Groups representing Google, Twitter, Facebook, Amazon sue Florida

#51
#51
Velo Vol said:
Except it's not the town square. It's Twitter.com, Facebook.com, square.
Click to expand...

It is where non-politically exiled people go to share information with the public. It is the nearest thing we have to a town square in the digital age. And it is controlled by a select few of the most powerful corporations on the planet. And those corporations have worked in unison to suffocate alternatives to their version of the town square.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT, davethevol, Rasputin_Vol and 1 other person
#53
#53
SamRebel35 said:
It is where non-politically exiled people go to share information with the public. It is the nearest thing we have to a town square in the digital age. And it is controlled by a select few of the most powerful corporations on the planet. And those corporations have worked in unison to suffocate alternatives to their version of the town square.
Click to expand...

And this thing is being argued based on political beliefs.
The law as written protection applies to all. With the exception of the BS park thing.
It’s amazing to me how short sighted people are when things are going their way. Like the other side can’t get control and bend them over with their own short sightedness later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT and Rasputin_Vol
#54
#54
Orangeslice13 said:
We currently will not allow TV to pick and choose which political candidate they run adds for. I don’t see that as a hardship for any SM platform. The basic human need of a water company isn’t required. People can get water elsewhere. It’s available in bottles in every store. Sure it’s inconvenient but that sucks for you if you have the wrong opinion. It’s not like water is free. If you don’t pay they shut it off.
They should be allowed to sell to whoever they want for whatever reason , right?
Click to expand...
That seems like more of an attempt to save your tortured analogy than a rationale for why the government should tell these companies how to run their business, but ok.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic
#58
#58
SamRebel35 said:
I'm not really in favor of it myself (especially the very strange part about amusement parks?). But I also don't think that "Just build your own internet monopoly of like-minded political bretheren" is a great way to give everyone a voice in what has become the new town square.
Click to expand...

I would say Twitter is a million miles from being a monopoly of "like-minded" anything, let alone "political brethren". Are they biased? Sure, but there is a great disparity in the way you view things and the way they are. Twitter is still a place where, by and large, you can have just about any kind of discussion you want.
 
#59
#59
Who has Twitter deplatformed that didn't behave badly? I know you guys will respond "they don't ban the left for behaving badly" and I agree that they are harsher on the right, but that's not the point. I just want to know who was banned solely for ideas, and it had nothing to do with trolling or planning 1/6 or whatever. Is there anybody that didn't break clearly stated rules?

It was kind of fun to look through this list.

Twitter banned Anonymous for doxing a Westboro Baptist lawyer.

Courtney Love suspended for defaming Dawn Simorangkir on Twitter

Atheist blogger and podcaster Charles Johnson for abuse and harassment

PewdiePie for pretending to be a member of ISIL

Rose McGowan for posting private phone number

Smash Racism for posting Tucker Carlson's home address

Amos Yee for supporting pedophilia

Louis Farrakhan for language that dehumanizes

Talib Kweli for harassment

Twitter suspensions - Wikipedia
 
#60
#60
n_huffhines said:
Who has Twitter deplatformed that didn't behave badly? I know you guys will respond "they don't ban the left for behaving badly" and I agree that they are harsher on the right, but that's not the point. I just want to know who was banned solely for ideas, and it had nothing to do with trolling or planning 1/6 or whatever. Is there anybody that didn't break clearly stated rules?

It was kind of fun to look through this list.

Twitter banned Anonymous for doxing a Westboro Baptist lawyer.

Courtney Love suspended for defaming Dawn Simorangkir on Twitter

Atheist blogger and podcaster Charles Johnson for abuse and harassment

PewdiePie for pretending to be a member of ISIL

Rose McGowan for posting private phone number

Smash Racism for posting Tucker Carlson's home address

Amos Yee for supporting pedophilia

Louis Farrakhan for language that dehumanizes

Talib Kweli for harassment

Twitter suspensions - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
So you’re in support of this law if they remove the “park owner” thing?
It’s obviously not been a problem so a preventative measure is no big deal, right? I mean it’s obviously a law that won’t change anything so no big deal.
 
#62
#62
Orangeslice13 said:
So you’re in support of this law if they remove the “park owner” thing?

It’s obviously not been a problem so a preventative measure is no big deal, right? I mean it’s obviously a law that won’t change anything so no big deal.
Click to expand...

No. That's not the part that violates the first amendment.
 
#63
#63
n_huffhines said:
I would say Twitter is a million miles from being a monopoly of "like-minded" anything, let alone "political brethren". Are they biased? Sure, but there is a great disparity in the way you view things and the way they are. Twitter is still a place where, by and large, you can have just about any kind of discussion you want.
Click to expand...

I'm not claiming Twitter users are like minded. I'm saying all the tech companies are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#64
#64
SamRebel35 said:
I'm not claiming Twitter users are like minded. I'm saying all the tech companies are.
Click to expand...

Who cares if they are? It's normal for people within any given industry to have like-mindedness. I thought the problem was they were creating a like-minded internet, which, if that is the objective, they are failing at it mightily.
 
#65
#65
n_huffhines said:
Who has Twitter deplatformed that didn't behave badly? I know you guys will respond "they don't ban the left for behaving badly" and I agree that they are harsher on the right, but that's not the point. I just want to know who was banned solely for ideas, and it had nothing to do with trolling or planning 1/6 or whatever. Is there anybody that didn't break clearly stated rules?

It was kind of fun to look through this list.

Twitter banned Anonymous for doxing a Westboro Baptist lawyer.

Courtney Love suspended for defaming Dawn Simorangkir on Twitter

Atheist blogger and podcaster Charles Johnson for abuse and harassment

PewdiePie for pretending to be a member of ISIL

Rose McGowan for posting private phone number

Smash Racism for posting Tucker Carlson's home address

Amos Yee for supporting pedophilia

Louis Farrakhan for language that dehumanizes

Talib Kweli for harassment

Twitter suspensions - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Prager U

AOCpress

Magaphobia

Meghan Murphy (not a conservative) got banned for saying "men are not women"

Doctor Robby Starbuck and many other legitimate epidemiologists who touted Hydroxy chloroquine or Ivermectin.

The list of conservatives (and even non-conservatives who break with woke orthodoxy) banned who didn't behave badly is actually quite long.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#66
#66
volfanhill said:
So then logic would dictate they would be treated like a publisher
Click to expand...
No, logic would dictate that you look at whether the offensive speech was hosted or published.

The idea that VolNation.com or even Facebook publishing some content makes them a publisher for the purposes of all regulation or legal disputes is not logical.

If I were to say something defamatory about you on here, why should Freak foot the bill for your damages, just because he chooses to have some published content on the main page of the site? How is that logical?
 
#67
#67
Tyler Durden said:
Weird how conservatives are pro business until they get their feelz hurt
Click to expand...
Can Ma' Bell or MCI or Verizon or any other telephone company "deplatform" anyone? Or, do all individuals have equal and unlimited access to telephone service?
 
#68
#68
RockyTop85 said:
No, logic would dictate that you look at whether the tortuous speech was hosted or published.
Click to expand...
That’s just stupid.
If they’re not allowing one thing they’re publishing everything else. If they’re hosting then they don’t edit anything.
 
#69
#69
Rasputin_Vol said:
Can Ma' Bell or MCI or Verizon or any other telephone company "deplatform" anyone? Or, do all individuals have equal and unlimited access to telephone service?
Click to expand...
Yes, if you violate their rules they can. That's how most things work. Rarely, if ever, is any user or customer given carte blanche to act however they want when utilizing a company's services.
 
#70
#70
Tyler Durden said:
Yes, if you violate their rules they can. That's how most things work. Rarely, if ever, is any user or customer given carte blanche to act however they want when utilizing a company's services.
Click to expand...
Can a company limit Democrats use of their phones If they say “****” but Republicans are not for the same behavior?
 
#71
#71
@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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

So an individual cannot block "open online dialogue", but the service provider can?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#72
#72
Rasputin_Vol said:
@Tyler Durden

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

On the one hand...




So an individual cannot block "open online dialogue", but the service provider can?
Click to expand...
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)?
 
#75
#75
Rasputin_Vol said:
Can Ma' Bell or MCI or Verizon or any other telephone company "deplatform" anyone? Or, do all individuals have equal and unlimited access to telephone service?
Click to expand...

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.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top