First They Came For Infowars..........

[easy rider]

I am only noting what's enforceable under the Constitution and Texas.

Did I say anything about enforcement? I was stating an opinion. I do believe that a company that makes rules for use of their platform should be held to base that across the board. If you don't want political opinions on your platform, then make that a rule for all and state that for everyone to see. That's my opinion.

 

[perfor8]

You realize some things that are wrong are not illegal, just as some things that are illegal are not wrong...right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

mala en se vs. mala prohibita

 

[zincwarrior]

Not even taking in to account the amount of tax payer money that has gone in to the infrastructure that these corporations use to conduct their business.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did I say anything about enforcement? I was stating an opinion. I do believe that a company that makes rules for use of their platform should be held to base that across the board. If you don't want political opinions on your platform, then make that a rule for all and state that for everyone to see. That's my opinion.

I think their rule is no crazy on their playform. I believe this guy has been getting his ass kicked in court just down the road.

 

[easy rider]

I think their rule is no crazy on their playform.

Does it actually say in their rules "no crazy"? "Crazy" in itself has come to mean many different things, so just saying "no crazy" can be very vague.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

After reading Ben's diatribe, which was really well done, I have come to realize that I can count to potato.

Don't feel like the lone stranger...

 

[AustinN4]

..........., so just saying "no crazy" can be very vague.

That's just crazy!

 

[benenglish]

Easements are a different area.

You're the one who first used the word "property". I was playing along with your analogy. But if you want to move along from that, I'm OK.

The government doesn't say you have yo host the Democratic Convention...

Hmmm. What approach do I take?

Actually, the government can force the Democratic Convention to be held on your land. Take it away via eminent domain, build a stadium, hold a convention.

But you make a good point. While easements and real property rights are good analogies, perhaps something better can be found.

Let's say you're talking on your phone with your friends. You mention things like "DJT should be given a chance to succeed" and "Ronald Reagan was a good president." The phone company, listening in, is shocked that you could hold such awful, regressive thoughts in your head and objects to you using their property, their phone lines, their electricity, to spread such hateful messages.

You get a letter from the phone company advising you that the phone company, being all woke and progressive, has decided that your use of the phone is bad for your fellow humans. Your phone service is turned off. Forever. No one else is allowed, by common agreement amongst all the players, to provide you with any alternatives for any amount of money.

You can always write letters or stand on a soapbox to get your message out. You may not, however, force any communications provider to do business with you.

That's the state the internet is approaching. The big players are already tossing out the people they don't like, forcing those people to whatever edges of the internet are still functioning for them. The big players are also working hard to make sure those edges disappear over time.

Altering the analogy doesn't change my conclusion - Censorship by private companies is dangerous and needs to be fought before their victory is secured. It may already be too late.

Civil rights/human rights can be abrogated by private entities. It happens all the time. Considering government censorship to be the only actionable, evil, rights-killing censorship is terribly short-sighted.

ps - Somehow I get the idea that we're talking past each other and are really in agreement, mostly. Is there any possibility of that?

 

[diesel1959]

I'm sorry, but some of those guys - like AJ (And yes, I've met him) really don't help us and I'm fine with their self-serving being handed back to them.

Free speech is a bitch; however, it beats every other option out there.

 

[diesel1959]

I'm against yelling fire in a crowded theater, verbally threatening murder, committing perjury, and falsely accusing people. Jones' tactics and antics were asking for businesses - private corporations - to do what they did and I'm not sure that's really censorship.

Of course you are--and so am I; however, that is NOT what AJ has done. Perjury requires someone having been under oath while making a statement. Lying is lying but not necessarily perjury. I can't stand AJ; however, I'm just fine with him having a platform to spew whatever he wants because, get this--nothing he says is akin to yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

 

[zincwarrior]

That's just crazy!

I am sick and tired of them putting chemicals in the water to make frogs gay!

 

[AustinN4]

I am sick and tired of them putting chemicals in the water to make frogs gay!

You should be! And your dog, too!

 

[easy rider]

I am sick and tired of them putting chemicals in the water to make frogs gay!

That sounds anti gay, you should be banned.

 

[zincwarrior]

You're the one who first used the word "property". I was playing along with your analogy. But if you want to move along from that, I'm OK.

Hmmm. What approach do I take?

Actually, the government can force the Democratic Convention to be held on your land. Take it away via eminent domain, build a stadium, hold a convention.

But you make a good point. While easements and real property rights are good analogies, perhaps something better can be found.

Let's say you're talking on your phone with your friends. You mention things like "DJT should be given a chance to succeed" and "Ronald Reagan was a good president." The phone company, listening in, is shocked that you could hold such awful, regressive thoughts in your head and objects to you using their property, their phone lines, their electricity, to spread such hateful messages.

You get a letter from the phone company advising you that the phone company, being all woke and progressive, has decided that your use of the phone is bad for your fellow humans. Your phone service is turned off. Forever. No one else is allowed, by common agreement amongst all the players, to provide you with any alternatives for any amount of money.

You can always write letters or stand on a soapbox to get your message out. You may not, however, force any communications provider to do business with you.

That's the state the internet is approaching. The big players are already tossing out the people they don't like, forcing those people to whatever edges of the internet are still functioning for them. The big players are also working hard to make sure those edges disappear over time.

Altering the analogy doesn't change my conclusion - Censorship by private companies is dangerous and needs to be fought before their victory is secured. It may already be too late.

Civil rights/human rights can be abrogated by private entities. It happens all the time. Considering government censorship to be the only actionable, evil, rights-killing censorship is terribly short-sighted.

ps - Somehow I get the idea that we're talking past each other and are really in agreement, mostly. Is there any possibility of that?

Essentially I am saying government has no right to force social networks yo air content, nor would it be upheld in a court.

Are they subject to antitrust? Yep.

Are they subject to the government making them put on Nazis? Nope.

 

[easy rider]

That's just crazy!

Isn't it though? Oh wait, how did you mean that?

 

[benenglish]

Are they subject to the government making them put on Nazis? Nope.

Perhaps they aren't but they should be. Unless the speech can put the speaker put in jail, no private entity should take it upon themselves to hinder that speech.

I've seen many think pieces concerning common carrier status for entities like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. It's an area of law that's in flux and I think it has the potential to change drastically in the future. The network neutrality wars are not over.

My bottom line is that the entities that control the modern, effective avenues of free speech are "...in our homes and in our heads, meddling when they haven't the right" and if we don't stand up to them now, we're going to lose the chance.

How do you suggest we fight that fight?

 

[zincwarrior]

Perhaps they aren't but they should be. Unless the speech can put the speaker put in jail, no private entity should take it upon themselves to hinder that speech.

I've seen many think pieces concerning common carrier status for entities like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. It's an area of law that's in flux and I think it has the potential to change drastically in the future. The network neutrality wars are not over.

My bottom line is that the entities that control the modern, effective avenues of free speech are "...in our homes and in our heads, meddling when they haven't the right" and if we don't stand up to them now, we're going to lose the chance.

How do you suggest we fight that fight?

I think we should separate what the entity should do and what the government should make them do.

Government should make them do nothing.

What they should do, I'm down with nothing. Then again I don't see the issue one way or another. My FB usage consists of history memes, IDPA/USPSA discussions and rescue dog organization posts...

 

[AustinN4]

IDPA/USPSA discussions

Might get you put on a watch list. I worry about that here also.

 

[benenglish]

Then again I don't see the issue one way or another.

Respectfully, then, we are at an impasse. I think this is a massively important issue.

 

[zincwarrior]

Respectfully, then, we are at an impasse. I think this is a massively important issue.

Why? FB is a declining market. Kids don't use iti. There is a slew of alternate means. Communication existed before and outside of it.

 

[easy rider]

Facebook is one of many tech giants that use their platform to push an agenda.