Isn't this the whole conundrum? If tech companies own the medium, and we are free to use or not use or use our own, then they have the right to what is, or is not, allowed on their property? All other free-enterpise mediums get to chose their agenda. The real issue is that Facebook, Twitter, etc., won't just come out and state their agenda so the rest of us can move on. More like, we don't want to move on and want to change them?
Government regulation of social media?
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Re: Government regulation of social media?
Re: Government regulation of social media?
They have become monopolistic under the false pretenses that everyone would be treated approximately the same. Now they are too big to challenge in the free market, and they are warping the political conversation, with no real alternatives that have the same impact.Archery1 wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 12:17 pm Isn't this the whole conundrum? If tech companies own the medium, and we are free to use or not use or use our own, then they have the right to what is, or is not, allowed on their property? All other free-enterpise mediums get to chose their agenda. The real issue is that Facebook, Twitter, etc., won't just come out and state their agenda so the rest of us can move on. More like, we don't want to move on and want to change them?
As for a business challenge, Twitter does not make money. Why would they have a competitor? Facebook makes money trading in your personal information. It is about "you", but not in the way you might think.
The good news is that they all fall eventually. Some fall hard, some fade away, but they are not eternal.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
Re: Government regulation of social media?
They do seem monopolistic, but they really are not. The do not control the means for anyone else to start a similar service. They have tried, but they have been challenged on that very issue, . Again, the real problem is not that they cannot be challenged competitively, it's that no other wants to at the moment. That will change as the market changes. Not enough folks getting news or information through social media currently other than the young crowd.bbhack wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 12:34 pmThey have become monopolistic under the false pretenses that everyone would be treated approximately the same. Now they are too big to challenge in the free market, and they are warping the political conversation, with no real alternatives that have the same impact.Archery1 wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 12:17 pm Isn't this the whole conundrum? If tech companies own the medium, and we are free to use or not use or use our own, then they have the right to what is, or is not, allowed on their property? All other free-enterpise mediums get to chose their agenda. The real issue is that Facebook, Twitter, etc., won't just come out and state their agenda so the rest of us can move on. More like, we don't want to move on and want to change them?
As for a business challenge, Twitter does not make money. Why would they have a competitor? Facebook makes money trading in your personal information. It is about "you", but not in the way you might think.
The good news is that they all fall eventually. Some fall hard, some fade away, but they are not eternal.
Re: Government regulation of social media?
I think that there should be minimal restrictions on social networks. After all, the Internet cannot be completely rectified, but it is impossible to limit use ... This will no longer be a democracy. I believe that it is necessary to pitch racism in all its manifestations on the Internet as well. It would also be nice to make a restriction for films for adults. Although so far nothing can come up with hackers ...
Re: Government regulation of social media?
I don't want restrictions. You don't like Facebook? Do what I do and don't use it. Yes I understand that many people get their "news" on social media. If that is their only source then they are ignorant. If we start having the government involved in censoring enforcement, where will it stop? We may as well let Uncle Sam install a Nationwide firewall.
This is a very slippery slope that I for one would like to avoid. Are they fair with who they ban? Probably not. Is it fair? Probably not. Do we want to start having the government decide who can post what? Definitely not.
This is a very slippery slope that I for one would like to avoid. Are they fair with who they ban? Probably not. Is it fair? Probably not. Do we want to start having the government decide who can post what? Definitely not.
NRA Endowment Life Member
TSRA Member
GOA Member
TSRA Member
GOA Member
Re: Government regulation of social media?
That is the whole point I was trying to make. They should not have the right to control what is allowed or not allowed on their property that they have opened up as a public service. If the medium is a service that the public can participate in, in other words it is not your own private PC or Network. Then they should forego any right to regulate its content. Just as a fast food establishment must not be allowed to ban someone from their property for wearing an offensive hat or T shirt.Archery1 wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 12:17 pmIsn't this the whole conundrum? If tech companies own the medium, and we are free to use or not use or use our own, then they have the right to what is, or is not, allowed on their property? All other free-enterpise mediums get to chose their agenda. The real issue is that Facebook, Twitter, etc., won't just come out and state their agenda so the rest of us can move on. More like, we don't want to move on and want to change them?
"I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place." - Oliver Cromwell 1653
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 3088
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 7:00 pm
- Location: Plano, TX
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 821
- Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:57 am
- Location: San Antonio
Re: Government regulation of social media?
Interesting that this thread should arise just as Powerlineblog has a relevant post:
Whether all this a good idea is a separate question. I don't like the thrust of the argument. But what I like little influences Congress.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/ ... munism.phpA number of conservatives have said that although Google, Facebook, and Twitter are engaging in censorship of conservatives, those platforms are privately-owned, and therefore immune from the reach of the First Amendment. Maybe not?
My mind has been wandering back to some old Supreme Court cases, starting with Munn v. Illinois in 1876. This was the case that upheld state regulation of the prices charged by grain elevator cooperatives, even though there was no monopoly in grain elevators. What could a 19th century case about grain elevators possibly have to tell us about social media in the 21st century? More than you might think.
Here’s the 10th paragraph of Chief Justice Morrison Waite’s majority opinion:
It seems to me that social media, being a prime means by which the public now communicates, satisfies this test. (We must leave aside for another time due consideration for Justice Stephen Fields’s excellent dissent in Munn, not to mention Richard Epstein’s modern powerful critique of this and similar cases.)Looking, then, to the common law, from whence came the right which the Constitution protects, we find that, when private property is “affected with a public interest, it ceases to be juris privati only.” This was said by Lord Chief Justice [Matthew] Hale more than two hundred years ago, in his treatise De Portibus Maris, 1 Harg.Law Tracts 78, and has been accepted without objection as an essential element in the law of property ever since. Property does become clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make it of public consequence and affect the community at large. When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing the use, but, so long as he maintains the use, he must submit to the control. [Emphasis added.]
Likewise, several of the railroad regulation cases of the late 19th century, not to mention the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, find that private property that is used in a mode of public conveyance ceases to be strictly private property (this is the basis for prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race in restaurants, hotels, and so forth). And there are other cases that might be brought to bear to support the conclusion that the Internet giants and social media platforms that discriminate on the basis of viewpoint are violating fundamental civil rights, even if they are nominally “private” enterprises.
The holdings and doctrines of these cases may be defective, but they are part of the legal foundation of modern regulation and civil rights law. Why shouldn’t Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al. be subject to the same legal regime that in other domains they wholeheartedly support? Mark Zuckerberg has said to Congress, “Please regulate us!” I say let him have it, good and hard.
Whether all this a good idea is a separate question. I don't like the thrust of the argument. But what I like little influences Congress.
-
Topic author - Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 2453
- Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:59 am
Re: Government regulation of social media?
I started this thread with the thought that at some point the federal government stepped in to regulate the railroads as they had become a monopoly that used their power to charge exorbitant rates to move people and freight! They made themselves into a public utility, in that same vein social media has chosen to pick winners and losers after first making themselves into a public utility, they are selling peoples information and profiting off that! They are selling product advertising targeted based on user profiles, once again they made themselves into a public utility, so I do not advocate a government take over but I believe some Government regulation may be in order or breaking of the monopoly held by these companies! My 2cents
Government, like fire is a dangerous servant and a fearful master
If you ain't paranoid you ain't paying attention
Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war let it begin here- John Parker
If you ain't paranoid you ain't paying attention
Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war let it begin here- John Parker
Re: Government regulation of social media?
I am not forcing what they can publish - I am denying them the right to restrict what they allow in their public access space. They are either providing a public service or they running a private information repository. The former they must not be allowed to filter (because they are infringing the free speech of others) the latter they can limit as it is not in the public domain. They personally can continue to express their extreme left wing position as much as they like. What they cannot be permitted to do is to allow that personal viewpoint to bleed over to how their public domain service operates.Jason Todd wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 1:23 pmHow can a libertarian justify using force to regulate what a private newsletter can publish?
If they don't like that then they should get out of the public access information business. instead they should become simply a left wing propaganda publishing outfit which does not offer public access input, then they are free to express their personal opinions and only those opinions.
"I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place." - Oliver Cromwell 1653