If I had a dollar for every time I've heard those lines... even from people I've extensively explained Section 230 and public spaces to. They just default back to that excuse like it's something these companies shouldn't do, but oh well... they're tired of talking about it. Did you see Jimmy Kimmel last night?
My response; we passed a law in the 1930s to stop [muh private] phone companies discriminating. Re: no phone for you if you were controversial. Somehow the free market survived.
As far as I'm concerned, if government uses these platforms for politics then it becomes a first amendment issue. I think the legal case for this is extremely strong and I'm surprised no one has made it yet.
Government officials using twitter while twitter bans their political opponents is illegal - government's use of such a platform for communication is a violation of the first amendment. For example, imagine if government held a town hall in a "private" building, and that private building didn't allow conservatives to attend. That would be a clear violation. This is effectively what is happening with big tech and the media.
If these platforms don't want free speech, go right ahead, but anything government related should not be allowed to use them for anything. Including anyone who receives public funding. Otherwise it's a violation of the constitution.
Imagine if the chain of custody of all those ballots when they kicked out all the observers and taped newspapers to the windows. or making them stand 100 feet away
Remember when Microsoft got hit with anti-trust lawsuits because they packaged Internet Explorer with their operating system? Now Facebook and Twitter account for 90% of our communications, and Google pretty much controls the entire goddamn internet...yet you suggest any sort of action be taken to rein them in and you get "mUh pRivATe coMPaNy".
My bad, but sarcasm can be hard to detect through text sometimes, plus you really can't tell anymore. I've had people tell me stone-faced "private companies" immediately after I finished explaining government regulations, exemptions, etc in detail. It literally goes in one ear and out the other.
MuH pRiVaTe CoMpAniEs mUH FrEe MaRkEt!!
If I had a dollar for every time I've heard those lines... even from people I've extensively explained Section 230 and public spaces to. They just default back to that excuse like it's something these companies shouldn't do, but oh well... they're tired of talking about it. Did you see Jimmy Kimmel last night?
Derp.
My response; we passed a law in the 1930s to stop [muh private] phone companies discriminating. Re: no phone for you if you were controversial. Somehow the free market survived.
As far as I'm concerned, if government uses these platforms for politics then it becomes a first amendment issue. I think the legal case for this is extremely strong and I'm surprised no one has made it yet.
Government officials using twitter while twitter bans their political opponents is illegal - government's use of such a platform for communication is a violation of the first amendment. For example, imagine if government held a town hall in a "private" building, and that private building didn't allow conservatives to attend. That would be a clear violation. This is effectively what is happening with big tech and the media.
If these platforms don't want free speech, go right ahead, but anything government related should not be allowed to use them for anything. Including anyone who receives public funding. Otherwise it's a violation of the constitution.
That's how I see it.
Imagine if the chain of custody of all those ballots when they kicked out all the observers and taped newspapers to the windows. or making them stand 100 feet away
Current social media is a monopoly with very close ties to the political ruling class. Muh Free Market.
Remember when Microsoft got hit with anti-trust lawsuits because they packaged Internet Explorer with their operating system? Now Facebook and Twitter account for 90% of our communications, and Google pretty much controls the entire goddamn internet...yet you suggest any sort of action be taken to rein them in and you get "mUh pRivATe coMPaNy".
Thank you for proving exactly my point, even after I specifically mentioned Section 230 and public spaces.
Yeah, that's a good one. Like Parler tried to?
My bad, but sarcasm can be hard to detect through text sometimes, plus you really can't tell anymore. I've had people tell me stone-faced "private companies" immediately after I finished explaining government regulations, exemptions, etc in detail. It literally goes in one ear and out the other.