Any ideas? What about only applying to social media sites with advertising? Make those sites pick between publisher & platform. For websites with comments section (local news for example) they will obviously be publishers but we can let their comments sections be a platform (if they choose).
Then let subscription based sites and free sites (no advertising) do what they want.
Make it so a company can go from being a publisher to platform at any time.
Make it so if a company wants to go from being a platform to publisher they must give users a 1 year warning (i.e. what if a company did this late during the election).
However, I would take a different route. Let big tech fail. Rumble and parler and the .win are already beginning to overtake them and will improve with time.
Advocating for more laws and regulations should be a last resort especially for conservatives who want more liberty and less government interference.
If we’re going to stand by our principles, we the people need to beat the big tech communists by coming out with a superior product. Innovate. Code. Support existing free speech platforms like rumble, gab and parler and help them work out the bugs etc.
On top of this, I would advocate for a real investigation into big tech for either sedition, election interference, defamation or crimes against humanity by banning America’s Frontline Doctors.
Idk. Whatever we do, we have to remember it’s a double edged sword so it’s best not to hurl a law unto your communist devil worshipping enemies that you wouldn’t want to be used back on us and limit our freedoms as well.
Assuming that Futzbook, Twitter, and such are alienating 50% of their user base, then there's an absolute shed load of money to be made by competitors who could offer a conservative bias. As a bonus, the nuts and bolts of the operation have already been worked out for prospective entrants by the very folk who's lunch they could eat.
Free market systems have a self correcting tendency. Government generally sucks at everything and makes things worse.
Since most Americans are pro free speech and have polar opposite values to big tech, people will naturally gravitate to a better product that is truly what we want.
What do we want? For leftists to stop censoring us and shoving Chicom propaganda and fake news down our throats.
Who’s offering that right now? .win. Rumble. Gab. Parler to name a few.
Have you seen the App Store ratings? Parler was at #1 for several days in a row.
Heck, same with the fake news media. Look how many people switched to OANN, Newsmax, infowars, Breitbart and other independent news outlets this year. The deep state and the liberal propaganda machine will inevitably fall in a true free market system with limited government. But as government continues to expand and more regulations are set in place, things tend to centralize and the crony lobbyists at places like Google generously donate to the right politicians to rig the rules in their favor.
We need to restore the 10th amendment so the government cannot subsidize winners and regulate would-be competitors to death.
Last, again, were conservatives. We need to bring back the “I can do it” attitude. If we’re not fighting to make government smaller then why are we conservatives? For that reason, I’d argue for less laws, less regulation, less taxes, make it easier for competitors to spring up and only use government to prosecute big tech for crimes they’ve committed under the existing 186,000 pages of laws we already have in the CFR.
They're already failing as we speak. Every single big social network (the top 4 being Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Reddit) are seeing registrations decline, engagement decline, an increase in dormant and deleted accounts. And not in small numbers.
Registrations and content creation are exploding on Parler, Gab, Bitchute, Rumble, Minds, and decentralized alternatives like Mastodon and Peertube. video.maga.host is a Peertube server.
The free market is solving this problem just like we all knew it would. All we really need to do to end it is for antitrust lawsuits against the big guys to grow legs. Google is already in the middle of one, and the state of NY is about to file one against Facebook in federal court in a few days.
Yeah basically what you said, although I don't care about advertising.
I want platforms to be "common carriers" like the phone company, and not allowed to make any content curation choices except for illegal material. I'm not sure how to handle community curation, reputation, and recommended/trending algorithms without making the law super complex and overreaching.
What about this community? Do we have to allow bots, shills, trolls, and commies? That's what I'm having trouble wrapping my head around. I think some websites should get to pick. Obviously Facebook is too big / powerful etc. But where do we draw some lines?
There is no way to do it without the law being super complex and overreaching.
Platforms cannot be common carriers because one of the main motivations for the creation of that classification was that there were geographical restrictions to access to competitors. AT&T is the only game in town in a lot of places in the US. This is not so online, you can easily within 5 minutes begin using any of a plethora of alternatives to Twitter or Facebook or YouTube or Reddit to publish your thoughts and engage with other people.
I don't see how that translates to "platforms cannot be common carriers".
But yes there's lots of alternatives to Twitter.
I can make an account on the well-respected and not-at-all-blocked-by-my-work-VPN site "Gab".
I can write an article on medium.
I can make a webpage.
I can robodial my message to random numbers in the phone book.
I can go outside and yell.
Many of those same arguments apply to phone calls. Taking the argument the other way, now that we don't have geographical restrictions with cell phones, T-Mobile should be able to censor links to TheDonald, and maybe even listen to our calls and decide to drop us if they don't like what we're saying, because there's competitors.
I think it would help limit the scope of the legislation if it were only applied to corporations (or big companies, by some definition), and small-time independent operators still had 230 protections. That's getting off the discussion of why we're repealing 230 though.
Any ideas? What about only applying to social media sites with advertising? Make those sites pick between publisher & platform. For websites with comments section (local news for example) they will obviously be publishers but we can let their comments sections be a platform (if they choose).
Then let subscription based sites and free sites (no advertising) do what they want.
Make it so a company can go from being a publisher to platform at any time.
Make it so if a company wants to go from being a platform to publisher they must give users a 1 year warning (i.e. what if a company did this late during the election).
That’s good thinking.
However, I would take a different route. Let big tech fail. Rumble and parler and the .win are already beginning to overtake them and will improve with time.
Advocating for more laws and regulations should be a last resort especially for conservatives who want more liberty and less government interference.
If we’re going to stand by our principles, we the people need to beat the big tech communists by coming out with a superior product. Innovate. Code. Support existing free speech platforms like rumble, gab and parler and help them work out the bugs etc.
On top of this, I would advocate for a real investigation into big tech for either sedition, election interference, defamation or crimes against humanity by banning America’s Frontline Doctors.
Idk. Whatever we do, we have to remember it’s a double edged sword so it’s best not to hurl a law unto your communist devil worshipping enemies that you wouldn’t want to be used back on us and limit our freedoms as well.
Let Capitalism, not legislation, sort it out !
Assuming that Futzbook, Twitter, and such are alienating 50% of their user base, then there's an absolute shed load of money to be made by competitors who could offer a conservative bias. As a bonus, the nuts and bolts of the operation have already been worked out for prospective entrants by the very folk who's lunch they could eat.
How / why would big tech fail?
Free market systems have a self correcting tendency. Government generally sucks at everything and makes things worse.
Since most Americans are pro free speech and have polar opposite values to big tech, people will naturally gravitate to a better product that is truly what we want.
What do we want? For leftists to stop censoring us and shoving Chicom propaganda and fake news down our throats.
Who’s offering that right now? .win. Rumble. Gab. Parler to name a few.
Have you seen the App Store ratings? Parler was at #1 for several days in a row.
Heck, same with the fake news media. Look how many people switched to OANN, Newsmax, infowars, Breitbart and other independent news outlets this year. The deep state and the liberal propaganda machine will inevitably fall in a true free market system with limited government. But as government continues to expand and more regulations are set in place, things tend to centralize and the crony lobbyists at places like Google generously donate to the right politicians to rig the rules in their favor.
We need to restore the 10th amendment so the government cannot subsidize winners and regulate would-be competitors to death.
Last, again, were conservatives. We need to bring back the “I can do it” attitude. If we’re not fighting to make government smaller then why are we conservatives? For that reason, I’d argue for less laws, less regulation, less taxes, make it easier for competitors to spring up and only use government to prosecute big tech for crimes they’ve committed under the existing 186,000 pages of laws we already have in the CFR.
Sold
They're already failing as we speak. Every single big social network (the top 4 being Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Reddit) are seeing registrations decline, engagement decline, an increase in dormant and deleted accounts. And not in small numbers.
Registrations and content creation are exploding on Parler, Gab, Bitchute, Rumble, Minds, and decentralized alternatives like Mastodon and Peertube. video.maga.host is a Peertube server.
The free market is solving this problem just like we all knew it would. All we really need to do to end it is for antitrust lawsuits against the big guys to grow legs. Google is already in the middle of one, and the state of NY is about to file one against Facebook in federal court in a few days.
https://thedonald.win/p/11QlB7dOHS/x/c/4DpMeXTk4Bx
Yeah basically what you said, although I don't care about advertising.
I want platforms to be "common carriers" like the phone company, and not allowed to make any content curation choices except for illegal material. I'm not sure how to handle community curation, reputation, and recommended/trending algorithms without making the law super complex and overreaching.
What about this community? Do we have to allow bots, shills, trolls, and commies? That's what I'm having trouble wrapping my head around. I think some websites should get to pick. Obviously Facebook is too big / powerful etc. But where do we draw some lines?
There is no way to do it without the law being super complex and overreaching.
Platforms cannot be common carriers because one of the main motivations for the creation of that classification was that there were geographical restrictions to access to competitors. AT&T is the only game in town in a lot of places in the US. This is not so online, you can easily within 5 minutes begin using any of a plethora of alternatives to Twitter or Facebook or YouTube or Reddit to publish your thoughts and engage with other people.
I don't see how that translates to "platforms cannot be common carriers".
But yes there's lots of alternatives to Twitter.
I can make an account on the well-respected and not-at-all-blocked-by-my-work-VPN site "Gab".
I can write an article on medium.
I can make a webpage.
I can robodial my message to random numbers in the phone book.
I can go outside and yell.
Many of those same arguments apply to phone calls. Taking the argument the other way, now that we don't have geographical restrictions with cell phones, T-Mobile should be able to censor links to TheDonald, and maybe even listen to our calls and decide to drop us if they don't like what we're saying, because there's competitors.
I think it would help limit the scope of the legislation if it were only applied to corporations (or big companies, by some definition), and small-time independent operators still had 230 protections. That's getting off the discussion of why we're repealing 230 though.
You make a good point with the mobile carriers.