TexasCHLforum.com

I am a big proponent of Government that governs least, governs best, But?
First let me say I don't have a Facebook, Twitter or any other social media acct, it's not my ox that's being gored! How ever at some point I think some kind of fairness regulation should be put in place. What's your view?

Normally I would say no, too slippery of a slope, but since they already censor the right, I'd be skeptically open to the idea... of course, the devil is in the details and figuring out how to regulate/manage.

Personally I am for no regulation unless it's illegal already such as child porn. Nobody makes you read stuff you find objectionable.

Currently Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites are self regulating. The current problem is social media sites who are left leaning are censoring people and groups that are right leaning. Do you honestly believe that our government would be any better at being fair and just?

If someone owns the platform free speech doesn’t apply. Just like this forum. Charles’ rules. I find it difficult to side with people who complain when communist owned “socialism media” sites censor them.

Flightmare wrote: Mon May 06, 2019 1:41 pm Do you honestly believe that our government would be any better at being fair and just?

you mean like the swamp people who have been attempting a coup since November 2016? Or those who weaponized the IRS against conservative groups?
Nope, our government has grown too large, too powerful and too socialist to be fair and just.

The answer is Google, Facebook and others are too big and need to be broken up.

Five to 10 years ago, independent bloggers used to be able to get by on internet advertising, like the broadsheets of yore. But that changed quite quickly, and for two big reasons: Facebook and Google. They now gobble up the vast majority of internet advertising dollars — about 85 percent

-Google is a monopoly — and it's crushing the internet

Google Fined Record $2.7 Billion in E.U. Antitrust Ruling

They need to come at it from not only an anti-trust angle, but from an equal protection (voters' rights) standpoint and undue influence over elections.

The fact that they lumped Farrakhan into the "far-right" when the banned him from Facebook is completely beyond the pale and put up some big red flags for me about what they are really doing.

I think it is odd how social media can ban contributors because of their beliefs but a bakery cannot have the same choice.

No, censorship is never a good idea and the government is dysfunctional and corrupt.

I have never understood to "too big, must be broken up" thing. I kinda understand the monopoly thing, but is that all it is? It sounds a little like heavily taxing the rich, which I think we've all considered would be a bad thing and deter people from becoming rich. Of course, at far greater rates than what they are paying now and about what some of the extreme left would like them taxed at.

I'm sure there is something to not allowing a monopoly, but it still sounds a little like saying, "Don't get too big or successful or we'll split you up and make you weaker."

anygunanywhere wrote: Mon May 06, 2019 2:52 pm If someone owns the platform free speech doesn’t apply. Just like this forum. Charles’ rules. I find it difficult to side with people who complain when communist owned “socialism media” sites censor them.

I can't find the relevant laws at the moment, but a line is crossed when a social media organization starts editing content. Once they start editing, they become responsible for all of it. You can't be a common carrier over here, and a publisher over there.

They are publicly traded companies offering public access.

Redneck_Buddha wrote: Mon May 06, 2019 3:53 pm They need to come at it from not only an anti-trust angle, but from an equal protection (voters' rights) standpoint and undue influence over elections.

The fact that they lumped Farrakhan into the "far-right" when the banned him from Facebook is completely beyond the pale and put up some big red flags for me about what they are really doing.

with the anti-trust angle. First, these companies got special legal deals which protected them more than media companies, tilting the advertising money in their favor. Then they used their market power to buy up the competition - just like Microsoft did. MS should have felt the anti-trust sword just like AT&T did, though that one did little good.

They have been predatory in dealing with anyone who tries to challenge them. I'm not anti-competition and think the marketplace should make the decisions. But the marketplace isn't making the decisions in social media any more than it did in banking. The government's crony capitalism is making them. I think the banks need to be broken up, too.

bbhack wrote: Tue May 07, 2019 1:15 am

anygunanywhere wrote: Mon May 06, 2019 2:52 pm If someone owns the platform free speech doesn’t apply. Just like this forum. Charles’ rules. I find it difficult to side with people who complain when communist owned “socialism media” sites censor them.

I can't find the relevant laws at the moment, but a line is crossed when a social media organization starts editing content. Once they start editing, they become responsible for all of it. You can't be a common carrier over here, and a publisher over there.

Exactly. I don't think new laws are needed. Existing laws need to be enforced equitably across the board. When a media company choses to edit or censor user created content, they should have legal liability for the remaining content they choose to distribute.

If criminals use telephones to coordinate criminal activity, the phone company is not liable because they do not censor conversations. Their legal obligation should be limited to complying with warrants. Same for an ISP that does not censor.

However, if an ISP chooses to censor content, it's reasonable to charge them as accomplices for their choice to distribute illegal content they allowed.

Similarly, if Facebook chooses to censor "alt right" users, they are publishers and should be held criminally and civilly responsible for all content they do publish, whether libel, copyright violations, or anything else.

Companies should also be held liable for the damage caused by malware in ads if they get paid for those ads.

As a hard line Libertarian, I am philosophically a free speech absolutist. In other words nobody private or government should be permitted to censor anything in any medium. Yes I realise that would result in uncontrolled kid porn (only the virtual kind though, because using real live children to perform sexual acts would still be a crime - nothing to do with free speech). In such a world tech companies would find them selves in court for trying to apply any sort of hate speech filter, regardless of it being from the left or right.

If you truly believe in free speech then you must accept that there can be no freedom from being offended, no safe spaces. This to me is no different in principle from believing that every law governing the control of firearms that has been passed since 1800 should be repealed.