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.
SMH,
Okay once again. Free speech NEVER EVER said you can say what you want, where you want to and when you want to.
I really wish they'd teach a civics class. FB is not a government entity.
It has stockholders, a creator and owner who very much can decide who gets to play in their sandbox as long as they don't discriminate against a federally protected class. While it is now a publicly traded company it is not a government entity
You are free to start your own social media platform and then you can say whatever you want
Couple of things.
First, free speech is a principle. Either you believe in it, or you don't. You can argue the "muh private company" position if you want, but your attitude while doing so indicates whether you hold that principle dear or not, and I'll give you one guess as to how it appears you feel about it.
Second, social media sites are the "modern public square." (Packingham v North Carolina). Ownership of the public square doesn't give you the authority to control the discussion (Marsh v Alabama). "Muh private company" isn't going to hold up much longer.
Yes. I'm comfortable with private companies having the right to make decisions to remove user content that they don't want on their platforms.
Facebook is a social media platform, and they all have limitations on acceptable content.
That's your right--to be comfortable with it. My question was more along the lines of "do you really consent to giving a handful of companies this much control over information."
Originally in section 230, they argued that they were just forums for the opinions of others, and they took no responsibility for whether things were accurate or inaccurate. They also bear no liability. And now they are the arbiters of what is 'misinformation.' So which one is it? They want it both ways. Of course they do.
Because that's how the law was written. Of course private companies are protected. Parlor for example, the former CEO was a big fan of Section 230.
If not for section 230, the internet as we know it may not have existed. It was probably necessary at the time. But now, a tiny handful of tech oligarchs control the information. They bear no liability. They do what they want. They crush the competition. It's time to re-visit things.
Second, social media sites are the "modern public square." (Packingham v North Carolina). Ownership of the public square doesn't give you the authority to control the discussion (Marsh v Alabama). "Muh private company" isn't going to hold up much longer.
Packingham v North Carolina was about the government making rules restricting certain users from using social media, it had nothing to do with what content could be restricted.
Marsh v Alabama was about public sidewalks, the link to social media is being made by you not the courts and one could argue being private sites they are more akin to regulating content of discussion in your own drivewway.
That's your right--to be comfortable with it. My question was more along the lines of "do you really consent to giving a handful of companies this much control over information."
Yes. When I sign up to a private company website where their terms and conditions state they have control over the content then yes, I absolutely consent to them having control of the information on their website. It doesn't even have to be misinformation, it can be true information that the company believes is detrimental to their platform or society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmom2
Originally in section 230, they argued that they were just forums for the opinions of others, and they took no responsibility for whether things were accurate or inaccurate. They also bear no liability. And now they are the arbiters of what is 'misinformation.' So which one is it? They want it both ways. Of course they do.
These are not mutually exclusive. One can claim no liability while also deciding what content is allowed in on your privately owned social media platform.
If not for section 230, the internet as we know it may not have existed. It was probably necessary at the time. But now, a tiny handful of tech oligarchs control the information. They bear no liability. They do what they want. They crush the competition. It's time to re-visit things.
Maybe. All that means is Parler gets added to Dominion's lawsuit list. I mean, it was sort of funny how quickly Newsmax reversed course but there was definitely a chilling effect. But many people don't like free speech so what some would call a chilling effect they just see as an opportunity. I have to say though, I don't think they've thought it out much. The woke mob on the left to me seems the most likely to, in the climate we are in right now, capitalize on that.
Yes. When I sign up to a private company website where their terms and conditions state they have control over the content then yes, I absolutely consent to them having control of the information on their website. It doesn't even have to be misinformation, it can be true information that the company believes is detrimental to their platform or society.
These are not mutually exclusive. One can claim no liability while also deciding what content is allowed in on your privately owned social media platform.
It really does come down to what swagger posted earlier in the thread: either you believe in free speech as a principle, or you don't. It's probably more along a spectrum. You seem far more comfortable with the end of the spectrum that favors limits on speech. That's your right to believe that way. I am on the other end of the spectrum.
You can use the "private company" argument all you want, but doesn't hold up in practice. Legally, at the moment, it does. But in practice, Big Tech are far beyond simply 'private companies.' Especially during a pandemic, they were the way people freely associated. Gatherings, even in one's household, were banned. Nearly all aspects of human interaction, including funerals, were conducted in the realm of 'private companies.' Private companies that had the right to ban and censor at will.
And now that we are all taking a vaccine for which complications are an emerging issue (they still have no idea WHY the blood clots are forming, for example), these companies can keep that information from getting out there, if they so wish.
If you switch search engines to yandex.com and search vaccine injury or vaccine death, you will see the other side of the argument, yandex wont hide websites from you like google.
Be interesting to know what triggers FB, they still have this page up
https://vaccineimpact.com/ is very anti-vaccine, but if you want to regular updates on reported side effects in the VAERs or EU DB, they post it frequently.
Packingham v North Carolina was about the government making rules restricting certain users from using social media, it had nothing to do with what content could be restricted.
Marsh v Alabama was about public sidewalks, the link to social media is being made by you not the courts and one could argue being private sites they are more akin to regulating content of discussion in your own drivewway.
I know what the cases were about. I cited them. Thanks for the input, though.
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.