Groups representing Google, Twitter, Facebook, Amazon sue Florida

[RikidyBones]

I’ve lost track
Did anyone think the amusement Park exception was OK?

No.

 

[865er]

You're good with the government forcing private companies to do something they don't want to do?

'Cause this is a slippery slope that I'm not sure that pro-business conservatives don't want to give precedence to.

I’m not.

A lot of people got upset when a bakery didn’t want to bake a specific cake if I recall... and wanted the government to do something about it.

 

[Septic]

These companies have become a normal way to communicate across the world. They weld lot of power. It has nothing to do with me not liking it because "my flavor" keeps breaking the rules. So this is a lie and intellectually dishonest. The left pedals more lies and vitrol on these platforms since they are typically not cancelled.

When the POTUS can be blocked from a platform you have to look at whether it has gone too far. They are silencing voices of dissent.

No way should FB have pulled articles and conversations about the Wuhan Virus originating from a lab. That is what these forums are for. It was a political move. One has to wonder if they are doing the bidding of the Chinese. We know many progressive mouthpieces are including on this board. With friends like that who needs enemies.

You feel like it's your safe space for now because they are on your side --- until they're not.

They must be reigned in because they are a danger to society. They are political pawns and monopolies.

yawn.

Don't do business with them if you don't like them, if enough of you do that they will stop doing what you don't like or they will go out of business.

it's really that simple, the "why's and whatfors" probably make you feel better about your position but the feelz of it are extraneous to the conversation.

That's capitalisim.

 

[Septic]

“ Selectively Enforcing “ the TOS .

Shouldn't businesses have discretion on who they want to serve?

 

[Septic]

I’m not.

A lot of people got upset when a bakery didn’t want to bake a specific cake if I recall... and wanted the government to do something about it.

Agreed, lot's of the same people who believe that bakery had a right to not make the gay cakes are now all lathered up that a private company has chosen to not do business with their flavor of politician.

I'm sure there's a joke in here about not wanting to eat the gay cake but I'm busy.

 

[0nelilreb]

Shouldn't businesses have discretion on who they want to serve?

Not if the TOS is there for everyone equally . You have a right to enforce the TOS that everyone agrees to , the problems come when you start showing favoritism for whatever reason and enforcing the TOS selectively . YouTube is one of the worst ones with this .

 

[hog88]

Not if the TOS is there for everyone equally . You have a right to enforce the TOS that everyone agrees to , the problems come when you start showing favoritism for whatever reason and enforcing the TOS selectively . YouTube is one of the worst ones with this .

A business should be free to show favoritism, discrimination, sexism etc. The only issue I have is the protections these tech companies enjoy by claiming to not be publishers while they act as publishers.

 

[hUTch2002]

Managed to do it without paying attention to the context of the conversation or knowing what you’re talking about, either. It’s almost like it actually was an easily identifiable personal attack.

I assume it’s still up. I’d go back and look, but I already know the rules aren’t enforced here, it was just a convenient prop for demonstrating it.

From what I’ve seen I think they give you a wide berth if you aren’t super direct. If I directly say, “you’re stupid” then I think that gets taken down. If I wordsmith it like OS did then it seems to stand. I’ve definitely seen some direct attacks stand too though.

 

[0nelilreb]

A business should be free to show favoritism, discrimination, sexism etc. The only issue I have is the protections these tech companies enjoy by claiming to not be publishers while they act as publishers.

They should be free to enforce the TOS that they demand everyone sign before the money is spilt up for views and likes , they shouldn’t be free for example , to review a content developers videos , give them a green light , to post it , then come back and give the developers a strike for not following the TOS while other content is and has been up that clearly breaks the TOS . The only reason they get away with it is because of their huge platform and parent company .

 

[hUTch2002]

I try to tailor it so even the slowest members can pick up on it without blue font. Apparently, I’ll have to work harder.

Damn, and I thought I was smart for catching it. Back to the drawing board.

 

[AshG]

A business should be free to show favoritism, discrimination, sexism etc.

My wife and her parents were small business owners for a while. I got to know many of the laws while helping them during the summer and on weekends. From my understanding, at least in Tennessee, a business can choose not to serve any potential customer so long as they don't say why. The moment a reason is given, the potential customer has options they can take up to and including legal action.

I've asked people to leave the shop who smelled like cat urine and who kept using their bodies to block my view while browsing. I just couldn't tell them that.

 

[RockyTop85]

yawn.

Don't do business with them if you don't like them, if enough of you do that they will stop doing what you don't like or they will go out of business.

it's really that simple, the "why's and whatfors" probably make you feel better about your position but the feelz of it are extraneous to the conversation.

That's capitalisim.

This really is a bailout in the marketplace of ideas, right?

The core competency of these companies is identifying user-created content that drives or suppresses the engagement of other users and amplifying or suppressing it, as appropriate, to maximize traffic as a driver for ad revenue.

That’s the driving force behind these issues. People like Ben Shapiro aren’t being banned. He and Dan Bongino and Sean Hannity consistently have multiple entries on the list of top performing links on Facebook. And they stay. The companies have identified the stuff we saw from the 1/6 insurrectionists and the Charlottesville attendees as being less beneficial to their bottom line and are taking measures to preserve their business.

So we’ve got republicans trying to go all Obamacare on these companies and telling them they have to abandon their core competence and treat all content equally or else it becomes a liability. The expectation that the government can fix this is textbook insanity because we already have the example of health insurance and, unlike health insurance, we already companies struggling under this same business model.

 

[RockyTop85]

From what I’ve seen I think they give you a wide berth if you aren’t super direct. If I directly say, “you’re stupid” then I think that gets taken down. If I wordsmith it like OS did then it seems to stand. I’ve definitely seen some direct attacks stand too though.

That’s fair. I agree.

I think if you report a post it would probably be more likely to get taken down as well. Which makes me think that the biggest and maybe only factor is that it’s just hard to catch everything in a cesspool, even a small one like this. And as long as it’s quarantined from the forums that drive real traffic to the site, why bother committing that manpower?

When you’re talking about something the size of Twitter or Facebook that task is impossible, even with the help of an algorithm. They probably rely on reports and I guarantee you the Bernie Bros and people who think language is violence are more likely to mass report things than anybody to the right of that, although I think that the extremely online right probably keeps that from being “far more likely.”

 

[Septic]

Not if the TOS is there for everyone equally . You have a right to enforce the TOS that everyone agrees to , the problems come when you start showing favoritism for whatever reason and enforcing the TOS selectively . YouTube is one of the worst ones with this .

Nah I disagree, businesses can pick and choose. If a business doesn't want to do with certain people or groups (including sh*thead politicians, etc....) it should be their discretion.

Those businesses should also have to accept that there could be fallout from the decisions they make on discriminating or selectively enforcing their morals or judgements.

The government shouldn't have a damn thing to do with this and certainly shouldn't be "fining" private businesses for private business decisions.

 

[hUTch2002]

That’s fair. I agree.

I think if you report a post it would probably be more likely to get taken down as well. Which makes me think that the biggest and maybe only factor is that it’s just hard to catch everything in a cesspool, even a small one like this. And as long as it’s quarantined from the forums that drive real traffic to the site, why bother committing that manpower?

When you’re talking about something the size of Twitter or Facebook that task is impossible, even with the help of an algorithm. They probably rely on reports and I guarantee you the Bernie Bros and people who think language is violence are more likely to mass report things than anybody to the right of that, although I think that the extremely online right probably keeps that from being “far more likely.”

Squeaky wheel gets the grease. Makes sense to me.

 

[hUTch2002]

A 7-Year-Old Was Accused of Rape. Is Arresting Him the Answer?
It’s interesting that science is used to justify not arresting young kids but ignored when it comes to making other life-altering decisions. I feel sorry for the youth of this country.

Edit: I was trying to post this in a different PF thread and I guess got crossed up. My apologies for being off topic.

 

[VolStrom]

This really is a bailout in the marketplace of ideas, right?

The core competency of these companies is identifying user-created content that drives or suppresses the engagement of other users and amplifying or suppressing it, as appropriate, to maximize traffic as a driver for ad revenue.

That’s the driving force behind these issues. People like Ben Shapiro aren’t being banned. He and Dan Bongino and Sean Hannity consistently have multiple entries on the list of top performing links on Facebook. And they stay. The companies have identified the stuff we saw from the 1/6 insurrectionists and the Charlottesville attendees as being less beneficial to their bottom line and are taking measures to preserve their business.

So we’ve got republicans trying to go all Obamacare on these companies and telling them they have to abandon their core competence and treat all content equally or else it becomes a liability. The expectation that the government can fix this is textbook insanity because we already have the example of health insurance and, unlike health insurance, we already companies struggling under this same business model.

So explain why a former President of the United States has been banned from these companies? This is not companies exerting their right, it's about silencing free speech. Speech has changed through the years from print to radio to TV and now to the Internet and suddenly the Internet version of speech is allowed to censor certain people.

 

[utvolpj]

So explain why a former President of the United States has been banned from these companies? This is not companies exerting their right, it's about silencing free speech. Speech has changed through the years from print to radio to TV and now to the Internet and suddenly the Internet version of speech is allowed to censor certain people.

Because he's a loud mouth troll. He had a blog but looks like that wasn't too popular. Makes you wonder if it's the platform pumping his numbers

 

[LouderVol]

Because he's a loud mouth troll. He had a blog but looks like that wasn't too popular. Makes you wonder if it's the platform pumping his numbers

Ease of access. Remember the internet has proved it's not the lack of information that makes people dumb.

 

[RockyTop85]

So explain why a former President of the United States has been banned from these companies? This is not companies exerting their right, it's about silencing free speech. Speech has changed through the years from print to radio to TV and now to the Internet and suddenly the Internet version of speech is allowed to censor certain people.

I think his content speaks for itself.

All media is allowed to censor certain people. I can’t just call up Sean Hannity and get on his show. Hell, I’d like to host a prime time show on Fox News and tell all their viewers how absolutely bat **** crazy they are for buying the crap sold by whoever is before or after me. I’ve never asked, but I can’t imagine they’d say yes. Am I being censored? No. I doubt anybody would want to watch that ****. It would be terrible television and people wouldn’t even want to hate watch it. They’re protecting their bottom line by keeping my dumb ass away from their cameras.

People have been calling for the repeal of federal cable and broadcast regulation since the 80’s. There was a push by Steve Scalise and Jim DeMint to deregulate the industry and open up free market competition several years ago. The original justifications for treating them as common carriers no longer exist, partly due to the internet, and none of them ever applied to the internet.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

@Tyler Durden

Trump Can’t Block Critics From His Twitter Account, Appeals Court Rules (Published 2019)

On the one hand...

Because Mr. Trump uses Twitter to conduct government business, he cannot exclude some Americans from reading his posts — and engaging in conversations in the replies to them — because he does not like their views, a three-judge panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, ruled unanimously.

The First Amendment prohibits an official who uses a social media account for government purposes from excluding people from an “otherwise open online dialogue” because they say things that the official finds objectionable, Judge Parker wrote.

So an individual cannot block "open online dialogue", but the service provider can?

Facebook Confirms Trump Banned From Platform Until At Least January 2023 | ZeroHedge

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Shouldn't businesses have discretion on who they want to serve?

Yeah but they don't

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Are you asking me to explain the difference between an elected official selectively limiting dialogue because some people say mean things about him vs a business no longer allowing people to use their products because those people have broken the rules of the business, usually outlined in what's commonly known as "Terms and Conditions" (to which said user agrees to before being permitted to use the product)?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I'm not sure but this doesn't sound like a very libertarian justification. Libertarianism aside, this example isn't a relevant comparison. What you say on your phone about transgender people to the person on the other end has no effect on MCI, other MCI users, or the general public. The specifics of what people say publicly on Twitter is the entire point of the platform...and it makes perfect sense for them to try to ensure their platform reflects their core values.

Access to the free and #OpenInternet is an essential human right in modern society.

 

[RockyTop85]

I don’t know the details behind the government’s decision, but there’s a pretty obvious difference between banning individuals for violating terms of service and cutting off access for the entire country.

Twitter has an interest in maintaining access so the human rights angle is hollow from them, but it’s no more inconsistent with their practices than the Declaration of Independence saying you have a right to life and liberty but we have a death penalty and put people in jail.