Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There’s going to be a congressional hearing. Yes it’s a private business but Facebook is public ally shared and people own stocks in it. It is also a monopoly and by the way another pod cast was taken down just for mentioning Alex Jones
There’s going to be a congressional hearing. Yes it’s a private business but Facebook is public ally shared and people own stocks in it. It is also a monopoly and by the way another pod cast was taken down just for mentioning Alex Jones
The hearing will be a lot of sound and fury but will signify nothing.
No one with any sense would believe that this congress will actually take any action to tell a private media company which opinions it must host.
Why are you mentioning FB? YouTube’s action caused the current kerfluffle. And no, neither YouTube nor FB are monopolies and no internet user is required to use them.
There’s going to be a congressional hearing. Yes it’s a private business but Facebook is public ally shared and people own stocks in it. It is also a monopoly and by the way another pod cast was taken down just for mentioning Alex Jones
But here is the thing, if this is the case it would entirely lead to companies wouldn't be able to fire people due to use of freedom of expression, ie: football kneeling.
But here is the thing, if this is the case it would entirely lead to companies wouldn't be able to fire people due to use of freedom of expression, ie: football kneeling.
Yup. InfoWars itself could no longer deny posting privileges to the many people who despise Alex Jones and if, say, Bill Maher wanted a spot on InfoWars, they’d have to let him have it.
Yes. I self censor here as well. Bigly. I assumed the poster was making a point that too much censorship can create a one sided discussion which would be pointless.
Truer words were never said. If you silence everyone on one side of the conversation, then you're putting an end to all the conversations that we really need to have.
Interesting point that I didn't know until recently: YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and the rest have been granted special protections. As long as they keep their platforms open to everyone without discrimination and do their best to remove illegal content (like terrorists recruitment for suicide bombers or such), then they are granted immunity from being sued as a publisher.
I don't think their upholding their end of that bargain. Considering the sheer volume of content uploaded to these platforms every single second, I doubt they could survive the massive wave of lawsuits coming their way if these protections are lifted. Sure they can still choose to ban whoever they want, but they've been given some very unusual and specific legal protections and it sounds like those protections need to be ended.
BTW, H3H3 (a rather massive YouTuber, very popular with younger folks) got a community guidelines strike just for talking about the Alex Jones/InfoWars purge. Twitter just kicked all of the Proud Boys off of their platform. I think Devin Nunes (R) got kicked off of Twitter for some nonsensical charge as well. This is getting stupider and stupider.
Interesting point that I didn't know until recently: YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and the rest have been granted special protections. As long as they keep their platforms open to everyone without discrimination and do their best to remove illegal content (like terrorists recruitment for suicide bombers or such), then they are granted immunity from being sued as a publisher.
I don't think their upholding their end of that bargain. Considering the sheer volume of content uploaded to these platforms every single second, I doubt they could survive the massive wave of lawsuits coming their way if these protections are lifted. Sure they can still choose to ban whoever they want, but they've been given some very unusual and specific legal protections and it sounds like those protections need to be ended.
BTW, H3H3 (a rather massive YouTuber, very popular with younger folks) got a community guidelines strike just for talking about the Alex Jones/InfoWars purge. Twitter just kicked all of the Proud Boys off of their platform. I think Devin Nunes (R) got kicked off of Twitter for some nonsensical charge as well. This is getting stupider and stupider.
There are other free video hosting sites. He can also set it up on his own site.
That was my thinking. I think of Alex Jones is crazy and he seems to be a parody of himself. His commentary is way out there in lala land and absolutely absurd. Alex (a total a$$hat) seems to be a complete joke from what little I have seen.
From all things I have read, Alex Jones and Infowars could easily pay for their own webhosting costs. Video streaming is expensive to host when you have the volume of traffic that Alex Jones has, but apparently he makes pretty good penny that he and his staff could easily afford it. They then can set their own "terms and conditions."
On the flip side, I do think big tech is probably not censoring fairly but then again what is really "fair" when it comes to censoring or suspending political speech in the U.S? I don't have an easy answer. I do wonder what else will get censored in time. Will the banned content be non-political content that falls outside of the obvious, such as violence, nudity and obscenity?
Interesting point that I didn't know until recently: YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and the rest have been granted special protections. As long as they keep their platforms open to everyone without discrimination and do their best to remove illegal content (like terrorists recruitment for suicide bombers or such), then they are granted immunity from being sued as a publisher.
I don't think their upholding their end of that bargain. Considering the sheer volume of content uploaded to these platforms every single second, I doubt they could survive the massive wave of lawsuits coming their way if these protections are lifted. Sure they can still choose to ban whoever they want, but they've been given some very unusual and specific legal protections and it sounds like those protections need to be ended.
BTW, H3H3 (a rather massive YouTuber, very popular with younger folks) got a community guidelines strike just for talking about the Alex Jones/InfoWars purge. Twitter just kicked all of the Proud Boys off of their platform. I think Devin Nunes (R) got kicked off of Twitter for some nonsensical charge as well. This is getting stupider and stupider.
With the comment of immunity, I fully believe you didn't read what I posted yesterday. I'll quote that post for your ease.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
Here is a big lesson from Tech Check, a segment on 92.3 KTAR's (Phoenix News Radio) morning news from about 7:18 AM today. Free Speech ONLY applies to the government intervening. Private companies are not subject to denying someone's right to free speech. A man can get censored, banned or permabanned without prejudice for breaking TOS whether it is hates peech, lies or defamatory material. Even trolling, flaming and ever-baiting.
They aren't publishers and if I am not mistaken publishers aren't privy to first amendment issues due to being private companies. Facebook, Google, Apple and Spotify, even Twitter (they didn't ban Alex Jones) are NOT the government and not subject to the first amendment as it is written. If I say something at work, I can get fired for it even if it is my first amendment right to and I work in the public sector.
With the comment of immunity, I fully believe you didn't read what I posted yesterday. I'll quote that post for your ease.
They aren't publishers and if I am not mistaken publishers aren't privy to first amendment issues due to being private companies. Facebook, Google, Apple and Spotify, even Twitter (they didn't ban Alex Jones) are NOT the government and not subject to the first amendment as it is written. If I say something at work, I can get fired for it even if it is my first amendment right to and I work in the public sector.
I'm wondering if the poster is referring to 230? Which doesn't have anything about having to be open to all. It protects them in allowing them to moderate (like this forum), remove things, etc. without those actions automatically turning them into publisher. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
