posting on twitter, they are a publisher.
2. When US senators are blocked from posting on twitter, they are a publisher.
3. There are numerous examples of twitter & facebook censoring posts.
No one is blocked from tweeting unless they violate the TOS.

No one is blocked from posting on US Messageboard unless they violate the TOS.

Both private companies. You’ll get it eventually. Or not.
 

Canon Shooter

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Messages
3,696
Reaction score
3,582
Points
1,918
Facebook et al are scrubbing posts from the right mostly, picking sides in the political debate.
That has absolutely no bearing on whether or not USMB is a "publisher". A publisher isn't an entity which removes or edits content from one side of the political aisle. It's an entity which removes or edits content.

Politics plays no role in the assignment of the definition...
 

Synthaholic

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
47,670
Reaction score
8,826
Points
2,030
Location
Kicking PoliticalChic's ass up & down the forum
Trump and Republicans don't want to "regulate" social media, they want to remove section 230 protection so that they can be sued just like any other media outlet in the US.
They aren’t publishers any more than US Messageboard is a publisher.
They most certainly are.

The distinction lies in the fact that Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etal will removed posts they deem inappropriate. In doing so, they become, technically, a publisher. In that regard, USMB is also a publisher...
False. They have TOS. Tweets that violate their TOS are removed.

You’ll get it eventually. Or not.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top