- This topic has 13 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
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.
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.
@Always
The FIRST AMENDMENT ONLY applies to Government action. A private business can censor your words, or not let you participate.YWN Mods censor regularly.
Ctlawyer
Which explains how nba owners can censure players who kneel or protest
Trump tried his own blog. Nobody really cares anymore. That is he they ever cared.
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……..
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.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.
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.
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.
Dear Participant,
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.
How is big tech censorship “free speech”?
I don’t get the OP’s question.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.