ooo that is possibly a good suit actually... if they can prove facebook did this at the behest of the government, or in any way their decisions were affected by government, that actually could be seen as a breach of the 1st.
Oh.No, I think it's funny.
Only if Trump pays their bill, which is iffy.Well, his lawyers make money. I can see why he went bankrupt so many times, he likes to waste money (if he pays them)
Should the government force private companies to allow content they do not want to show/broadcast etc?
Erotic photos on Christian Science Monitor?
I have a feeling that they were.I hope his lawyers were too stupid to demand a massive retainer
Ok, I read the suit. It's baseless. It claims FB et al are violating his 1st Amendment right. There is no such right with a private company when a member violates their terms of service, which is a contract.No way in hell that is going to fly without evidence that Facebook was “censoring” on behalf of or in consult with government actors. That line right there might just be the end of this lawsuit.
Exactly. So unless Zuck is banning people because some politician tells him to then this is a waste of the court’s time.Ok, I read the suit. It's baseless. It claims FB et al are violating his 1st Amendment right. There is no such right with a private company when a member violates their terms of service, which is a contract.
In the category of stupidest lawsuits, the former president goes all in and is suing facebook, google and twitter for... get this... violations of the 1st amendment... LMAO...
Trump sues Twitter, Facebook, Google – and immediately begins fundraising off the effort
Trump, who has a history of not following through on legal threats, announced the legal action against Facebook, Twitter and Google from his club in New Jersey.www.cnbc.com
But the reality is that the information is gathered and disseminated by three like-minded people and they can censor or promote whatever they choose. They also, through Google, control much of the past. They will have you thinking whatever they want you to think, and are doing it now.If Facebook decided to ban all pictures of dogs I would not care. Facebook is a private company with competition out there in the social media sphere. So they can in my opinion do whatever they want, consumers can go somewhere else if they do not like it
Links to this need to be provided. These companies are not utilities. That would not last long at all. You can live without Facebook and Twitter and any other form of social media. If they all went away, people would still be able to communicate just fine.Yuck it up all you want, but justices on the Supreme court have already been discussing the issue in their speeches and interviews. They say even though these companies use 230 to hide behind in their flagrant censorship trampling the First Amendment, that it is time to classify them as utilities.
But the reality is that the information is gathered and disseminated by three like-minded people and they can censor or promote whatever they choose. They also, through Google, control much of the past. They will have you thinking whatever they want you to think, and are doing it now.
Trump may or may not win this Quixotic attempt but it should bring the issue to the public and to the new Congress. It's a monopoly.
It's their platform that they don't charge users -- but users have to follow the rules (term of service.)I don’t care if Trump wins but I hope these arrogant CEOs pay through the nose for censoring content.
Links to this need to be provided. These companies are not utilities. That would not last long at all. You can live without Facebook and Twitter and any other form of social media. If they all went away, people would still be able to communicate just fine.
Should people be allowed to use your house to display their movies on if you allow your friends to do it on the side of your house? What if you have the best house in the city for doing this on? Should they be forced to show any movie they want to on the side of your building, even if you disapprove of that movie? If you owned a karaoke bar and allowed people time on the mic to share a poem or talk about something in their lives, but not to talk about politics, or perhaps just certain issues, should they be forced to allow you to discuss those issues using their platform since they allow other things up there?
But the reality is that the information is gathered and disseminated by three like-minded people and they can censor or promote whatever they choose. They also, through Google, control much of the past. They will have you thinking whatever they want you to think, and are doing it now.
Trump may or may not win this Quixotic attempt but it should bring the issue to the public and to the new Congress. It's a monopoly.
If Trump was interested in posting here do you think DP would ban him? You have to be very powerful to do that and Zuckerberg is clearly more powerful than any US President. The Triad could also bump Biden any time they want.Sure. IF they can prove Facebook did this for the government. The "what if" is used a lot by Trump and his supporters.
- Wasn't Trump still President , hence part of the Government when Facebook and others locked him out?
- What were the rules Trump agreed to when he set up his Facebook account? Seems private platforms have a right to establish content rules. Even DP has things you cannot post on this site.
If Trump was interested in posting here do you think DP would ban him? You have to be very powerful to do that and Zuckerberg is clearly more powerful than any US President. The Triad could also bump Biden any time they want.
The ISPs are a utility, easily. The websites are not. But ISPs only provide basically internet access, basically an (at least one) IP address to go with your modem/router or theirs that connects you to other places on the internet.I believe there is a strong argument that the ISP's are a utility, far more than websites...
How would they know it was Trump? Why wouldn't they ban him if he broke the rules?If Trump was interested in posting here do you think DP would ban him? You have to be very powerful to do that and Zuckerberg is clearly more powerful than any US President. The Triad could also bump Biden any time they want.
If Trump was interested in posting here do you think DP would ban him? You have to be very powerful to do that and Zuckerberg is clearly more powerful than any US President. The Triad could also bump Biden any time they want.
They may do what they did with other former monopolies, such as Standard Oil and AT&T., That's the end game.LOL.... What do you think congress will do? Repeal section 230? All that does it make these companies litigate each claim, it does nothing to remove any editorial control.
In fact it is the biggest issue of the day.Exactly. So unless Zuck is banning people because some politician tells him to then this is a waste of the court’s time.
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?