Corperate control of Democracy and control of "Free Speech"

[Tim the plumber]

Corporate control would be 100% better than democrat control.

This present situation seems to be more of Democrat (party) control of the corperations.

 

[lwf]

Corporate control would be 100% better than democrat control.

Considering that Democrat leadership is duly elected by the people and corporation leadership isn't, I'd have to disagree that America would be better off if weren't a democracy.

I can understand how someone who's ideas about how the country should be run are in the minority would think autocracy is preferable though.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

Today there is a great deal of fuss about the habit of social media to ban, shadow ban, censor, and generally act as the enemy of democracy.

This is generally excused by the idea that these are private companies and should be allowed their freedom to act ass they see fit.

Well, we have faced a similar situation before. When the railroads happened the companies were free to act as they wished. It became very possible to monopolize the transport of materials fro all industries. Thus Standard oil could kill competition simply by pricing any transport of oil that was not its' own sky high. No significant industry was safe from the strangle hold of transport on their business.

Thus the US created anti-Trust laws. Problem solved. Or at least mostly solved.

We need the same for the market place of ideas today.

I agree with this entirely. Matt Taibbi noted in a recent article that the Hunter Biden story just revealed that shadow banning and how much social media sites would do to clamp down on a story they didn't like. Whether to believe the Hunter Biden story or not, it is disturbing that these companies are acting on their own political agendas.

 

[bongsaway]

The law can be changed.

That is the point of democracy.

Then get to it already.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Considering that Democrat leadership is duly elected by the people and corporation leadership isn't, I'd have to disagree that America would be better off if weren't a democracy.

I can understand how someone who's ideas about how the country should be run are in the minority would think autocracy is preferable though.

Given the percieved way in which the DNC is not at all, or to a very low level, elected by the people, it seems to be a constant coup against democracy, this argument falls down.

Just as justice needs to be seen to be done democracy needs to be seen to be done even if it is somehow done in shadows.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I agree with this entirely. Matt Taibbi noted in a recent article that the Hunter Biden story just revealed that shadow banning and how much social media sites would do to clamp down on a story they didn't like. Whether to believe the Hunter Biden story or not, it is disturbing that these companies are acting on their own political agendas.

Yes. If there are subjects you are not allowed to discuss then the only reasonable position to hold is that the results of those discussions would be the worst conceivable.

 

[lwf]

Given the percieved way in which the DNC is not at all, or to a very low level, elected by the people, it seems to be a constant coup against democracy, this argument falls down.

Just as justice needs to be seen to be done democracy needs to be seen to be done even if it is somehow done in shadows.

Your anecdotal perception is irrelevant. Democrats are elected just as Republicans are in the United States. Neither are a coup against democracy, incidents of gerrymandering and attempted voter suppression being the occasional minor exceptions. They are empowered or disempowered by the people through democratic elections.

 

[joko104]

You are conflating two issues into one and dooming your argument from the start. Imagine if twitter/facebook/"whatever social media you are ticked off about today" was completely free and relied on donations only yet was just as popular and was censoring content. Can the government force that social media company to allow content they find objectionable? Does a company have a first amendment right to host whatever content they want?

You MIGHT have an anti-trust argument on the advertising side of a social media company if they are monopolizing advertising and preventing competition.

The problem with your message is that it is a federal crime for a corporation to contribute to a presidential candidate.

Could a company have paid employees assigned to tear down Trump signs and put up Biden signs - all paid for by the corporation? Of course not. How is it any different for corporations paying employees to tear down statements by Trump and Trump supporters, while paying them to put up statements by Biden and Biden supporters?

Twitter and Facebook have massively illegally contributed to Biden by such methods.

 

[BlueTex]

The problem with your message is that it is a federal crime for a corporation to contribute to a presidential candidate.

Could a company have paid employees assigned to tear down Trump signs and put up Biden signs - all paid for by the corporation? Of course not. How is it any different for corporations paying employees to tear down statements by Trump and Trump supporters, while paying them to put up statements by Biden and Biden supporters?

Twitter and Facebook have massively illegally contributed to Biden by such methods.

LMAO... Counselor, I suggest you file a lawsuit immediately....

 

[Tim the plumber]

Your anecdotal perception is irrelevant. Democrats are elected just as Republicans are in the United States. Neither are a coup against democracy, incidents of gerrymandering and attempted voter suppression being the occasional minor exceptions. They are empowered or disempowered by the people through democratic elections.

I want your view to be correct but I see things far worse than that.