May 25, 2021 3:16 am at 3:16 am #1977141
Once the major proponents of the first amendment, conservatives now seek to govern social media’s censorship policies.
As an aside, what happened to Trump’s plan* of starting his own media? It shouldn’t be hard for someone like him (who both has the capital to advertise, and doesn’t need so much advertising) to start it. At least a social medium he should start.
*I don’t know if he ever expressed the idea, or others suggested it on his behalf. either way, it’s a good idea.May 25, 2021 10:18 am at 10:18 am #1977200Always_Ask_QuestionsParticipant
Participant, thinking in Europe is that it is the role of the government to censor, not private businesses. So this is more of a European approach. I do not deny irony here.
Maybe a business perspective is better: first amendment works when we have a “marketplace” of ideas. We seem to have a monopolistic structure right now, with several large companies dividing a market to minimize competition. Starting new media is a good approach. But it is pretty hard to break monopolies. so, then government regulation is in order.May 25, 2021 6:16 pm at 6:16 pm #1977353
maybe arguing that it is a monopoly is a better idea…
maybe. that won’t help if the competition is another bunch of liberal quacks. it also can’t be argued until someone tries competing.
I don’t really see the excuse for monopoly laws when applied to a useless business, i.e. social media.May 25, 2021 6:17 pm at 6:17 pm #1977316CTLAWYERParticipant
The FIRST AMENDMENT ONLY applies to Government action. A private business can censor your words, or not let you participate.
YWN Mods censor regularly.May 25, 2021 7:20 pm at 7:20 pm #1977358☕️coffee addictParticipant
Which explains how nba owners can censure players who kneel or protestMay 25, 2021 8:28 pm at 8:28 pm #1977393
Trump tried his own blog. Nobody really cares anymore. That is he they ever cared.May 25, 2021 8:29 pm at 8:29 pm #1977392
They could censure players according to the contract with the players union. But the owners have to care all the time, or else it could be discrimination.NBA players have been kneeling or staying of the court for the anthem for decades. Nobody cared until……..May 25, 2021 8:30 pm at 8:30 pm #1977396
The use of monopoly laws in this instance should be to
prevent these sites from telling your opinions to other sites. For example, telling your school that you posted links for how to get answers to tests. Or telling your boss that you are on social media during work hours. Et cetera.May 25, 2021 8:45 pm at 8:45 pm #1977399
It always has been a very conservative idea to limit what can be expressed in public. In the past Conservatives pushed to censure the telephone, radio, theater, television, internet, and concerts.May 25, 2021 8:46 pm at 8:46 pm #1977400
But now that it turned to faux politics, everything appears the other way around. A simple solution would be to not think of the world as blue or red. White and black is at least harder to confuse.May 25, 2021 10:28 pm at 10:28 pm #1977422
the issue I was referring to was not so much freedom of speech as much as freedom of commerce, that is, commanding social media to be more inclusive.May 25, 2021 10:28 pm at 10:28 pm #1977423
not freedom of commerce so much as freedom. not forcing someones to do business with people they don’t want to.May 25, 2021 10:30 pm at 10:30 pm #1977425Always_Ask_QuestionsParticipant
ctlawyer: The FIRST AMENDMENT ONLY applies to Government action.
of course. somehow, citizen refused to use public HTML protocols and prefer to get their news while watching ads on facebook. We are paying for this aveirah… thus we volunteered to give private businesses control over information.
But private businesses are also regulated – we need government or society to create markets: a place where competition exists, information is available (market does not work if the buyer does not trust seller), payments are secure, etc. Traditional media are regulated. So, it is within government rights to define rules for businesses selling information to ensure that information market is efficient.May 25, 2021 11:49 pm at 11:49 pm #1977441
The civil rights bill prevents businesses from discriminating. Free commerce was more or less exclusive to the Reagan Presidency. The two do not really make for a binary concept.
What changed in the discourse is that White America feels discriminated against. This allows a style of presentation that was foreign to the Conservatives of yesteryear. But I think you meant that in recent decades the Republicans have been up front about repealing regulation. Though they still believed in the rule of law. Some regulation is always needed. And now thirty years too late, Congress is getting around to doing their job.May 26, 2021 3:38 pm at 3:38 pm #1977688MadeAliyahParticipant
How is big tech censorship “free speech”?
I don’t get the OP’s question.May 26, 2021 6:33 pm at 6:33 pm #1977754
read my previous 2 posts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.