Regulating social media.

Synthaholic

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
47,656
Reaction score
8,813
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.
That's censorship, and not what we are talking about.

Fascists gotta fascist.
No one has a right to a FCC license.
 

Grampa Murked U

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2011
Messages
82,875
Reaction score
22,440
Points
2,205
Location
Kansas City
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.
Social media needs to be regulated. It has become a vital extension of the "public square" and needs to be treated as such
 

kyzr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
16,318
Reaction score
7,479
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.
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?
Right.
 

Synthaholic

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
47,656
Reaction score
8,813
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...
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.
You’re talking out your ass again.
 

Grampa Murked U

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2011
Messages
82,875
Reaction score
22,440
Points
2,205
Location
Kansas City
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.
Thats complete nonsense.

They are constantly removing posts and then trying to fit them into their TOS nonsense by constantly tweaking the damn rules. Just like Webster changed the definition of sexual preference RIGHT AFTER THE DEBATE.

MANY posts are just straight up removed with NO NOTIFICATION as to why.

Regulate the fuck out of them or remove their government protections.
 

Canon Shooter

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Messages
3,495
Reaction score
3,410
Points
1,918
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.
Social media needs to be regulated. It has become a vital extension of the "public square" and needs to be treated as such
What type of regulation do you think should be applied to social media as well as to the town square of Anytown, USA?
 

kyzr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
16,318
Reaction score
7,479
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.
If they are a publisher, then they would be justified in blocking false or misleading content regardless of who is the tweeter.
Correct, they are publishers, but don't have the section 230 lawsuits to worry about, so they can be partisan hacks and treat people unfairly without concern. Free speech has limits, unless you can't be sued, then there are no limits.
 

Canon Shooter

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Messages
3,495
Reaction score
3,410
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...
False. They have TOS. Tweets that violate their TOS are removed.

You’ll get it eventually. Or not.
TOS means nothing with regards to whether or not they're considered a "publisher". The terms of service are simply the guidelines under which they publish their content.

You'll get it eventually.

Or not...
 
OP
D

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
36,313
Reaction score
4,487
Points
1,130
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?
Agreed. It's not a serious question. Conservatives aren't clamoring for a crackdown on FB and Twitter. Trumpsters are.

Then...the serious.

DOES there need to be some sort of regulation of social media?
No.

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 the two "sides" want, in the short term, is irrelevant. State run media will be a mistake.

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.
Yep. The state will be calling the shots. And both Democrats and Trumpsters love the state calling the shots.

Should there be regulation here and if so, what sort?
No
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.
I'm sure you are. That's why I posted this thread. It's coming. And I'm curious how Trumpsters will respond, if they even have any meaningful power at that point.
 

kyzr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
16,318
Reaction score
7,479
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.
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.
Section 230 will be gone, you'll get it eventually, or not.


 
OP
D

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
36,313
Reaction score
4,487
Points
1,130
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.
Section 230 will be gone, you'll get it eventually, or not.
Whatever. The publisher/platform argument is utterly fake. Trumpsters want to punish Facebook and Twitter because they defy Trump. Democrats want to regulate social media because they want government to control everything. That's it. The rest is theater.
 

Grampa Murked U

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2011
Messages
82,875
Reaction score
22,440
Points
2,205
Location
Kansas City
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.
Social media needs to be regulated. It has become a vital extension of the "public square" and needs to be treated as such
What type of regulation do you think should be applied to social media as well as to the town square of Anytown, USA?
Free Speech should be protected.
How would you feel if cellular carriers started regulating your texts?
 

Natural Citizen

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
12,628
Reaction score
5,572
Points
430
Both private companies. You’ll get it eventually. Or not.
Stuff like this is always convenient...

Facebook hires ‘co-writer’ of the pro-surveillance Patriot Act amid growing concerns over privacy

Before taking the job with Facebook, Newstead served as a legal adviser to the State Department.


Other relevant reading...

A Four Person NATO-Funded Team Advises Facebook On Flagging 'Propaganda'

What's more is that the team of four total individuals running the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFR Lab) is headed by a former National Security Council advisor for the last four years of the Obama administration, Graham Brookie, who is also its founder.
 

Grampa Murked U

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2011
Messages
82,875
Reaction score
22,440
Points
2,205
Location
Kansas City
Twitter/Facebook/Instagram are the new united States postal service and the laws need to reflect that.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
54,152
Reaction score
11,460
Points
2,040
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...
The definition isn't the issue, the effect is. An area of discussion which is a modern commons is being slanted to one side of the political spectrum.
 
OP
D

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
36,313
Reaction score
4,487
Points
1,130
Last edited:
OP
D

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
36,313
Reaction score
4,487
Points
1,130
Twitter/Facebook/Instagram are the new united States postal service and the laws need to reflect that.
You're dead wrong, Gramps. This is the shit the creates totalitarian governments. And with the Republicans out of the way, there will be precious little left to stop it.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top