Should we regulate social media like Public Utilities?

[Machismo]

Than explain why I've been permanently banned of twitter. Explain why soooooooooooooo many subreddits are being banned even though nothing posted there was a felony offense. There appears to be a widespread crackdown on right wing views. Yes, the focus appears to be against the extreme right, but they have rights too.

Exactly why did they say you were banned from Twitter? Care to share what you posted that led to it?

Either you posted one REALLY bad thing, or you posted a lot of questionable shit. So, let's see the reasons they gave, where you said it was unfair?

[Felya]

Yes, let’s call it the ministry of truth... We need government to tell us what we are allowed to think and what we are not allowed to think. Then we need to be punished i with full force of the government, if our simping for politicians isn’t hard enough.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly why did they say you were banned from Twitter? Care to share what you posted that led to it?

Either you posted one REALLY bad thing, or you posted a lot of questionable shit. So, let's see the reasons they gave, where you said it was unfair?

Can you imagine throwing a giant party and having the one asshole you didn’t invite, bring the police to stop the entire party?

I found representation in media that this movement can use as an icon:

[Machismo]

Yes, let’s call it the ministry of truth... We need government to tell us what we are allowed to think and what we are not allowed to think. Then we need to be punished i with full force of the government, if our simping for politicians isn’t hard enough.

- - - Updated - - -



Can you imagine throwing a giant party and having the one asshole you didn’t invite, bring the police to stop the entire party?

I found representation in media that this movement can use as an icon:

That's a great analogy... except in this case, that asshole who brought the cops swears he opposes tyranny.

Oh, and he doesn't want to technically stop the party. He just wants to force you to invite Nazis and pedophiles to the party.

[Vorkreist]

They should never be allowed to ban legal speech no matter how hateful it is.

You are worse than the anti free speech leftists. Private companies should be allowed to ban promoting violence.
At least try to make reasonable points instead of free fuel for the "its a private company so they should be allowed any abuse" crowd.

[Felya]

That's a great analogy... except in this case, that asshole who brought the cops swears he opposes tyranny.

Oh, and he doesn't want to technically stop the party. He just wants to force you to invite Nazis and pedophiles to the party.

Because until VERY recently, these social media companies did not exist and obviously held no power. Their power was held by oil, coal, construction and real estate. These new elites are not coming from old money, but are largely a reaction of a new industry, saving an entire Gen X generation, from the destitute of fleeting jobs and conglomerates like Walmart, making the idea of an American dream have a McDonnalds logo.

You know the difference between all the people Trump pardoned? The Sheldon Adelsons? The Exxon CEOs and lobbyist Trump welcomed and filled the government? ... and this nuvorish of EBay, Facebook, Google and other IT companies? It’s simple... none of us could have owned as much resources, to ever be reaching the heights of those who got rich on the ‘greed is good’ 80s. While the people who got rich on IT, were us less than 20 years ago...

This is not a free speech debate... this is a conflict through out history... The nuvorish versus old money... this is the right reacting to the global and corporate elite, gaining new members within the last 20 years and pushing out the old guard. It should be understandable why the nuvorish, those who made their money them selfs, would be far more liberal than the old guard that is desperately trying to cling to their power.

Edit: You know how since the 90s, there has been this wishful cloud floating all over youth. This idea that you can just create Flappy Bird and be rich. That no matter how much life sucks, there is that cloud of having the next brilliant idea for an app, that will spark your return and bring you that American dream in the sky!

What was the equivalent, before all these social media and IT companies came along? What was the youth’s cloud of hope, when oil, coal, real estate and the military industrial complex were the pinnacle of success?

Edit 2: With IT elite, I can in all honesty say... if they can do it, you can do it. With Trump and his ilk? No fucking way... you don’t have a rich daddy... you need to be clever, quick and lucky... right now... no industry has a higher luck stat, than IT. It being very easy to play for noobs, makes it a perfect way to start your first play through.

[wunksta]

Than explain why I've been permanently banned of twitter.

Why don't you post your Twitter handle so we can judge for ourselves?

[Elegiac]

Tfw people feel the need to construct an entire philosophical argument to rationalised being upset about being banned from social media for hate speech or inciting violence and sedition.

QAnoners out here behaving like Luanne Platter.

[Deianeira]

I want existing anti discrimination laws to be broadened to include political views and political party affiliation. Being right wing in 2020 is as rough as being gay in 1990. Most of the country either hates us, distrusts us or dislikes us. It should be a federal felony to ban someone from a social media platform because they were conservative or a libertarian.

I'm a right-libertarian, not an anarcho capitalist. Letting social media run their platform however the way they want has lead to disasterous consequences. We see twitter doing next to nothing to address the child sexual exploitation imagery issue. They are censoring political views they disagree with left and right. The way they manage their company is unsustainable and highly unethical. It needs to be taken over, their TOS needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. They should never be allowed to ban legal speech no matter how hateful it is. Any platform with more than 1,000,000 users should have their TOS heavily controlled.

WTF how many conservatives have been beaten or even killed JUST because they are conservative? Pls just just be quiet, you have NO clue.

[Felya]

2 days ago this paradigm changed. With Trump no longer president, what do you think will happen if Biden and democrats, treat social media as utility? As of 2 days ago, getting what you are asking for, will not get you what you want. The opposite in fact... Biden should appoint the crying liberal from the meme, as the social media czar... pay back for all the abuse she has taken.

- - - Updated - - -

WTF how many conservatives have been beaten or even killed JUST because they are conservative? Pls just just be quiet, you have NO clue.

If his demand for political speech to be protected by discrimination... What would the 2020 RNC been? Just music playing for 3 days?

Edit: Trump’s entire movement is predicated on claiming all of his political opponents are blood drinking Satanist. The entire election lie, would have gotten all of them banned sooner. I don’t understand the logic here... outside of... “if I am not welcomed at the party, there will be no party”... what’s the end game? Having all of altright removed from all social media by the government?

[jonnysensible]

social media companies are publishers/media companies making editorial decisions and should be treated as such.

heres a step to fixing them anyway

1. Remove metrics
2. End automated sharing
3. Stop algorithmic feed mediation
4. Ban targeted advertising

The OP post is insane and stupid.

[Machismo]

social media companies are publishers/media companies making editorial decisions and should be treated as such.

heres a step to fixing them anyway

1. Remove metrics
2. End automated sharing
3. Stop algorithmic feed mediation
4. Ban targeted advertising

The OP post is insane and stupid.

If that's the case, then they will cease to be able to properly exist. You want just as much control as he does.

If they become legally liable for the things people post, then they cannot let people post. Think of all the times someone created a burner account in these threads, and spammed libelous claims.

This site would be legally liable. Do you think they would allow people to post?

[Felya]

social media companies are publishers/media companies making editorial decisions and should be treated as such.

heres a step to fixing them anyway

1. Remove metrics
2. End automated sharing
3. Stop algorithmic feed mediation
4. Ban targeted advertising

The OP post is insane and stupid.

The first two can’t really happen because there are dependencies, outside of what we are discussing. Adjusted or regulated, sure... but they can’t be ended.

The second two should be banned.

- - - Updated - - -

If that's the case, then they will cease to be able to properly exist. You want just as much control as he does.

If they become legally liable for the things people post, then they cannot let people post. Think of all the times someone created a burner account in these threads, and spammed libelous claims.

This site would be legally liable. Do you think they would allow people to post?

That’s not really true... They have to change their advertising from being targeted, to being region based, just like radio and television. It’s not a drastic change and shouldn’t have that big of a financial impact.

Edit: Why am I getting flashes of this movie?

[Machismo]

The first two can’t really happen because there are dependencies, outside of what we are discussing. Adjusted or regulated, sure... but they can’t be ended.

The second two should be banned.

- - - Updated - - -



That’s not really true... They have to change their advertising from being targeted, to being region based, just like radio and television. It’s not a drastic change and shouldn’t have that big of a financial impact.

If they become "publishers" of other people's content, they cannot exist. We know this, because it already happened. Companies were successfully sued for the things other people posted in their forums. One was successfully sued for libel, when the claim that the person made... was 100% true.

Region-based advertising is targeted advertising.

[Felya]

If they become "publishers" of other people's content, they cannot exist. We know this, because it already happened. Companies were successfully sued for the things other people posted in their forums. One was successfully sued for libel, when the claim that the person made... was 100% true.

Region-based advertising is targeted advertising.

They are publishers, it’s why 230 exists. There is no “if”...

Region based advertising is targeted... but, I don’t see anyone complaining about it?

[Machismo]

They are publishers, it’s why 230 exists. There is no “if”...

They are not the "publishers" of other people's content. That's what 230 says.

[Kathandira]

Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit all abused their power to insane degrees. There is virtually no freedom of speech in these companies.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please read and understand.

[Lenonis]

Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit all abused their power to insane degrees. There is virtually no freedom of speech in these companies.

wake me up when you have an argument that doesn't start with such an absurd biased premise. Until then I'll happily fight your position every step of the way. Extremists like you deserve to be silenced.

[Felya]

They are not the "publishers" of other people's content. That's what 230 says.

Why does it need to say it? If it’s removed, what then? they become publishers of other people’s content? The whole point is liability of published content... that’s what 230 protect... arguing from the perspective of “if”, doesn’t make sense. Because the solution to “if”, is 230...

[Kathandira]

Because these businesses have abused their power to license oppositional opinion.

They have the right to manage the content and discussions taking place on their platform. They have the right to remove user's they do not wish to use their platform. They are a private company.

[Machismo]

Why does it need to say it? If it’s removed, what then? they become publishers of other people’s content? The whole point is liability of published content... that’s what 230 protect... arguing from the perspective of “if”, doesn’t make sense. Because the solution to “if”, is 230...

It exists, because they were being successfully sued for the shit other people were posting. If it's removed, then the internet ceases to exist in its current form. We already know what happens if it is removed, because we have legal precedent before it existed.

You and I wouldn't be having this conversation.