Trump says he is suing Twitter, Facebook, Google and CEOs Dorsey, Zuckerberg, Pichai

[roguenuke]

That's a common enough argument that will be introduced in Congress and perhaps SCOTUS. The crux of the argument is often whether a company is predatory, if they destroy any competition. That has already happened against this group.

A parent company being predatory has nothing to do with the individual site's right to enforce their site rules, to run their site as they want to. It doesn't somehow relinquish them of their 1st Amendment rights simply because they may be breaking other rules, laws. You are messing up the arguments here, essentially saying that their punishment for breaking this set of laws (potentially) should be forcing them to allow all sorts of speech rather than the normal "punishment", which would be to force the company to break up, lose some of its holdings.

 

[ApersonLIKEallOFyou]

Control of information is essential to any totalitarian system but anathema to a Democracy.

“Information” like telling uninformed dopes than an election was stolen? Facebook has rules and the President of the United States of all people shouldn’t have a hard time following them. But that aside, this simply isn’t a 1A case. Also, people for the love of god don’t get your information from Facebook.

 

[Syamsu]

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

What a sick bunch of manipulators. There must be something wrong with you, when you sit there behind your desk, and decide for a billion people, what they can and cannot say. Imagine the arrogance of doing that. Totally sick.

At the least the government must force transparancy on big tech of their censorship. Also, government cannot use censorship companies for government business. Government also cannot provide tax breaks for censorship companies, like Amazon.

 

[Geoist]

I'm actually glad Trump did this. Just going to waste even more of his dwindling dollars as his businesses fail.

 

[roguenuke]

Do you recall what happened to Parler?

Yes, they are operating now. No one is forced to allow apps to utilize their services, their servers, their equipment.

About Parler

Parler company and culture information.

parler.com

Were you unaware that you could still use Parler on the computer?

 

[Carl Young]

I believe that no speech should be prohibited on any platform and can not understand why it is.

That's because you've lived under The First Amendment, which social media can now ignore. They can control public opinion and are doing so.

 

[Geoist]

Do you recall what happened to Parler?

Yeah, Apple stopped supporting it in its store when it was discovered Parler was being used to coordinate the January 6th insurrection.

 

[Carl Young]

Yes, they are operating now. No one is forced to allow apps to utilize their services, their servers, their equipment.

About Parler

Parler company and culture information.

parler.com

Were you unaware that you could still use Parler on the computer?

Yes, I am and am also aware of the history.

 

[gbg3]

Seriously.

Some thoughtful and rational people (both Dems & Republicans) quietly acknowledge that there needs to be a conversation on the matter of the First Amendment vs. Big Tech (Facebook, Twitter, etc.).

The Internet is a relatively new way of communication. Some people feel that it may no longer be appropriate to compare the Internet to privately owned newspapers that can decide what to print and not to print. They point out that anyone can print a newspaper, but it is much more difficult to start one's own website. Furthermore, some people believe that maybe a monopoly comes into play here when discussing Big Tech.

I agree that Mr. Trump's lawsuit will fail (as will Florida's new law on the subject), but maybe in the long rule, such lawsuits may eventually lead to some kind of compromise so that no message board can ban a sitting President or, for that matter, doctors who have certain views about the current pandemic.

I meant to add that I think the end of this comment is of particular importance too. What has happened with COVID censorship has been unforgivable. Many of those docs who provided info which was censored were correct yet some of the info, left on the platforms, ended up being proven to be incorrect - yet Google somehow felt qualified to make that call.

 

[reflechissez]

Do you recall what happened to Parler?

It's still around. Why do you ask?

 

[CaughtInThe]

Let's see how knowledgeable people here are…


What does it take to get Apple to put an App in their App Store?

 

[roguenuke]

Yes, I am and am also aware of the history.

Doesn't change that they are still around, still doing just fine. So then that proves that "Big Tech" does not in fact have the power to shutdown the "little guy".

 

[SCrider]

Conservatives are all for private industry and the free market....until they aren't.....

Conservatives say they are for a lot of things, yet strangely never back up their words.

 

[roguenuke]

That's because you've lived under The First Amendment, which social media can now ignore. They can control public opinion and are doing so.

The First Amendment does not restrict social media. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Just as the First Amendment does not require that I allow people to speak on my front lawn, from my living room just because I allowed a person or two in the past to do so (I didn't, but others have done this). The First Amendment restricts government, not private businesses.

 

[mike2810]

No, I don't use them.

An argument for Apple and Microsoft could be made and, if it is ever in the public interest, that could happen.

You should care about their policies because they are the only source of information for a growing number of adolescent people. They really are indistinguishable from TikTok, a CCP company.

As far as "adolescent people" and what sources they use. That is a problem for the parents to deal with. A good parent would explain the pros/cons of various sources.

A private entity like Facebook or DP can sets its rules in which users/posters need to abide by.
If they did not regulate themselves, want to bet the government would.

 

[AGENT J]

The question that never gets answered by the nutters and ant-rights people . . .


What legal justification is there to punish me, infringe on my rights and force me to let people on my property based on popularity?

 

[BlueTex]

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.

Yep, precisely...

 

[BlueTex]

They may do what they did with other former monopolies, such as Standard Oil and AT&T., That's the end game.

Do you think that having a near monopoly on news and opinion serves the public interest?

Do you understand the legal definition of a monopoly?

There has NEVER been a time in the entire history of humanity when an individual has had more access to news and opinion.... none... not even close

 

[BlueTex]

There are other search engines to use other than Google, there are other social media sites not owned by Facebook


They just happen to be the most dominant ones currently, that can change fairly quickly, how many people remember MySpace or Yahoo

AltaVista? AskJeeves?

 

[NuffSaid]

he'd have 5 accounts.

Just one, but he'd brag to everyone it was him. There'd be a link to donate to him. Every thread he'd participate in would start with "Rigged election, stolen election. Still your President."

 

[BlueTex]

Do you recall what happened to Parler?

Yep, their dumbass lawsuit got tossed also...

 

[roguenuke]

AltaVista? AskJeeves?

My work browser automatically uses Bing to search.

 

[BlueTex]

That's a common enough argument that will be introduced in Congress and perhaps SCOTUS. The crux of the argument is often whether a company is predatory, if they destroy any competition. That has already happened against this group.

What would you argue google or facebook is being predatory about that would invoke examination under anti-trust?

 

[BlueTex]

What a sick bunch of manipulators. There must be something wrong with you, when you sit there behind your desk, and decide for a billion people, what they can and cannot say. Imagine the arrogance of doing that. Totally sick.

At the least the government must force transparancy on big tech of their censorship. Also, government cannot use censorship companies for government business. Government also cannot provide tax breaks for censorship companies, like Amazon.

Not so much a capitalist?

 

[AGENT J]

AltaVista? AskJeeves?

excite!