CDZ Social media has become too big to remain private.... YES or NO?

[Skylar]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

No.

And 'dominion' is just a conspiracy theory backed by nothing.

 

[G.T.]

I'm trying to remember . . . why did energy and utilities have to become public? Why did government have to be a vendor? What clause in the Constitution provides for this?

It's a good question really.....and in truth the government does not have the ability to provide any of those things and yet they must guarantee access to all lest some be denied based on prejudice or preference. Truth is we are always in the hands of privateers even if they are contracted out by the government.....

JO

A private company that does not provide service to certain communities or neighborhoods is not a a company that denies service to those communities and neighborhoods. It's just a company that doesn't provide service to them.

A company that says it will provide a service and then uses the power that providing that service gives them to pick sides and to censor one side and aide another, and interfere in an election,


is a problem that should be addressed by regulation.

That's the babyest cry baby anti conservative bullshit I've ever heard.


Don't like twitter? Build your fuckin own and make it successful.

Don't like MySpace? Build your fuckin own and make it successful. Oh wait, Facebook already did that, RIP MySpace.

 

[G.T.]

No one is taking away your free speech. The 1st amendment does not give you rights to private property. It protects you from being silenced by the gov't.

Yes sir. I do support removing their (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube) special legal protections for which true platforms are eligible as they are certainly publishers and NOT unbiased platforms. This forum is a platform, for example.

They are not publishers. They allow users to publish.

 

[Thoth001]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

I do think the big tech giants should be able to be sued if they censor you. You better believe they will be more careful in who they censor if they can be sued for it.

I am curious what you think the basis for the lawsuit would be?

If you are posting information and they censor your information as long as it's not inciting violence. There should be a way to sue them if they are taking away your free speech.

No one is taking away your free speech. The 1st amendment does not give you rights to private property. It protects you from being silenced by the gov't.

These companies are supposed to just providing a platform. If they are taking sides, and they are, then they are responsible for their content and should be liable for it.

That they mislead people and **** up people's lives, and indeed suppress political speech for partisan purposes, COUNTER to their stated purpose or their responsibilities to their share holders,

Makes regulating them a valid issue.

I agree!

 

[Thoth001]

These companies are supposed to just providing a platform. If they are taking sides, and they are, then they are responsible for their content and should be liable for it.

That they mislead people and **** up people's lives, and indeed suppress political speech for partisan purposes, COUNTER to their stated purpose or their responsibilities to their share holders,

Makes regulating them a valid issue.

If this argument were raised outside the context of political retribution, I might have more patience with it. But it's not. It's purely Trump "going after" social media companies that won't do his bidding. We should never tolerate that kind of government.

Your rationalization for supporting censorship is noted.

Note whatever you like. I totally support censorship, as long it's not mandated by the state. Twitter and FB's main mistake was in making exceptions for him in the first place. They should have banned him like any other troll and wiped their hands of the whole thing. Instead they placated him, and his followers, because they like all the traffic. For that reason, I don't feel particularly sorry for them being in the crosshairs. But I don't want to see the state dictating to media. Period.

FUnny how so many of the super rich are actually hard core lefties, and use their power to advance the lefty agenda.


It is almost like the class warfare rhetoric of the Left is, like so much of what that have to say, complete bs.


i bet if it were RIGHT LEANING tech companies censoring huge portions of the information that people get, your opinion would be very different.

I do wonder why it is that the super rich do become hardcore lefties and most in hollywood. And why is it that most of these super rich or into pushing tyranny on the people? Did they lose all connection with reality. I think their maybe something to that mind parasite called the Archons.

 

[Skylar]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

I do think the big tech giants should be able to be sued if they censor you. You better believe they will be more careful in who they censor if they can be sued for it.

I am curious what you think the basis for the lawsuit would be?

If you are posting information and they censor your information as long as it's not inciting violence. There should be a way to sue them if they are taking away your free speech.

No one is taking away your free speech. The 1st amendment does not give you rights to private property. It protects you from being silenced by the gov't.

These companies are supposed to just providing a platform. If they are taking sides, and they are, then they are responsible for their content and should be liable for it.

That they mislead people and **** up people's lives, and indeed suppress political speech for partisan purposes, COUNTER to their stated purpose or their responsibilities to their share holders,

Makes regulating them a valid issue.

They suppressed political speech....according to who? See, they are the arbiters of what violates their terms of service. Not you.

That you disagree with their assessment in no way impairs their ability to make such an assessment.

 

[Correll]

These companies are supposed to just providing a platform. If they are taking sides, and they are, then they are responsible for their content and should be liable for it.

That they mislead people and **** up people's lives, and indeed suppress political speech for partisan purposes, COUNTER to their stated purpose or their responsibilities to their share holders,

Makes regulating them a valid issue.

If this argument were raised outside the context of political retribution, I might have more patience with it. But it's not. It's purely Trump "going after" social media companies that won't do his bidding. We should never tolerate that kind of government.

Your rationalization for supporting censorship is noted.

Note whatever you like. I totally support censorship, as long it's not mandated by the state. Twitter and FB's main mistake was in making exceptions for him in the first place. They should have banned him like any other troll and wiped their hands of the whole thing. Instead they placated him, and his followers, because they like all the traffic. For that reason, I don't feel particularly sorry for them being in the crosshairs. But I don't want to see the state dictating to media. Period.

FUnny how so many of the super rich are actually hard core lefties, and use their power to advance the lefty agenda.


It is almost like the class warfare rhetoric of the Left is, like so much of what that have to say, complete bs.


i bet if it were RIGHT LEANING tech companies censoring huge portions of the information that people get, your opinion would be very different.

You mean like Fox News?

Don't you realize that if we give government power over social media, the Democrats will run hog wild with it???

The dems have never waited for us to run wild. They did not need anything from us to use Big Tech, or to politicize the media, or to use violent mobs in the streets.

The issue is real. That dealing with it will be hard, or even not possible, does not mean that the issue is not real.

 

[Correll]

I'm trying to remember . . . why did energy and utilities have to become public? Why did government have to be a vendor? What clause in the Constitution provides for this?

It's a good question really.....and in truth the government does not have the ability to provide any of those things and yet they must guarantee access to all lest some be denied based on prejudice or preference. Truth is we are always in the hands of privateers even if they are contracted out by the government.....

JO

A private company that does not provide service to certain communities or neighborhoods is not a a company that denies service to those communities and neighborhoods. It's just a company that doesn't provide service to them.

A company that says it will provide a service and then uses the power that providing that service gives them to pick sides and to censor one side and aide another, and interfere in an election,


is a problem that should be addressed by regulation.

That's the babyest cry baby anti conservative bullshit I've ever heard.


Don't like twitter? Build your fuckin own and make it successful.

Don't like MySpace? Build your fuckin own and make it successful. Oh wait, Facebook already did that, RIP MySpace.

That argument could be used against all regulation, yet, you people support plenty of regulation.

It is almost as though you are dismissing the issue under false pretenses, because you know what Big Tech is doing is wrong, but you support it BECAUSE it is wrong, but you are too cowardly to admit it.

 

[Correll]

No one is taking away your free speech. The 1st amendment does not give you rights to private property. It protects you from being silenced by the gov't.

Yes sir. I do support removing their (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube) special legal protections for which true platforms are eligible as they are certainly publishers and NOT unbiased platforms. This forum is a platform, for example.

They are not publishers. They allow users to publish.

When they censor one side, and favor another, they are publishers.

 

[K9Buck]

They are not publishers. They allow users to publish.

You're kidding, right?

 

[Correll]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

I do think the big tech giants should be able to be sued if they censor you. You better believe they will be more careful in who they censor if they can be sued for it.

I am curious what you think the basis for the lawsuit would be?

If you are posting information and they censor your information as long as it's not inciting violence. There should be a way to sue them if they are taking away your free speech.

No one is taking away your free speech. The 1st amendment does not give you rights to private property. It protects you from being silenced by the gov't.

These companies are supposed to just providing a platform. If they are taking sides, and they are, then they are responsible for their content and should be liable for it.

That they mislead people and **** up people's lives, and indeed suppress political speech for partisan purposes, COUNTER to their stated purpose or their responsibilities to their share holders,

Makes regulating them a valid issue.

They suppressed political speech....according to who? See, they are the arbiters of what violates their terms of service. Not you.

That you disagree with their assessment in no way impairs their ability to make such an assessment.

According to anyone who is capable of noticing the way they arbitrate their terms of service, in a partisan and unfair manner, with the obvious intent of censorship.


In doing so, they are interfering with the ability of the nation to have a serious and honest discussion of the issues and the ideas on how to deal with them.

And they are seriously harming the lives of the individuals who have built their livelihoods, in good faith, based on their stated terms of service, only to discover after the fact that those terms are not followed or applied in good faith.

 

[G.T.]

I'm trying to remember . . . why did energy and utilities have to become public? Why did government have to be a vendor? What clause in the Constitution provides for this?

It's a good question really.....and in truth the government does not have the ability to provide any of those things and yet they must guarantee access to all lest some be denied based on prejudice or preference. Truth is we are always in the hands of privateers even if they are contracted out by the government.....

JO

A private company that does not provide service to certain communities or neighborhoods is not a a company that denies service to those communities and neighborhoods. It's just a company that doesn't provide service to them.

A company that says it will provide a service and then uses the power that providing that service gives them to pick sides and to censor one side and aide another, and interfere in an election,


is a problem that should be addressed by regulation.

That's the babyest cry baby anti conservative bullshit I've ever heard.


Don't like twitter? Build your fuckin own and make it successful.

Don't like MySpace? Build your fuckin own and make it successful. Oh wait, Facebook already did that, RIP MySpace.

That argument could be used against all regulation, yet, you people support plenty of regulation.

It is almost as though you are dismissing the issue under false pretenses, because you know what Big Tech is doing is wrong, but you support it BECAUSE it is wrong, but you are too cowardly to admit it.

No, it couldn't be used against all regulation Sherlock. Are you a Lawyer? Do you know how the Commerce Laws work? Of course you don't - perpetually whiny conservative victims on a messageboard do this. And if I leave and come back in ten years, they'll be the same, but the whines will be different. Rinse/repeat.

 

[G.T.]

No one is taking away your free speech. The 1st amendment does not give you rights to private property. It protects you from being silenced by the gov't.

Yes sir. I do support removing their (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube) special legal protections for which true platforms are eligible as they are certainly publishers and NOT unbiased platforms. This forum is a platform, for example.

They are not publishers. They allow users to publish.

When they censor one side, and favor another, they are publishers.

No, they're a Company making a decision not to post kook conspiracy theory bullshit on the platform they invented and paid to build that you whiny folks get to use for free if you follow its rules and not use if you don't.

 

[sparky]

What do you say?

the PNAC wish list was inclusive of 'controlling the internets', 30 yrs ago

~S~

 

[K9Buck]

No, they're a Company making a decision not to post kook conspiracy theory bullshit...

Then they're not a platform but, rather, a publisher.

This forum permits people to post all sorts of bizarre views because this forum is a PLATFORM. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are PUBLISHERS because they censor a plethora opinions.

 

[G.T.]

No, they're a Company making a decision not to post kook conspiracy theory bullshit...

Then they're not a platform but, rather, a publisher.

This forum permits people to post all sorts of bizarre views because this forum is a PLATFORM. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are PUBLISHERS because they censor a plethora opinions.

This forum has rules and can kick people and ban them.

Twitter, facebook and youtube can do the same - and you can also get off your ass, educate yourself, and build your own successful platform if your feelings don't like it.

 

[Moonglow]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

Public utility companies are privately owned or a Co-op .

 

[Correll]

I'm trying to remember . . . why did energy and utilities have to become public? Why did government have to be a vendor? What clause in the Constitution provides for this?

It's a good question really.....and in truth the government does not have the ability to provide any of those things and yet they must guarantee access to all lest some be denied based on prejudice or preference. Truth is we are always in the hands of privateers even if they are contracted out by the government.....

JO

A private company that does not provide service to certain communities or neighborhoods is not a a company that denies service to those communities and neighborhoods. It's just a company that doesn't provide service to them.

A company that says it will provide a service and then uses the power that providing that service gives them to pick sides and to censor one side and aide another, and interfere in an election,


is a problem that should be addressed by regulation.

That's the babyest cry baby anti conservative bullshit I've ever heard.


Don't like twitter? Build your fuckin own and make it successful.

Don't like MySpace? Build your fuckin own and make it successful. Oh wait, Facebook already did that, RIP MySpace.

That argument could be used against all regulation, yet, you people support plenty of regulation.

It is almost as though you are dismissing the issue under false pretenses, because you know what Big Tech is doing is wrong, but you support it BECAUSE it is wrong, but you are too cowardly to admit it.

No, it couldn't be used against all regulation Sherlock. Are you a Lawyer? Do you know how the Commerce Laws work? Of course you don't - you're a perpetually whiny conservative victim on a messageboard. And if I leave and come back in ten years, you'll be the same, but the whines will be different. Rinse/repeat.

I don't need to be a lawyer to see that your argument is an argument against the very concept of regulation, which, since you are not supporting NO regulation, means that it is not a serious argument.


You are just dismissing a point, you can't refute honestly and hoping you can fool people if you just keep repeating it over and over again.

 

[Correll]

No one is taking away your free speech. The 1st amendment does not give you rights to private property. It protects you from being silenced by the gov't.

Yes sir. I do support removing their (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube) special legal protections for which true platforms are eligible as they are certainly publishers and NOT unbiased platforms. This forum is a platform, for example.

They are not publishers. They allow users to publish.

When they censor one side, and favor another, they are publishers.

No, they're a Company making a decision not to post kook conspiracy theory bullshit on the platform they invented and paid to build that you whiny folks get to use for free if you follow its rules and not use if you don't.

They are taking sides and suppressing the speech of their political rivals, to interfere in the election.

They are not just suppressing "kook conspiracy theories". YOu are a liar.

 

[K9Buck]

This forum has rules and can kick people and ban them.

Twitter, facebook and youtube can do the same - and you can also get off your fat ass, educate yourself, and build your own successful platform if your feelings don't like it.

There are some quality, insightful posters here with whom one can engage in an informative, give-and-take discussion. However, you're not one of them.