Supreme justice suggests treating Twitter and Facebook as utilities so they can be regulated

[Coyote]

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.

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.

See THAT is where I think a case could be made to re-think the laws that these entities operate under, not necessarily make them like publishers or utilities, but they've changed since those laws were first created. ARE they effectively stifling competition? Maybe. Why does it seem like Congress (both parties) never addresses this?

But there is a significant difference between phone and twitter or social media. Phone is between you and one person. Twitter and social media is between you and the entire world. What you say is not private. A lie can spread around the world and become "truth" before you know it. So I agree with you there, but I also do not think they are anything like the news media. The news media has no obligation to allow anyone and everyone to air an opinion for example. Their purpose is journalism (whether you agree with them or not)...and they create their own content. I think social media is it's own category and needs to be viewed in that manner.

 

[Coyote]

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

Oooh look! ^Socialism^!!

Regulation!!!!

Big Intrusive Government!!!!


When it suits then

Are you familiar with the concept of glass houses?

Yes. I suggest you put that stone down.

 

[dblack]

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

Oooh look! ^Socialism^!!

Regulation!!!!

Big Intrusive Government!!!!


When it suits then

Are you familiar with the concept of glass houses?

Yes. I suggest you put that stone down.

Seriously - don't you recognize your own hypocrisy on this issue?

 

[HenryBHough]

Responsibility: A word not found in liberal dictionaries.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

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.

See THAT is where I think a case could be made to re-think the laws that these entities operate under, not necessarily make them like publishers or utilities, but they've changed since those laws were first created. ARE they effectively stifling competition? Maybe. Why does it seem like Congress (both parties) never addresses this?

But there is a significant difference between phone and twitter or social media. Phone is between you and one person. Twitter and social media is between you and the entire world. What you say is not private. A lie can spread around the world and become "truth" before you know it. So I agree with you there, but I also do not think they are anything like the news media. The news media has no obligation to allow anyone and everyone to air an opinion for example. Their purpose is journalism (whether you agree with them or not)...and they create their own content. I think social media is it's own category and needs to be viewed in that manner.

Yes. My point is they are closer to the NYT than Verizon but not anything like the NYT. So why are they regulated like Verizon?

 

[Coyote]

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.

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.

See THAT is where I think a case could be made to re-think the laws that these entities operate under, not necessarily make them like publishers or utilities, but they've changed since those laws were first created. ARE they effectively stifling competition? Maybe. Why does it seem like Congress (both parties) never addresses this?

But there is a significant difference between phone and twitter or social media. Phone is between you and one person. Twitter and social media is between you and the entire world. What you say is not private. A lie can spread around the world and become "truth" before you know it. So I agree with you there, but I also do not think they are anything like the news media. The news media has no obligation to allow anyone and everyone to air an opinion for example. Their purpose is journalism (whether you agree with them or not)...and they create their own content. I think social media is it's own category and needs to be viewed in that manner.

Yes. My point is they are closer to the NYT than Verizon but not anything like the NYT. So why are they regulated like Verizon?

But...they aren't regulated like Verizon....

 

[daveman]

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

FB's quest to be the top social media platform with the most users wasn't enough it would seem.

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.

The big Atlanta companies think voting is sacred and no US citizen should be excluded.. Obviously you think differently.

There is no reason an adult living in the US has an issue getting an ID, if that's the issue to which you're referring. I read your two sentence post over and over...still don't get the connection you're making to my post with the changes made by Georgia's law. Care to elaborate? EDIT=to clarify-there should be no reason it's an issue to obtain an ID in any state because people have months and months to get one if not years prior to next national election. That argument just doesn't hold up.

Poll: Sixty-nine percent of black voters and 75% overall support voter ID laws

 

[daveman]

Liberalism is support of individual liberty and small govt.

Oh yeah you know that FDR...totally a proponent of small government.

FDR put Americans in camps because they looked different.

You guys sure do pick some fucked-up heroes.

FDR was a Socialist

Yes. A leftist. Just like today's Democrats.

Just like anyone who would suggest nationalizing media as a "utility".

No need for that. They're publishers. Treat them as such.

Same difference. If you're advocating for government sinking its claws into social media, you're no conservative. Certainly no libertarian.

Are you afraid your propaganda outlets might be held accountable for their actions?

 

[daveman]

Liberalism is support of individual liberty and small govt.

Oh yeah you know that FDR...totally a proponent of small government.

FDR put Americans in camps because they looked different.

You guys sure do pick some fucked-up heroes.

FDR was a Socialist

Yes. A leftist. Just like today's Democrats.

Just like anyone who would suggest nationalizing media as a "utility".

No need for that. They're publishers. Treat them as such.

Aren't they called social platforms, and have been for years? The problem has been identified by other posters- a platform does not have the right to act as a publisher and edit. Or has the definition of "social platform" evolved now? Maybe I've missed something.

The definition has "evolved" because what were formerly platforms are now publishers.

Oddly, it's the publishers and those who support censorship of ideas who have forced the evolution.

 

[AFrench2]

Liberalism is support of individual liberty and small govt.

Oh yeah you know that FDR...totally a proponent of small government.

FDR put Americans in camps because they looked different.

You guys sure do pick some fucked-up heroes.

FDR was a Socialist

Yes. A leftist. Just like today's Democrats.

Just like anyone who would suggest nationalizing media as a "utility".

No need for that. They're publishers. Treat them as such.

Aren't they called social platforms, and have been for years? The problem has been identified by other posters- a platform does not have the right to act as a publisher and edit. Or has the definition of "social platform" evolved now? Maybe I've missed something.

The definition has "evolved" because what were formerly platforms are now publishers.

Oddly, it's the publishers and those who support censorship of ideas who have forced the evolution.

Nobody supports censorship of ideas. Unless the idea is white supremacy.

 

[Coyote]

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

Oooh look! ^Socialism^!!

Regulation!!!!

Big Intrusive Government!!!!


When it suits then

Are you familiar with the concept of glass houses?

Yes. I suggest you put that stone down.

Seriously - don't you recognize your own hypocrisy on this issue?

Seriously. I don't have huge issues with regulation. It's you guys that jump on the soap box over it.

IMO it's time there is some regulation of social media.

Now seriously. Tell me about how you abhor government regulation again.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

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.

See THAT is where I think a case could be made to re-think the laws that these entities operate under, not necessarily make them like publishers or utilities, but they've changed since those laws were first created. ARE they effectively stifling competition? Maybe. Why does it seem like Congress (both parties) never addresses this?

But there is a significant difference between phone and twitter or social media. Phone is between you and one person. Twitter and social media is between you and the entire world. What you say is not private. A lie can spread around the world and become "truth" before you know it. So I agree with you there, but I also do not think they are anything like the news media. The news media has no obligation to allow anyone and everyone to air an opinion for example. Their purpose is journalism (whether you agree with them or not)...and they create their own content. I think social media is it's own category and needs to be viewed in that manner.

Yes. My point is they are closer to the NYT than Verizon but not anything like the NYT. So why are they regulated like Verizon?

But...they aren't regulated like Verizon....

They are actually

 

[daveman]

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

FB's quest to be the top social media platform with the most users wasn't enough it would seem.

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.

The big Atlanta companies think voting is sacred and no US citizen should be excluded.. Obviously you think differently.

There is no reason an adult living in the US has an issue getting an ID, if that's the issue to which you're referring. I read your two sentence post over and over...still don't get the connection you're making to my post with the changes made by Georgia's law. Care to elaborate? EDIT=to clarify-there should be no reason it's an issue to obtain an ID in any state because people have months and months to get one if not years prior to next national election. That argument just doesn't hold up.

They have closed several DMZs in Atlanta... Its a very big deal to trek out to Alpharetta (now you have to make an appointment) Especially for seniors or people who don't have transportation. The GOP is simply trying to exclude voters. This isn't subtle.

Voter ID

What IDs Are Acceptable?

• Any valid state or federal government-issued photo ID, including a free ID Card issued by your county registrar's office or the Georgia Department of Driver Services (DDS)
• A Georgia Driver's License, even if expired
• Valid employee photo ID from any branch, department, agency, or entity of the U.S. Government, Georgia, or any county, municipality, board, authority, or other entity of this state
• Valid U.S. passport ID
• Valid U.S. military photo ID
• Valid tribal photo ID

What if I don't have one of the six acceptable forms of photo ID?

• The State of Georgia offers a free ID Card. An ID Card can be issued at any county registrar's office free of charge.
  • To receive a voter identification card at the county registrar's office, the voter must provide:
    • A photo identity document or approved non-photo identity document that includes full legal name and date of birth.
    • Documentation showing the voter's date of birth.
    • Evidence that the applicant is a registered voter.
    • Documentation showing the applicant's name and residential address.

OR

• A Voter ID card can be issued at any Georgia Department of Driver Services office free of charge.
  • To receive a free Georgia voter identification card at Georgia Driver Services, voters must provide:
    • An original or certified document to prove WHO YOU ARE such as a Birth Certificate or Passport.
    • Your SOCIAL SECURITY CARD.
    • Two documents showing your RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS such as a Bank Statement or Utility Bill.
    • If you've had a NAME CHANGE, then you'll also need to bring a document to prove that, such as a Marriage License.
    • Signed Affidavit.
    • Evidence that you are a registered voter.

Map of all our locations

Atlanta
400 Whitehall Street SW
30303 GA
United States

Gosh. Free IDs, available right in the middle of Atlanta.

Leftists think black people are stupid.

 

[daveman]

Are you LeBron, or Dave?

Well, that depends...are you Token Thomas?

No, it doesn't depend. Are you LeBron James or Dave Chappelle?

Hint: No, you're not.

Don't take credit for their success.

 

[daveman]

Im pointing out that YOU, a regular citizen, keeps calling highly intelligent and successful black men tokens.

I tell it like it T.I.Z.

#SorryNotSorry

You tell it like you've been programmed to tell it.

 

[daveman]

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

Clarence Thomas is a good little Nazi and a liar to boot. Start your own social media company instead of stealing someone else's. There is nothing to stop you from doing that.

Man, you leftists sure do hate it when the people you believe are your property dare to think for themselves.

 

[daveman]

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

Only question is which will occur first. Government reigning them in or the citizens taking matters into their own hands.

Citizens can start their own company if they object. If they want to do more then you terrorists need to be arrested and jailed.

There it is, folks, the mainstream Democrat believe. Anyone who disagrees with Democrats must be silenced.

"1984" was a warning, you moron, not a business plan.

 

[daveman]

Liberalism is support of individual liberty and small govt.

Oh yeah you know that FDR...totally a proponent of small government.

FDR put Americans in camps because they looked different.

You guys sure do pick some fucked-up heroes.

FDR was a Socialist

Yes. A leftist. Just like today's Democrats.

Just like anyone who would suggest nationalizing media as a "utility".

No need for that. They're publishers. Treat them as such.

Publishers pay authors for publishing their writings. Social media companies do not.

Publishers curate content. You know, like Twitter and Facebook banning people who express unapproved opinions.

 

[daveman]

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.

Thomas is correct that they have too much power and should be regulated

Thomas is a Nazi. They should not be regulated.

You're a retard. But you should not be regulated, because exposing the retardery of leftists is a public service.

 

[dblack]

Seriously - don't you recognize your own hypocrisy on this issue?

Seriously. I don't have huge issues with regulation. It's you guys that jump on the soap box over it.

IMO it's time there is some regulation of social media.

Now seriously. Tell me about how you abhor government regulation again.

I'll take that as a "no".