Billy_Kinetta
Paladin of the Lost Hour
- Mar 4, 2013
- 52,766
- 22,196
- 2,320
- Thread starter
- #81
Why not?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Supreme justice suggests treating Twitter and Facebook as utilities so they can be regulated
- Thread starter Billy_Kinetta
- Start date
Why not?
Eric Arthur Blair
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2015
- 25,955
- 15,957
- 1,415
Another case of the unaccomplished black attacking the successful and celebrated black.I tell it like it T.I.Z.
#SorryNotSorry
- Moderator
- #83
Excellent.
In a concurring opinion Monday, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said social-media companies have too much power over public speech, suggesting they be treated as utilities so they can be regulated by the government.
Clarence Thomas pushes new way to deal with social giants
That smacks too close to regulating the media. As long as there is competition, I don't think it should be considered a utility solely because conservatives refuse to follow the rules and then whine about consequences.
Billy_Kinetta
Paladin of the Lost Hour
- Mar 4, 2013
- 52,766
- 22,196
- 2,320
- Thread starter
- #84
Excellent.
In a concurring opinion Monday, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said social-media companies have too much power over public speech, suggesting they be treated as utilities so they can be regulated by the government.
Clarence Thomas pushes new way to deal with social giants
That smacks too close to regulating the media. As long as there is competition, I don't think it should be considered a utility solely because conservatives refuse to follow the rules and then whine about consequences.
Rules must be the same for everyone.
- Moderator
- #85
FB's quest to be the top social media platform with the most users wasn't enough it would seem.Excellent.
In a concurring opinion Monday, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said social-media companies have too much power over public speech, suggesting they be treated as utilities so they can be regulated by the government.
Clarence Thomas pushes new way to deal with social giants
I don't use Facebook, but when it first came out I was a member (I first said I was a user but that didn't quite sound right). Even though I don't like it and don't use it, a company (regardless of size) still has a right to make statements, including political ones. Corporate heads who choose to play politics (like Coca-Cola's actions), should always expect a negative reaction by the political opposition.
When freedom of speech is fairly protected, all speech outside of illegal hate speech is protected. These corporate heads take a small risk every time getting into the political circus to lose business, and rightfully so as voters have the right to boycott.
The US government is large enough and soon to be much larger with current federal efforts to add more layers of oversight. Government needs to let consumers decide the fate of businesses, products, and policy...that would be government policy.
As long as competition isn't stifled by the giants...imo
- Moderator
- #86
Excellent.
In a concurring opinion Monday, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said social-media companies have too much power over public speech, suggesting they be treated as utilities so they can be regulated by the government.
Clarence Thomas pushes new way to deal with social giants
That smacks too close to regulating the media. As long as there is competition, I don't think it should be considered a utility solely because conservatives refuse to follow the rules and then whine about consequences.
Rules must be the same for everyone.
They are.
Slade3200
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2016
- 65,291
- 16,437
- 2,190
Social media platforms are quite different than a phone company or a magazine. Why do they need to be categorize like one or the other?Why can’t they be a platform and still have rules about what content is allowed or not? Do you think they should permit porn and violence and let the trolls take over like dark web social sites have done?Thomas is wrong, of course.
This opinion illustrates why Thomas is not fit to serve on the Supreme Court, that he would buy into the lie that social media are ‘hostile’ toward conservatives.
Such is the authoritarian right.
He is exactly right.....they can be either a platform like a phone, or a publisher, they can't be both and be protected as if they were both.
If they are a platform, they can't edit...
If they are a publisher, and they edit, they can then be sued for what they allowed on their sites....
Those are the two choices...
The problem is if they are allowed the protections of a platform, and yet they edit content, they are protected from libel and slander laws...unfairly...no other entity has both protections......
Magazines and newspapers can edit but they are responsible and can be sued....
The phone company can't edit, and can't be sued....
One or the other, not both...that is the issue.
Crepitus
Diamond Member
- Mar 28, 2018
- 72,063
- 59,993
- 3,615
Oooh look! ^Socialism^!!Excellent.
In a concurring opinion Monday, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said social-media companies have too much power over public speech, suggesting they be treated as utilities so they can be regulated by the government.
Clarence Thomas pushes new way to deal with social giants
dudmuck
Diamond Member
The same Clarence Thomas that is fine with campaign donors having maximum speech but everyone else not so much.Excellent.
In a concurring opinion Monday, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said social-media companies have too much power over public speech, suggesting they be treated as utilities so they can be regulated by the government.
Clarence Thomas pushes new way to deal with social giants
That smacks too close to regulating the media. As long as there is competition, I don't think it should be considered a utility solely because conservatives refuse to follow the rules and then whine about consequences.
Rules must be the same for everyone.
They are.
Mac-7
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 2019
- 61,974
- 45,092
- 3,565
Eric Arthur Blair
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2015
- 25,955
- 15,957
- 1,415
Start a thread about this settled law of the land, ya whiny baby!The same Clarence Thomas that is fine with campaign donors having maximum speech but everyone else not so much.
Try to stick on topic, if it's possible for you.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,956
- 52,217
- 2,290
Social media platforms are quite different than a phone company or a magazine. Why do they need to be categorize like one or the other?Why can’t they be a platform and still have rules about what content is allowed or not? Do you think they should permit porn and violence and let the trolls take over like dark web social sites have done?Thomas is wrong, of course.
This opinion illustrates why Thomas is not fit to serve on the Supreme Court, that he would buy into the lie that social media are ‘hostile’ toward conservatives.
Such is the authoritarian right.
He is exactly right.....they can be either a platform like a phone, or a publisher, they can't be both and be protected as if they were both.
If they are a platform, they can't edit...
If they are a publisher, and they edit, they can then be sued for what they allowed on their sites....
Those are the two choices...
The problem is if they are allowed the protections of a platform, and yet they edit content, they are protected from libel and slander laws...unfairly...no other entity has both protections......
Magazines and newspapers can edit but they are responsible and can be sued....
The phone company can't edit, and can't be sued....
One or the other, not both...that is the issue.
They are currently recieving special protection from slander and libel laws.....section 230 of whatever law protects them from slander and libel......on the condition they are simply platforms, and not editors........that protection needs to be removed now that they are editing content..
How can an opinion be wrong? I like the color red and you don't so if I say red is a cool color, I am wrong?Thomas is wrong, of course.
This opinion illustrates why Thomas is not fit to serve on the Supreme Court, that he would buy into the lie that social media are ‘hostile’ toward conservatives.
Such is the authoritarian right.
Please explain this one.
I agree but I cannot get Parler on my phone, LOL. Not that I would as I despise all social media. But competition to me is not equal. My biggest issue is that Twitter wants to be regulated like AT&T or Verizon. I can call you a murderer over the Verizon phone call or text and not be censored. Not true with Twitter. So they are nothing like Verizon and should not be treated as such. To me they are closer to the NYT than Verizon.Excellent.
In a concurring opinion Monday, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said social-media companies have too much power over public speech, suggesting they be treated as utilities so they can be regulated by the government.
Clarence Thomas pushes new way to deal with social giants
That smacks too close to regulating the media. As long as there is competition, I don't think it should be considered a utility solely because conservatives refuse to follow the rules and then whine about consequences.
Slade3200
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2016
- 65,291
- 16,437
- 2,190
Do you think they edit content the same way a magazine or newspaper edits content?Social media platforms are quite different than a phone company or a magazine. Why do they need to be categorize like one or the other?Why can’t they be a platform and still have rules about what content is allowed or not? Do you think they should permit porn and violence and let the trolls take over like dark web social sites have done?Thomas is wrong, of course.
This opinion illustrates why Thomas is not fit to serve on the Supreme Court, that he would buy into the lie that social media are ‘hostile’ toward conservatives.
Such is the authoritarian right.
He is exactly right.....they can be either a platform like a phone, or a publisher, they can't be both and be protected as if they were both.
If they are a platform, they can't edit...
If they are a publisher, and they edit, they can then be sued for what they allowed on their sites....
Those are the two choices...
The problem is if they are allowed the protections of a platform, and yet they edit content, they are protected from libel and slander laws...unfairly...no other entity has both protections......
Magazines and newspapers can edit but they are responsible and can be sued....
The phone company can't edit, and can't be sued....
One or the other, not both...that is the issue.
They are currently recieving special protection from slander and libel laws.....section 230 of whatever law protects them from slander and libel......on the condition they are simply platforms, and not editors........that protection needs to be removed now that they are editing content..
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,956
- 52,217
- 2,290
Do you think they edit content the same way a magazine or newspaper edits content?Social media platforms are quite different than a phone company or a magazine. Why do they need to be categorize like one or the other?Why can’t they be a platform and still have rules about what content is allowed or not? Do you think they should permit porn and violence and let the trolls take over like dark web social sites have done?Thomas is wrong, of course.
This opinion illustrates why Thomas is not fit to serve on the Supreme Court, that he would buy into the lie that social media are ‘hostile’ toward conservatives.
Such is the authoritarian right.
He is exactly right.....they can be either a platform like a phone, or a publisher, they can't be both and be protected as if they were both.
If they are a platform, they can't edit...
If they are a publisher, and they edit, they can then be sued for what they allowed on their sites....
Those are the two choices...
The problem is if they are allowed the protections of a platform, and yet they edit content, they are protected from libel and slander laws...unfairly...no other entity has both protections......
Magazines and newspapers can edit but they are responsible and can be sued....
The phone company can't edit, and can't be sued....
One or the other, not both...that is the issue.
They are currently recieving special protection from slander and libel laws.....section 230 of whatever law protects them from slander and libel......on the condition they are simply platforms, and not editors........that protection needs to be removed now that they are editing content..
Yes......and so should be exposed to slander and libel laws. Any editing of content exposes them to slander and libel laws....they just want the protection when they edit, which magazines and newspapers do not have...
Slade3200
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2016
- 65,291
- 16,437
- 2,190
This is where you lose the argument. Social media is obviously engaged in a very different kind of editing than publications. If you can’t admit that simple fact then you are not being honestDo you think they edit content the same way a magazine or newspaper edits content?Social media platforms are quite different than a phone company or a magazine. Why do they need to be categorize like one or the other?Why can’t they be a platform and still have rules about what content is allowed or not? Do you think they should permit porn and violence and let the trolls take over like dark web social sites have done?Thomas is wrong, of course.
This opinion illustrates why Thomas is not fit to serve on the Supreme Court, that he would buy into the lie that social media are ‘hostile’ toward conservatives.
Such is the authoritarian right.
He is exactly right.....they can be either a platform like a phone, or a publisher, they can't be both and be protected as if they were both.
If they are a platform, they can't edit...
If they are a publisher, and they edit, they can then be sued for what they allowed on their sites....
Those are the two choices...
The problem is if they are allowed the protections of a platform, and yet they edit content, they are protected from libel and slander laws...unfairly...no other entity has both protections......
Magazines and newspapers can edit but they are responsible and can be sued....
The phone company can't edit, and can't be sued....
One or the other, not both...that is the issue.
They are currently recieving special protection from slander and libel laws.....section 230 of whatever law protects them from slander and libel......on the condition they are simply platforms, and not editors........that protection needs to be removed now that they are editing content..
Yes......and so should be exposed to slander and libel laws. Any editing of content exposes them to slander and libel laws....they just want the protection when they edit, which magazines and newspapers do not have...
- Moderator
- #98
Oooh look! ^Socialism^!!Excellent.
In a concurring opinion Monday, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said social-media companies have too much power over public speech, suggesting they be treated as utilities so they can be regulated by the government.
Clarence Thomas pushes new way to deal with social giants
Regulation!!!!
Big Intrusive Government!!!!
When it suits then
- Moderator
- #99
Do you think they edit content the same way a magazine or newspaper edits content?Social media platforms are quite different than a phone company or a magazine. Why do they need to be categorize like one or the other?Why can’t they be a platform and still have rules about what content is allowed or not? Do you think they should permit porn and violence and let the trolls take over like dark web social sites have done?Thomas is wrong, of course.
This opinion illustrates why Thomas is not fit to serve on the Supreme Court, that he would buy into the lie that social media are ‘hostile’ toward conservatives.
Such is the authoritarian right.
He is exactly right.....they can be either a platform like a phone, or a publisher, they can't be both and be protected as if they were both.
If they are a platform, they can't edit...
If they are a publisher, and they edit, they can then be sued for what they allowed on their sites....
Those are the two choices...
The problem is if they are allowed the protections of a platform, and yet they edit content, they are protected from libel and slander laws...unfairly...no other entity has both protections......
Magazines and newspapers can edit but they are responsible and can be sued....
The phone company can't edit, and can't be sued....
One or the other, not both...that is the issue.
They are currently recieving special protection from slander and libel laws.....section 230 of whatever law protects them from slander and libel......on the condition they are simply platforms, and not editors........that protection needs to be removed now that they are editing content..
Yes......and so should be exposed to slander and libel laws. Any editing of content exposes them to slander and libel laws....they just want the protection when they edit, which magazines and newspapers do not have...
Editing of content - as long as it's clear it was edited wouldn't necessarily expose them to slander or libel.
What WOULD however, would be allowing slanderous/libelous content, like most of Trump & Co's crap. So if you want more free speech you might rethink this. Treating them like publishers will force them to censor more because they will be liable for what ever content is posted.
Are you familiar with the concept of glass houses?Oooh look! ^Socialism^!!Excellent.
In a concurring opinion Monday, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said social-media companies have too much power over public speech, suggesting they be treated as utilities so they can be regulated by the government.
Clarence Thomas pushes new way to deal with social giants
Regulation!!!!
Big Intrusive Government!!!!
When it suits then
Similar threads
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 130
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 118
- Replies
- 31
- Views
- 5K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 42
- Views
- 156
- Replies
- 74
- Views
- 266
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 11
- Replies
- 172
- Views
- 2K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8029
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 468
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-