"Big Tech" silencing conservative voices

[Mountain Man]

...you don’t know that the President meets with members of congress to plan legislation, for instance regulation of election tech corporations like Dominion.

Of course I'm well aware of that, but the president can't force them to draft legislation, and Congress is under no obligation to take up any request he might have. This is part of the "checks and balances" that is built into the US government to prevent any one branch from having too much power.

But you claimed that I voted for "deregulation". I'm still waiting for you to connect the dots on that one. Was there a law signed by the President that made it easier for "Big Tech" to suppress the First Amendment? Was that even an issue that the President campaigned on when asking for my vote?

[Stoic]

The government needs do nothing more than to enforce the First Amendment against companies that are using their monopoly positions to suppress free speech. I know that the First Amendment places explicit prohibitions against the Federal government from enacting laws that infringe on free expression, but implicit in that, I think, is the government's duty to defend us against others with undue power and influence who might seek to also deprive us of our rights.

So that would involve passing a law specifying that any restriction on the government with regard to suppressing free speech should also apply to private companies, or something like that, right?

And I guess the remedy for people who have been banned from social media would be to sue in court, just as they do now if the federal government restricts free speech.

I wonder who you would sue if you got banned from Tweb. (If Tweb isn't a company, I'm sure it's being hosted by one.)

[Mountain Man]

So that would involve passing a law specifying that any restriction on the government with regard to suppressing free speech should also apply to private companies, or something like that, right?

And I guess the remedy for people who have been banned from social media would be to sue in court, just as they do now if the federal government restricts free speech.

I wonder who you would sue if you got banned from Tweb. (If Tweb isn't a company, I'm sure it's being hosted by one.)

As I said, it wouldn't require new laws, simply the enforcement of existing law.

And TheologyWeb is nowhere close to being a monopoly like Facebook, Twitter, etc., so your analogy doesn't work.

[Stoic]

As I said, it wouldn't require new laws, simply the enforcement of existing law.

And TheologyWeb is nowhere close to being a monopoly like Facebook, Twitter, etc., so your analogy doesn't work.

What existing law prevents companies from suppressing speech?

[seer]

What existing law prevents companies from suppressing speech?

If they are going to curate content then they should lose section 230 protections.

[Thoughtful Monk]

I forget, are you from the US? Perhaps you don't know that this is not something the president of the United States can simply do by fiat. It requires Congress to draft and pass legislation for the president to sign. However, reining in monopolies like Facebook, Twitter, etc. doesn't require new legislation but simply the enforcement of existing law.

I'm not sure that the law has caught up to social media companies. I'm not sure you could regulate them with existing law.

[Stoic]

If they are going to curate content then they should lose section 230 protections.

Section 230 specifically protects providers who curate content, so I don't think it makes sense to claim that providers who curate content should lose section 230 protections.

[whag]

Of course I'm well aware of that, but the president can't force them to draft legislation, and Congress is under no obligation to take up any request he might have. This is part of the "checks and balances" that is built into the US government to prevent any one branch from having too much power.

First, Presidents have platforms built on campaign promises that require them to meet with legislators to get laws written. He's done this in dozens of other instances, as have all others before him. And, if you'll remember, much of that legislation was unpopular. Some of it was good and some if it was bad, which is the way of things in a bicameral legislature fueled by special interests.

Second, he literally did nothing on election tech, nor did he seriously talk about the need to stop software that has the potential to overturn millions of votes. Show me where this was a priority for him. If it wasn't a priority, it wasn't a problem.

But you claimed that I voted for "deregulation". I'm still waiting for you to connect the dots on that one. Was there a law signed by the President that made it easier for "Big Tech" to suppress the First Amendment? Was that even an issue that the President campaigned on when asking for my vote?

You said there were existing laws that should have been enforced to prevent his banning. He knew and repeated often that conservatives are being silenced a lot. Not only did he do nothing to enforce existing laws that threaten free speech on social media, he continually tested the limits by lying, bullying, and saying inflammatory things thereon. That's weird, no?

When the extremists invaded the capital, Twitter and Amazon were backed into a corner not wanting to be held liable for deaths caused. They could only do so much about the rest of its bad members whose platforms contain lying, bullying, and inflammatory speech. You have to admit that Trump was made an example of by his own doing, and that he'd still have his account had he not cried "coup" to the Coup Clutz Clan.

[seer]

Section 230 specifically protects providers who curate content, so I don't think it makes sense to claim that providers who curate content should lose section 230 protections.

Then how are they not acting as a publisher?

[Stoic]

Then how are they not acting as a publisher?

I'm not a lawyer, but I would guess that removing content that is considered objectionable does not make one the publisher of whatever content has not been removed.

[seer]

I'm not a lawyer, but I would guess that removing content that is considered objectionable does not make one the publisher of whatever content has not been removed.

But like a publisher they are deciding what is or what isn't accepted or allowed.

[Stoic]

But like a publisher they are deciding what is or what isn't accepted or allowed.

I guess there must be a difference between deciding what is worthy of publication and deciding what is not objectionable.

[RumTumTugger]

I'm not sure that the law has caught up to social media companies. I'm not sure you could regulate them with existing law.

AntiTrust laws

[Mountain Man]

First, Presidents have platforms built on campaign promises that require them to meet with legislators to get laws written. He's done this in dozens of other instances, as have all others before him. And, if you'll remember, much of that legislation was unpopular. Some of it was good and some if it was bad, which is the way of things in a bicameral legislature fueled by special interests.

Second, he literally did nothing on election tech, nor did he seriously talk about the need to stop software that has the potential to overturn millions of votes. Show me where this was a priority for him. If it wasn't a priority, it wasn't a problem.



You said there were existing laws that should have been enforced to prevent his banning. He knew and repeated often that conservatives are being silenced a lot. Not only did he do nothing to enforce existing laws that threaten free speech on social media, he continually tested the limits by lying, bullying, and saying inflammatory things thereon. That's weird, no?

When the extremists invaded the capital, Twitter and Amazon were backed into a corner not wanting to be held liable for deaths caused. They could only do so much about the rest of its bad members whose platforms contain lying, bullying, and inflammatory speech. You have to admit that Trump was made an example of by his own doing, and that he'd still have his account had he not cried "coup" to the Coup Clutz Clan.

We don't know everything President Trump did or talked about behind closed doors, so this is all seems like one big, fat argument from silence.

[Cow Poke]

I'm not a lawyer, but I would guess that removing content that is considered objectionable does not make one the publisher of whatever content has not been removed.

I think the main objection is that they are not applying any of their standards fairly or equally.

Just like a private company is STILL under the EEOC requirements to treat all employees the same.