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

[K9Buck]

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?

What do I say? I say that, if the government ran it, it would be a colossal waste of taxpayer money, its quality would deteriorate tremendously and organizations such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube would skew even MORE to the left than they do at present. No thanks.

 

[K9Buck]

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.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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.

I suspect that you rally around the letter of the law rather than the spirit because it isn't your own speech being censored here. It is conservative opinions.

I do believe if you would place yourself in the position of those being censored by imagining an archly conservative overreach acting so strongly against your own viewpoint, you would see the bigger picture here.

 

[Canon Shooter]

I know plenty of people who don't use social media of any kind...

 

[Canon Shooter]

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.

Not true.

If a post gets removed or a thread gets locked, and both of those things happen, USMB then becomes a publisher, controlling the flow of information the powers-that-be find offensive...

 

[justoffal]

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?

What do I say? I say that, if the government ran it, it would be a colossal waste of taxpayer money, its quality would deteriorate tremendously and organizations such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube would skew even MORE to the left than they do at present. No thanks.

Sigh.....I'm afraid you're probably right.

JO

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

I suspect that you rally around the letter of the law rather than the spirit because it isn't your own speech being censored here. It is conservative opinions.

I do believe if you would place yourself in the position of those being censored by imagining an archly conservative overreach acting so strongly against your own viewpoint, you would see the bigger picture here.

What makes you think I have not been censored? I have. But I still understand that the 1st amendment is about protecting our rights against gov't intrusion. And social media pages are private property.

I also reject the original premise of the thread. As I said, an argument could be made that the internet is a necessary utility, social media is not necessary by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Not true.

If a post gets removed or a thread gets locked, and both of those things happen, USMB then becomes a publisher, controlling the flow of information the powers-that-be find offensive...

So the gov't should take over control of USMB?

 

[2aguy]

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?

All they need to do is remove the protections these companies have as simple platforms, allow them to be sued as publishers....that will go a long way to fixing this.

 

[2aguy]

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?

Libel and slander laws just like any other form of publisher......if they edit content, they are a publisher, not a platform...

 

[dblack]

Socialists gonna socialize. All hail big daddy government.

 

[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.

Correct.

 

[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?

No.

The thread premise fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Social media platforms are nothing like utilities.

Just because conservatives don't like how social media edits their content doesn't justify subjecting them to government regulation.

 

[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 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.

 

[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.

 

[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 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.

 

[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.

 

[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 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.

 

[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???

 

[Turtlesoup]

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?

There has to be another option than the ones you are implying...