Stores are not publishers.Do stores have to carry every magazine, sell every brand, even if they only don't carry those due to political or personal opinions? If not, is that censorship? Should they be forced to carry those other brands, brands that they don't approve of the leadership, the politics, the stories that perhaps those magazines put out?
Backatcha
What's with the "publish everything" strawman? THe issue is censorship. Under your theory Facebook could refuse all advertisements from the Trump campaign, but allow the same from the Biden campaign. Everyone could see the Trump advertisements on some other platform, right?
Neither are Facebook or Twitter. They are a store offering a service, offering access to things they approve of, just like physical stores.Stores are not publishers.
Censorship. Twitter. Facebook. Banning, removing, blocking posts exposing Bidens involvement in corruption, specific knowledge and involvement of his sons cash for access to Joe incidents, Bidens knowledge and involvement in illegal election tampering and spying, and more and more. Serious allegations. Seemingly with proof. And then blocking content, posts, that are pro Trump.
Look. Im not a Trump freak. I AM someone who VALUES MY FREEDOM AND YOURS!!!!
The easy response is the "theyre private companies" response. Dont cut it anymore. Social media has become too integrated into our lives. If the phone company cut you off if you were talking about something they didnt like, would you defend that? If we dont have access to ALL the information, ESPECIALLY at this level, we are in REAL trouble. And its only a matter of time to where it effects YOU!!! Not just those you may or may not support.
So.........
Do you support media...on line, in print, broadcast...blocking SERIOUS content harmful to one, but not the other.
Is this the America YOU want?
WHat was their rule that was violated?It's not a straw man. If you believe Twitter has the legal authority/prerogative to ban some articles, then we agree it's their platform, their rules.
THat's the kicker, once they get into the business of selecting which content to publish and which to censor, they are a publisher.Neither are Facebook or Twitter. They are a store offering a service, offering access to things they approve of, just like physical stores.
Because of monopoly power.Why can’t Conservatives just create their own social media formats where they can say and do whatever they want?
What’s that? “They have.” Oh. And those formats inevitably turn into decrepit swamps full of white supremacy and terror threats? Oh.
Stores are not publishers.
THat's the kicker, once they get into the business of selecting which content to publish and which to censor, they are a publisher.
Because of monopoly power.
Because of monopoly power.
Really? That's the reason? It has nothing to do with spaces where Conservatives are free to say whatever they want inevitably turning into toxic racist hellscapes?
By this chain of logic, if stores select which content of magazines they allow, which to censor, then they too are publishers. Before the Internet, stores were where you found magazines, newspapers, print news in the same way we go to various social media sites now. Which means you would have to use the same logic for those stores selling those magazines that you do for social media sites.THat's the kicker, once they get into the business of selecting which content to publish and which to censor, they are a publisher.
I know right, he works in a circle. lolI have seen no evidence that Trump is capable of work. Any past incident where he engaged in actual labor or put forth sustained effort to accomplish or learn something?
These platforms have been pressured to stop spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories because there is a subset of Americans who hold them to the info, believe it, and then get injured, and sometimes kill themselves or others.WHat was their rule that was violated?
Censorship. Twitter. Facebook. Banning, removing, blocking posts exposing Bidens involvement in corruption, specific knowledge and involvement of his sons cash for access to Joe incidents, Bidens knowledge and involvement in illegal election tampering and spying, and more and more. Serious allegations. Seemingly with proof. And then blocking content, posts, that are pro Trump.
Look. Im not a Trump freak. I AM someone who VALUES MY FREEDOM AND YOURS!!!!
The easy response is the "theyre private companies" response. Dont cut it anymore. Social media has become too integrated into our lives. If the phone company cut you off if you were talking about something they didnt like, would you defend that? If we dont have access to ALL the information, ESPECIALLY at this level, we are in REAL trouble. And its only a matter of time to where it effects YOU!!! Not just those you may or may not support.
So.........
Do you support media...on line, in print, broadcast...blocking SERIOUS content harmful to one, but not the other.
Is this the America YOU want?
Yes that is the reason Twitter, Facebook and Google do not have any serious competitors - monopoly power. Thjs is not rocket science.Really? That's the reason? It has nothing to do with spaces where Conservatives are free to say whatever they want inevitably turning into toxic racist hellscapes?
Yes that is the reason Twitter, Facebook and Google do not have any serious competitors - monopoly power. Thjs is not rocket science.
Censorship. Twitter. Facebook. Banning, removing, blocking posts exposing Bidens involvement in corruption, specific knowledge and involvement of his sons cash for access to Joe incidents, Bidens knowledge and involvement in illegal election tampering and spying, and more and more. Serious allegations. Seemingly with proof. And then blocking content, posts, that are pro Trump.
Look. Im not a Trump freak. I AM someone who VALUES MY FREEDOM AND YOURS!!!!
The easy response is the "theyre private companies" response. Dont cut it anymore. Social media has become too integrated into our lives. If the phone company cut you off if you were talking about something they didnt like, would you defend that? If we dont have access to ALL the information, ESPECIALLY at this level, we are in REAL trouble. And its only a matter of time to where it effects YOU!!! Not just those you may or may not support.
So.........
Do you support media...on line, in print, broadcast...blocking SERIOUS content harmful to one, but not the other.
Is this the America YOU want?
We are not asking for the Gvt. to reglulate them. WE are asking the Gvt. tp remove the legal shields that protect them. The NYTimes runs an OpEd that calls "JasperL a whore and here's his address to go harrass him at home." The NYTimes is liable for publishing that. Under Section 230, Internet publishers are not liable. 20 years ago that made sense - we wanted open and free platforms. Now, the argument goes that Twitter and Facebook, by going down the road of censoring content they have violated the entire rationale for the protection that Congress gave them 20 years ago. And no matter what you say, yes, it is an issue of censorship.OK, and lots of liberals agree with that. The answer to unchecked monopoly power is to break up monopolies. Warren supported that.
The bottom line is I think we all agree that the problem is not that DP and other places can censor anyone they damn well want to censor. Getting rid of trolls, cranks, and open racists makes this place better, and if someone doesn't like that, they can leave and don't let the door hit them on the ass on the way out.
The issue is a few big platforms that wield too much power, now that they are seen as in some ways hostile to conservatives, conservatives want them regulated by Big Government. Well, maybe we should have DIFFERENT rules for the biggest platforms. That's an argument, but it's not a "free speech" argument. It's more of a public good argument. And even for those platforms, we would have to allow censorship because if not then the racists, trolls, bot armies and others would make life miserable for lots of users, and they'd flee the privately owned, for profit platform, which is bad for business and shareholders. So we need rules that allow for some censoring but not too much censoring, etc. It's a really damn hard thing to do, which is why the law as it is says private property owners get to regulate their own sites as they see fit.
What is the "conservative" alternative to Twitter or Facebook or Google?Multiple competitors DO exist. People flee them because they turn into toxic environments.
What is the "conservative" alternative to Twitter or Facebook or Google?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?