Regulating social media.

[martybegan]

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.

Actually one does if one meets the requirements and there is available bandwidth. The government can't pick and choose who it gives a license to based on content.

The regulation's purpose isn't to filter content, but to stop broadcasters from overriding each other on a signal spectrum.

Given that most people don't get their TV over the airwaves, this form of regulation is rapidly becoming archaic.

 

[Natural Citizen]

How would you feel if cellular carriers started regulating your texts?

See Pen Register

Pen register - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[martybegan]

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.

As usual you show the intellectual grasp of your avatar, toothy mc-bigtits.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

I am 100% right.

All these bigass companies are controlling what we see/read/say. They are the biggest danger to the US's long term stability.

MAJOR change has occurred thanks to technology and our laws are not reflective of that.
It's like all the old timers that complained about cars because horses were all they needed.

 

[dblack]

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.

I am 100% right.

Well, you're gonna get your way - so we'll see, won't we?

All these bigass companies are controlling what we see/read/say. They are the biggest danger to the US's long term stability.

Sure. Much better to have government in charge of controlling what we see/read/say.

 

[Coyote]

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.

In your view then - is ANY regulation equal to "state run media"? For example - there is regulation regarding false advertising, and regulations allowing media to be sued for false, libelous or defamatory reporting. Shouldn't platforms at least be held to that standard rather than "hands off"?

 

[Natural Citizen]

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?

Relevant reading...

Democrats Threaten To Regulate Facebook, Twitter, Google: 'Do Something' To Stop Russian Propaganda 'Or We Will'

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) complained that the platforms had been “misused.” She threatened, “you have to be the ones who do something about it – or we will.”

 

[Natural Citizen]

It's really no wonder they get away with this stuff in broad daylight.

We're so fucked. lol.

 

[Canon Shooter]

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?

That's not addressing my question.

You said that social media needs to be regulated. I'm asking you what sort of regulations should apply to both the public square (as in a physical "town square") and social media?

 

[Coyote]

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.

I am 100% right.

All these bigass companies are controlling what we see/read/say. They are the biggest danger to the US's long term stability.

MAJOR change has occurred thanks to technology and our laws are not reflective of that.
It's like all the old timers that complained about cars because horses were all they needed.

Wow...what are the chances we would agree on anything? One in a million...but I agree on this.

These giants are largely protected because they are private entities (as they should be) - except they are so large they form effective monopolies for the distribution of information, and are laws are way behind the times on this. And no one has wanted to touch them on anti-trust....

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

I am 100% right.

Well, you're gonna get your way - so we'll see, won't we?

All these bigass companies are controlling what we see/read/say. They are the biggest danger to the US's long term stability.

Sure. Much better to have government in charge of controlling what we see/read/say.

The GOVERNMENT doesn't need to control anything but the censorship.

 

[dblack]

In your view then - is ANY regulation equal to "state run media"?

Yes. To whatever degree something is "regulated", it's controlled by the state. We should be very wary of that.

For example - there is regulation regarding false advertising, and regulations allowing media to be sued for false, libelous or defamatory reporting. Shouldn't platforms at least be held to that standard rather than "hands off"?

Regulations don't "allow" media to be sued. Anybody can sue anyone for anything they like. Anyone except the government. If these businesses get in bed with government, we'll have very little power to reject them.

 

[dblack]

All these bigass companies are controlling what we see/read/say. They are the biggest danger to the US's long term stability.

MAJOR change has occurred thanks to technology and our laws are not reflective of that.
It's like all the old timers that complained about cars because horses were all they needed.

Wow...what are the chances we would agree on anything? One in a million...but I agree on this.

This is EXACTLY what worries me. When D's and R's agree - bend over!

 

[Coyote]

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?

Relevant reading...

Democrats Threaten To Regulate Facebook, Twitter, Google: 'Do Something' To Stop Russian Propaganda 'Or We Will'

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) complained that the platforms had been “misused.” She threatened, “you have to be the ones who do something about it – or we will.”

How do you address the onslaught of false information, propaganda, etc while still maintaining free speech?

Prior to mass social media...people were not constantly connected to the "news" or "media" and news papers had some obligation to report at least somewhat accurately (except for tabloids)....false news didn't get amplified and virally spread like it can today.

I have no answers but I do think it is a serious problem.

 

[my2¢]

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 and Republicans both may favor one thing or another when empowered. However, when they're on the outside looking in, the world offers an entirely different viewpoint to them. There would be Republican resistance based on who is setting the rules.

The clamoring by Trumpsters over social media seems quite like what was heard from Democrats about AM radio political talk shows when Rush Limbaugh became a sensation.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

All these bigass companies are controlling what we see/read/say. They are the biggest danger to the US's long term stability.

MAJOR change has occurred thanks to technology and our laws are not reflective of that.
It's like all the old timers that complained about cars because horses were all they needed.

Wow...what are the chances we would agree on anything? One in a million...but I agree on this.

This is EXACTLY what worries me. When D's and R's agree - bend over!

We have teens being radicalized in both directions and those giants are facilitating that.

Those teens are tomorrows tyrants if this shit isn't put in check.

 

[dblack]

How do you address the onslaught of false information, propaganda, etc while still maintaining free speech?

You address it by growing the **** up and thinking for yourself. If we can't do that, as a nation, no amount of legislation will save us.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Democrats and Republicans both may favor one thing or another when empowered. However, when they're on the outside looking in, the world offers an entirely different viewpoint to them.

The only way to ever get the discussion pointed in the right direction is to insure that the duopoly is on the outside looking in.

And that takes time.

Until then, they're both split roasting the electorate under the illusion of difference. Their strength lies in maintaining an under-informed electorate. They're strength lies in the illusion of difference. As it is, both sides of the party of one are going full blown fascist. And undeterred, unfortunately, so long as they can keep the electorate arguing over meaningless trivialities.

 

[skews13]

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.

 

[Natural Citizen]

How do you address the onslaught of false information, propaganda, etc while still maintaining free speech?

Prior to mass social media...people were not constantly connected to the "news" or "media" and news papers had some obligation to report at least somewhat accurately (except for tabloids)....false news didn't get amplified and virally spread like it can today.

I have no answers but I do think it is a serious problem.

Firstly, deal with things like the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 which was contained within the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.

It's no irony that Facebook hired the co-writer of the Patriot Act, who had served as a legal adviser to the State Department. They're covering their bases, for sure.

Here's what is happening. Think of it this way. A person is working at a pharmaceutical company on a new drug. Once it's ready, they go through the revolving door and go approve their own drug while working over the at the FDA. Happens often, believe it or not.

The same thing is happening with the feds and these tech companies. And other companies beyond them. In this case, they're legalizing propaganda, putting out propaganda on one end, blaming someone else (because propaganda is legal) then going to work for the very company who decides what propaganda is.

It's also no irony that facebook hires a newly formed company founded by a former National Security Council advisor (Graham Brookie) with NATO funding, btw, as its 'fact-checker.'

And that's just one thing.

The electorate is totaly being scammed by former government officials and these tech companies, doing precisely what fascists do.

The parts of the NDAA I referenced is how the FBI can stand up there on national television and give us a half-assed bullshit story about Iranian and Russian (China omitted, btw) interference. It's legalized propaganda. And they have former feds working for the tech companies running interference for them.

That stuff has to be repealed. Like yesterday.