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.
De facto describes practices that exist in reality, whether or not they are officially recognized by laws or other formal norms.
Twitter IS a de facto public square.
And if Twitter was only banning people for violating terms of service, you MIGHT have a point..
But Twitter has basically been making up their terms of service as they go along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Yes, of course. Do you?
No, it's not. Twitter is not "public", it's a private business. You have to create an account to use it. As part of that account creation you have to agree to their terms of service.
I have a point regardless of how Twitter sees fit to enforce their ToS.
And the market will speak. Simple.
This argument is so yesterday. The free market already fixed this problem, as it usually does.
Today's argument from the left is not that they are worried the new ownership will censor THEIR speech.
Today's argument from the left is that they are worried the new ownership will STOP censoring the RIGHT's speech.
In regards to the benefits companies receive in by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act:
No company can claim such massive, unique legal exemptions from the federal law and then simultaneously claim they owe no duties to the public interest and are not answerable to anyone. To advocate that is a form of authoritarian corporatism: simultaneously allowing tech giants to claim legally conferred privileges and exemptions while insisting that they can act without constraints of any kind.
Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line Far More Dangerous Than What They Censor
Just weeks before the election, the tech giants unite to block access to incriminating reporting about their preferred candidate.
This is why companies like Facebook & Twitter have been described as “global monopolies sitting astride public discourse” & is also why there is talk of breaking them up on antitrust & monopoly grounds or regulating as a public utility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoyaleWithCheese
But I am not sure how they are monopolies. I am not saying flat out they arent but it doesnt seem to be the case. Cable companies are often the only one in an area and often that is government protected. Anyone else can start a social media company as far as I know.
there's a difference between monopolistic and monopoly. Utility companies and the government are essentially the only monopolies. When Facebook sees this thing called "Instagram" gaining users and taking users from them, and they jump in to buy Instagram (remove competition), that's monopolistic.
When Google sees Youtube growing - and Youtube is now the world's 2nd largest search engine - and steps in to buy them and remove competition, that's monopolistic.
The issue as previously noted is that the government through regulation or coercion can force these "private" companies to control their content.
Again, bad words, nudity, smoking ads and a host of other things were\are banned or restricted in various media outlets.
Never heard of the FCC huh?
Furthermore they can make life rough on you and your shareholders and drag you in front of senate hearings to lie about you and your products and threaten to fine, sue or imprison you. Politically motivated whistleblowers can open the doors to fishing expeditions ad infinitum.
So clearly, the govt. has some degree of influence on these companies so the free speech doesn't apply meme is not remotely clear cut.
Make all the media in the US private, let the US govt. use regulation and threat to keep them in line and then call censorship put in place by the govt. not a violation of free speech? That's something a tin-pot dictator does. "Gee the editors and staff at rival newspapers keep jumping off the roofs of their businesses. But we still have a free press...wink wink."
Whether the .gov should, via the letter of the Constitution, have any sway in your examples is a different question from whether or not a private business can violate the 1A - which is the topic of the thread.
If the .gov is forcing Twitter to ban folks against their will, that's a legit 1A argument, IMO. I see no evidence that is happening.
Nor are they utilities. I don't need Facebook or Twitter to survive at a reasonable standard. The same cannot be said for things like water, electricity, etc. Internet could be effectively argued as a utility, but not social media.
indeed, this is the crux - the "government" has already determined that the Internet IS a utility. If it wasn't, we wouldn't spend $100B on expanding broadband access as if it were critical to survival.
I'm just an old Luddite - but is there an alternative "Internet" out there that gets treated and funded equally by the government?
I was defining the profit-driven incentive as charging as much money as possible for providing as few goods & services as possible.
Facebook & Twitter are not interested in guaranteeing First Amendment rights to anyone, they are interested in making a profit.
The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet are from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD
Right. Platforms are given those protections specifically to allow for places where people can speak freely, within the law of course. I get that businesses are not governed by the first amendment, but what good is a constitutional right to free speech if the places where everybody is talking, don’t at least attempt to live up to the spirit of that constitutional right?
Twitter had a legal right to censor people on the right. Elon Musk was the free market solution to that. I’m sure the board members are wishing they did things differently now.
Facebook & Twitter had the legal right to censor anyone based on Section 230:
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service... shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."
There are no free market solutions to certain problems. The concept that corporations or individuals, in the pursuit of profits, are led, as if by an “Invisible Hand”, to do what is best for the world, seems at best, a faith based assertion. It is, apparently, what some folks want to believe, & is arbitrary.
Section 230 is not without its problems, for certain. However, making internet social media platforms "publishers" has much worse implications, IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
I see the problem as being that a newspaper would be held liable for the content it produces & publishes, whereas social media companies can distance themselves.
seems to me there's a couple of issues, whether we're talking utility or whether we're talking publisher or whether it's monopoly. And surely, were it perceived the shoe was on the other foot, then the outcry would be just as strong from the Left.
If Social Media allows anybody to have an account, and all their "content moderation" was checking for acknowledged hate speech that's deemed illegal ... then they'd have one level of protection.
When they develop algorithms that determine what you will see when you use their platform, that is mighty close to "publishing".
When they apply ToS in an unequal and undisclosed manner, and it appears aimed at one segment of users, then they also are pretty close to publishing (because they are editing).
I'd assume very few people want social media companies to be called publishers and get sued because "DemsOnly4Ever" posts "Trump eats babies with ketchup!!"
It is not that every word that gets posted on their website, they become responsible. It is the manipulation that makes them responsible.
There are no free market solutions to certain problems. The concept that corporations or individuals, in the pursuit of profits, are led, as if by an “Invisible Hand”, to do what is best for the world, seems at best, a faith based assertion. It is, apparently, what some folks want to believe, & is arbitrary.
Of course it's arbitrary. Problems are in the eye of the beholder. But in a free market system, the more people that see something as a problem, the more likely someone will come along and "fix" it. If you are pissing enough people off, you are inviting interference.
It happens on a smaller scale all the time. The thing is, Twitter thought they were too big to fail, so they didn't really care what anyone thought of their practices. I mean, who would have thought some guy with $300 Billion would come along and force them to sell? But here we are.
Of course it's arbitrary. Problems are in the eye of the beholder. But in a free market system, the more people that see something as a problem, the more likely someone will come along and "fix" it. If you are pissing enough people off, you are inviting interference.
It happens on a smaller scale all the time. The thing is, Twitter thought they were too big to fail, so they didn't really care what anyone thought of their practices. I mean, who would have thought some guy with $300 Billion would come along and force them to sell? But here we are.
Yup, here we are. Back to 2020 when Trump insisted Tech companies, & not Russia, were trying to 'rig the election'.
So he signed an executive order attempting to curb some of its protections, & was challenged in court. Then he threatened to veto the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) bill if it did not revoke Section 230.
Last edited by ChiGeekGuest; 05-01-2022 at 08:34 AM..
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.
