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

[K9Buck]

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 fuck 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.

Businesses, big and small, have a right to their political biases - just like people. They have a right to pick and choose who they cater to and who they snub. They have a right to disagree with the government, and to say so. Despite the claims of socialists and Trump Republicans, they are not "owned" by the state. They are not "public utilities".

The issue here is that FB and Twitter have defied the President and you want to punish them for it. Government shouldn't work that way. A free society doesn't work that way.

So then why does Twitter, Facebook and YouTube receive government immunity from lawsuits?

There are many reasons that law was passed. But the ONLY reason Trump wants it repealed is because they've called him on his bullshit.

You're not a serious, honest, objective person.

Ad homs aside - do you deny my claim? Would trump be "going after" social media companies if they supported him? You know goddamned well he wouldn't. But go ahead, shuffle your feet and whimper through some excuses.

No, but that doesn't change the fact that tech giants receive government protection not afforded to 99.99% of organizations. Don't tell me that you don't support the fascist marriage of monolithic government and worldwide conglomerates. They love guys like you.

 

[dblack]

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 fuck 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.

Businesses, big and small, have a right to their political biases - just like people. They have a right to pick and choose who they cater to and who they snub. They have a right to disagree with the government, and to say so. Despite the claims of socialists and Trump Republicans, they are not "owned" by the state. They are not "public utilities".

The issue here is that FB and Twitter have defied the President and you want to punish them for it. Government shouldn't work that way. A free society doesn't work that way.

So then why does Twitter, Facebook and YouTube receive government immunity from lawsuits?

There are many reasons that law was passed. But the ONLY reason Trump wants it repealed is because they've called him on his bullshit.

You're not a serious, honest, objective person.

Ad homs aside - do you deny my claim? Would trump be "going after" social media companies if they supported him? You know goddamned well he wouldn't. But go ahead, shuffle your feet and whimper through some excuses.

No, but that doesn't change the fact that tech giants receive government protection not afforded to 99.99% of organizations. Don't tell me that you don't support the fascist marriage of monolithic government and worldwide conglomerates. They love guys like you.

Again with the ad-homs, but thank you for conceding my point. Like nearly all of Trump's attacks on his "enemies", the reasons cited are merely excuses, thought up after the fact to justify his "revenge".

 

[Blues Man]

I don't think Social media needs regulation.

I don't either, but why do they receive special legal protections that this site isn't afforded? Do you support them receiving such special legal protection?

And what protections are those?

The moderators on this site delete posts all the time

Twitter, Facebook, YouTube are immune to libel lawsuits.

Who has ever claimed that Facebook et al has published anything libelous?

I don't think fact checking rises to the definition of libel

Do you think that Facebook should be held accountable for the posts of people using the site?

 

[K9Buck]

Social credit scores aren't far down the pike and you guys will be licking the boots of the people that implement it.

 

[dblack]

Social credit scores aren't far down the pike and you guys will be licking the boots of the people that implement it.

Huh? What do social credit scores have to do with the topic?

 

[K9Buck]

Huh? What do social credit scores have to do with the topic?

Carry on, comrade!

 

[Blues Man]

Social credit scores aren't far down the pike and you guys will be licking the boots of the people that implement it.

I don't use social media.

if I can't be anonymous I'm gone

 

[B. Kidd]

Privacy has never been a legal firewall preventing the Gov't from regulating business.
Crony oligarchs should be regulated when it comes to censorship in mass communication businesses.

 

[Blues Man]

Privacy has never been a legal firewall preventing the Gov't from regulating business.
Crony oligarchs should be regulated when it comes to censorship in mass communication businesses.

Is a messaging platform a mass communication business?

If the only content is what people who sign up to use the free service post then IMO it is not any different than a bunch of people sitting in a room shooting the shit

 

[dblack]

Huh? What do social credit scores have to do with the topic?

Carry on, comrade!

No answer? Are you in favor of social credit schemes?

 

[B. Kidd]

Privacy has never been a legal firewall preventing the Gov't from regulating business.
Crony oligarchs should be regulated when it comes to censorship in mass communication businesses.

Is a messaging platform a mass communication business?

If the only content is what people who sign up to use the free service post then IMO it is not any different than a bunch of people sitting in a room shooting the shit

No. Because everyone can access it.

 

[Thevolunteerwino]

I know that google should be in the process of losing its trademark by law.
The word google has become a generic word in the english language "just google it" meaming look it up online.
Since its become a verb and a generic word in the modern english language it should not be able anymore to be a trademark name. . .
Dont believe me? Just google it. Xerox went through this possible problem way back when people started using its name as a verb as well

 

[d0gbreath]

Why has social media become too big? What is it exactly that makes everyone want to join in?

Well, I'll tell you: It allows the smallest of worms to be a star. Bigger worms = Super Stars! The internet allows you to be what you fantasize yourself as being.

How do you curtail that?

 

[B. Kidd]

Why has social media become too big? What is it exactly that makes everyone want to join in?

Well, I'll tell you: It allows the smallest of worms to be a star. Bigger worms = Super Stars! The internet allows you to be what you fantasize yourself as being.

How do you curtail that?

Regulate them because they are in the public domain.
If you drive drunk and pull into private property or your driveway, it is still considered 'the public domain' and you can be arrested because the public has access!

 

[d0gbreath]

Why has social media become too big? What is it exactly that makes everyone want to join in?

Well, I'll tell you: It allows the smallest of worms to be a star. Bigger worms = Super Stars! The internet allows you to be what you fantasize yourself as being.

How do you curtail that?

Regulate them because they are in the public domain.
If you drive drunk and pull into private property or your driveway, it is still considered 'the public domain' and you can be arrested because the public has access!

What kind of regulations?

 

[Dick Foster]

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 but they can do to it what they did to ma bell, standard oil and lord knows how many others.

 

[B. Kidd]

Why has social media become too big? What is it exactly that makes everyone want to join in?

Well, I'll tell you: It allows the smallest of worms to be a star. Bigger worms = Super Stars! The internet allows you to be what you fantasize yourself as being.

How do you curtail that?

Regulate them because they are in the public domain.
If you drive drunk and pull into private property or your driveway, it is still considered 'the public domain' and you can be arrested because the public has access!

What kind of regulations?

Try 1st Amendment regulations fer' starters.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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 fuck 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.

Nonsense.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Private media entities are at liberty to edit their content as they see fit; there is no ‘suppression’ of political speech.

Only government has the potential to suppress speech using its authority to enact and enforce measures to preempt free expression – the purpose of First Amendment case law is to prohibit government from doing so, or to otherwise allow government to lawfully preempt speech as authorized by that case law.

The First Amendment doesn’t apply to private social media platforms.

Subjecting private social media platforms to government regulation is unwarranted and un-Constitutional.

It’s perfectly appropriate for social media platforms to prohibit rightwing hate speech.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Because the side being subject to appropriate editing is conservatives engaging in hate speech, in addition to reckless, irresponsible conspiracy theories.

If you as a rightist don’t like it, don’t participate.

Indeed, the internet is infinite, there’s ample opportunity for conservatives to propagate their lies, misinformation, and hate speech absent FB or Twitter.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

And if they arbitrarily and unfairly kick and ban people who don't deserve it, based on their stated rules, and it makes it impossible to actually do what the site is designed for, ie have political discussions,


then they are assholes and morally and ethically in the wrong.


If the site were important enough that their misdeeds were a threat to the well being of the society, then society would have the right to respond.

Like private organizations, private social media sites are at liberty to determine who is or is not a member absent justification.

If a private social media platform doesn’t want to have conservatives as members who spread lies, misinformation, and hate speech, then those individuals can be appropriately banned.

It’s idiotic to suggest that private social media platforms should be subject to government regulation because those platforms don’t want hateful, racist, bigoted conservatives as members.