The only argument right now that could maybe have teeth is that social media is modern day "public square". It used to be open to the public, back in the day, now it's owned by twitter, facebook, reddit, etc. and they are all uniformly closing it off to conservatives.
Well it is. A lot of people spend their lives online. This last year we were told we couldn't leave our homes, leaving the only place to communicate to be online. Some of these companies need anti-trust laws slapped on them like the railroads, and maybe make them utilities. This as a clear infringement of the First Amendment if you accept that first statement.
He's trying to argue that since companies own the platforms they can do anything they want on it even if it's illegal. So by that argument if you are in a private place that I own, I can gag you, rob you or even murder you with no consequence. It's not a slippery slope, its exactly what they are proposing. They are pushing their hand with the mass censorship but people aren't that brainwashed to see evil run amok.
Contact a lawyer, my dude. Have them assess the situation and see what they think. Marsh v. Alabama popped up in 2016 when people were talking about Trump being banned from Twitter then.
It seemed to have pretty good traction at the time. The wording is very clear. If you open your home to the public, you do not have absolute dominion and protected speech cannot be restricted. If Twitter was, say, invite only, then it would absolutely be able to restrict it. But it is a public platform, wide open to the public.
Past, what’s the difference when these big tech corporations have their executives working in the government and the government has its former staffers working in those big tech corporations? It’s one big incestuous cabal. Those oligarchs cornered the market with the government’s blessing, and now they do the government’s bidding to silence opponents.
It has everything to do with it. No fucking company is above a Countries laws.
No, not how this works.
The only argument right now that could maybe have teeth is that social media is modern day "public square". It used to be open to the public, back in the day, now it's owned by twitter, facebook, reddit, etc. and they are all uniformly closing it off to conservatives.
Well it is. A lot of people spend their lives online. This last year we were told we couldn't leave our homes, leaving the only place to communicate to be online. Some of these companies need anti-trust laws slapped on them like the railroads, and maybe make them utilities. This as a clear infringement of the First Amendment if you accept that first statement.
He's trying to argue that since companies own the platforms they can do anything they want on it even if it's illegal. So by that argument if you are in a private place that I own, I can gag you, rob you or even murder you with no consequence. It's not a slippery slope, its exactly what they are proposing. They are pushing their hand with the mass censorship but people aren't that brainwashed to see evil run amok.
The government is social media
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
This is the key.
Very interesting. What say you to class action against the big tech for censorship?
Contact a lawyer, my dude. Have them assess the situation and see what they think. Marsh v. Alabama popped up in 2016 when people were talking about Trump being banned from Twitter then.
It seemed to have pretty good traction at the time. The wording is very clear. If you open your home to the public, you do not have absolute dominion and protected speech cannot be restricted. If Twitter was, say, invite only, then it would absolutely be able to restrict it. But it is a public platform, wide open to the public.
Past, what’s the difference when these big tech corporations have their executives working in the government and the government has its former staffers working in those big tech corporations? It’s one big incestuous cabal. Those oligarchs cornered the market with the government’s blessing, and now they do the government’s bidding to silence opponents.
Back then, people had to print their own pamphlets or whatever with their own money to spread their words.