TexasCHLforum.com

I have been watching the news, and hearing comments from those who lean more right, complaining, that social media, and video hosting sites, like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube etc.. Are "censoring" conservative viewpoints, and posts. And they are. However, I don't believe that we need government intervention, to put pressure on these sites, to give fair and balanced access. These are not government supported sites, they are not required to allow free speech. They are not required to give equal time, to everyone who wants a platform. These are privately owned entities, some are stockholder held, entities, but they are not under government control.

While, what I am postulating, may not set well with a lot of folks, I believe that if we start, allowing our Government, to regulate content, even if right now, the majority, of the three branches, are conservative(ish) We are headed down a very slippery slope, of overreach.

While it takes money to start an internet based hosting site, that is exactly what the founders of these sites did. And just because we don't like the content, we should not expect the Federal Government to step in, and try to force them to toe the line, so to speak. Those are tactics of the left.

If we don't like what is on social media, or any media, whether in print, movies, television, what have you, we simply turn it off. We can start our own production companies, to make movies, and then buy/build theaters to show the kind of movies we want to see. We start our own, social media sites, and limit the content, to what we want. We can start our own news media outlets, and filter the content ourselves. That is true freedom of speech.

I know, I don't have an extra few billion dollars lying around, to start these things either. But complaining, about what is already, out there won't change anything.

We can't allow ourselves to fall into the trap, of believing, that we have the inherent right to dictate to others, what they must allow to be posted. That is exactly where the new wave of socialism, comes from, and no matter under, what umbrella of partisanship, it may lurk, it is still the same. JMHO

I'll get off of my soap box now.

The deeper issue is that the internet has completely replaced paper mail as a means of communication. The Constitution explicitly requires the Federal government to provide for "post roads", which in today's world refers not to a dirt trail with a relatively low frequency of native american and bandit raids but fiber and big routers. Despite developing the internet under the auspices of DARPA, the government completely failed to adapt its provision of a basic and constitutionally mandated public good to the new milennium. This failure has left communication in the hands of private entities who are not bound by any standard of censorship (i.e. the standards have been by executive fiat without any real legal backing, and thus subject to the whims of the president).

I agree that the Federal government does not have a right to tell Facebook or Google which posts or search results they should censor. I disagree with the Federal government's refusal to adhere to its constitutional duty to link the United States with an open and modern communication network.

MaduroBU wrote: Thu Aug 30, 2018 5:18 pm The deeper issue is that the internet has completely replaced paper mail as a means of communication. The Constitution explicitly requires the Federal government to provide for "post roads", which in today's world refers not to a dirt trail with a relatively low frequency of native american and bandit raids but fiber and big routers. Despite developing the internet under the auspices of DARPA, the government completely failed to adapt its provision of a basic and constitutionally mandated public good to the new milennium. This failure has left communication in the hands of private entities who are not bound by any standard of censorship (i.e. the standards have been by executive fiat without any real legal backing, and thus subject to the whims of the president).

I agree that the Federal government does not have a right to tell Facebook or Google which posts or search results they should censor. I disagree with the Federal government's refusal to adhere to its constitutional duty to link the United States with an open and modern communication network.

This is an EXTREMELY good point that I had never considered before.

Thanks!

Why hasnt someone sued them yet. That is exactly what they do to pressure change from conservatives.

I don't think this is a 1st Amendment issue. It is however fraud and breach of contract issue. If I were to sue them that is the approach I would take.

I agree that the government needs to stay out of it. I do my part...I stay off social networks. To me it comes across as whining. Does anyone really want the government involved with google? That will just drive people to more dark web sites... including me.

I tell people all the time... if you get your news from Facebook and believe everything you read on the internet, you are an idiot. If you share the untrue memes and articles, you are part of the problem.

If we want to really screw with these folks, we could start a massive campaign to post untrue stuff about their heroes... but why join the stupid folks. Believe me, I tick off a lot of people including family and friends, but the truth is the truth.

I know... if we don't change things, the left will take over... good. I say let them. Let's get this show on the road... we are going to get there eventually, may as well do it while there is enough of us to actually have a chance.

....steps off soap box...

RicoTX wrote: Thu Aug 30, 2018 8:47 pm I agree that the government needs to stay out of it. I do my part...I stay off social networks. To me it comes across as whining. Does anyone really want the government involved with google? That will just drive people to more dark web sites... including me.

I tell people all the time... if you get your news from Facebook and believe everything you read on the internet, you are an idiot. If you share the untrue memes and articles, you are part of the problem.

If we want to really screw with these folks, we could start a massive campaign to post untrue stuff about their heroes... but why join the stupid folks. Believe me, I tick off a lot of people including family and friends, but the truth is the truth.

I know... if we don't change things, the left will take over... good. I say let them. Let's get this show on the road... we are going to get there eventually, may as well do it while there is enough of us to actually have a chance.

....steps off soap box...

I truly, don't believe that they will "take over" There is already a large number of people, who are moving away from social media, and it's not just older conservatives. We have seen a dramatic change in the political climate, and the left knows it. MSM is nothing but an echo chamber, where their only sources for new, is other MSM. They have completely abandoned, any pretense at actually, reporting new, but, simply opine about what they heard or read somewhere else. Their ratings reflect, how many people are not even listening.

I believe social media, will go the same way. after a while, it will become a small group of people, simply saying the same thing back and forth to each other. These sites rely, on advertising, for their existence. When there are not enough people, who will buy what is being sold, the advertisers, will move on, and the sites will die out.

The Federal Government, has a dismal record of trying to run any type of enterprise. The post Office, Social Security, FEMA, Fannie Mae, and Fannie Mac. It always ends up being inefficient, corrupt, and politicized. I don't want them to try and create a government controlled web site, or system. The private sector, is very good at weeding out what people don't want. When enough people say "enough" to Facebook, etc. and drop out, it will either be forced to change, of fade into oblivion. JMHO

MaduroBU wrote: Thu Aug 30, 2018 5:18 pm The deeper issue is that the internet has completely replaced paper mail as a means of communication. The Constitution explicitly requires the Federal government to provide for "post roads", which in today's world refers not to a dirt trail with a relatively low frequency of native american and bandit raids but fiber and big routers. Despite developing the internet under the auspices of DARPA, the government completely failed to adapt its provision of a basic and constitutionally mandated public good to the new milennium. This failure has left communication in the hands of private entities who are not bound by any standard of censorship (i.e. the standards have been by executive fiat without any real legal backing, and thus subject to the whims of the president).

I agree that the Federal government does not have a right to tell Facebook or Google which posts or search results they should censor. I disagree with the Federal government's refusal to adhere to its constitutional duty to link the United States with an open and modern communication network.

Those same private entities claimed exemption for legal action because they were but a "vessel" for information, not a purveyor of it like media companies. Now, they claim, without removing that exemption, the right to act like a media company. They cannot have it both ways. I, too, am not a fan of Federal intervention. But they are monopolies would would not be such without Federal rules. In addition, they are wrapped tightly to the Federal government in many things that they do. The banking sector is but an extension of the Federal government. The internet companies are becoming the same.

It is clear that the 2016 election was won, in part, but using the data from the internet companies. To the extent that data is available to one political entity and not another, there is impact on the elections .

chasfm11 wrote: Fri Aug 31, 2018 7:22 am

MaduroBU wrote: Thu Aug 30, 2018 5:18 pm The deeper issue is that the internet has completely replaced paper mail as a means of communication. The Constitution explicitly requires the Federal government to provide for "post roads", which in today's world refers not to a dirt trail with a relatively low frequency of native american and bandit raids but fiber and big routers. Despite developing the internet under the auspices of DARPA, the government completely failed to adapt its provision of a basic and constitutionally mandated public good to the new milennium. This failure has left communication in the hands of private entities who are not bound by any standard of censorship (i.e. the standards have been by executive fiat without any real legal backing, and thus subject to the whims of the president).

I agree that the Federal government does not have a right to tell Facebook or Google which posts or search results they should censor. I disagree with the Federal government's refusal to adhere to its constitutional duty to link the United States with an open and modern communication network.

Those same private entities claimed exemption for legal action because they were but a "vessel" for information, not a purveyor of it like media companies. Now, they claim, without removing that exemption, the right to act like a media company. They cannot have it both ways. I, too, am not a fan of Federal intervention. But they are monopolies would would not be such without Federal rules. In addition, they are wrapped tightly to the Federal government in many things that they do. The banking sector is but an extension of the Federal government. The internet companies are becoming the same.

It is clear that the 2016 election was won, in part, but using the data from the internet companies. To the extent that data is available to one political entity and not another, there is impact on the elections .

This exactly. 1st who exactly is the Press? The same ones crying openly when Hillary lost? During combat the Military can't censor the press, because the press state's that the People require a free press, therefore they can and demand to show dead young Americans, as the cost of war, as well as the enemy being portrayed in a good light, as victims of those same young Americans. Feds can't or don't say anything. The press, in my lifetime, has always slanted to the left, now they not only worship the left, they also censor the right? These leftists only want the American people to see what they, the press, want them to see and hear, and this isn't considered censorism? I don't know how to fix the problem, but now I and all I believe in is being censored or heavily slanted leftward by those who claim to be the 5th branch of the government and who demand to be allowed to control all the information unencumbered. In my opinion, the so-called Press, Facebook, Google and etc are all driven by the same goals, to destroy that which is and always has been considered moral and right. They are allowed to refuse everything, I and those like me are driven to despair and even bankruptcy, by their overt actions against me and mine. Yep, I am angry...

That makes sense. If they choose to regulate the content of the traffic, they should be criminally and civilly liable for any content they do transmit. If they want immunity, that should be contingent on not regulating, filtering, or creating content. Internet providers and backbone companies should be able to prioritize traffic for QoS and network reliability, but not based on the content of the data packets.

The same should be true for businesses that prohibit firearms or other legal items. If they ban guns and a shooting happens on their property because they failed to enforce the ban, they should accept civil liability. By choosing to ban, they have a a duty of care, and are liable for death and injury resulting through a breach of that duty. Like that place in Jacksonville.