Random Internet Shit you've come across

Spazbyt

Spazbyt

Hooked
Is Twitter a platform or a publisher? Is it a utility like the phone company or is it a news paper, produced, written and edited by individuals?
 
Spazbyt

Spazbyt

Hooked
It's complex for sure but seems to me like most social media wants to be flip flop when it suits them most. It would be like your phone provider cutting your phone off because they don't like what you say on it.
 
TrailHunter

TrailHunter

Hooked
Spazbyt said:
It's complex for sure but seems to me like most social media wants to be flip flop when it suits them most. It would be like your phone provider cutting your phone off because they don't like what you say on it.
Click to expand...
But you pay for that service.. Maybe social media platforms stay “Free” so they can tell you to Fuck off. And their censorship is influenced by the ones who actually pay the bills… the Advertisers.
 
Spazbyt

Spazbyt

Hooked
TrailHunter said:
But you pay for that service.. Maybe social media platforms stay “Free” so they can tell you to Fuck off. And their censorship is influenced by the ones who actually pay the bills… the Advertisers.
Click to expand...
I agree, you get what you pay for. My solution is these social media company's should have to pick if they are a platform or a publisher. If they choose platform then they won't be held liable for information exchanged through said platform. If they choose to be a publisher they have editorial rights over all of the content and they will be held liable as such. I see no room for a hybrid of the two.
 
Sharkey

Sharkey

Word Ninja
bobfriesenhahn said:
The supreme court already decided that corporations are capable of political thought like an individual.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I’m not following you. Are you talking about the Citizens United case that deals with corporate campaign contributions?

That case, which in my opinion was one of the worst decisions out of the SCOTUS in the last 50 years, ruined elections for sure. But it doesn’t have anything to do with whether the First Amendment controls what Twitter can and cannot ban from its platform.
 
sm31

sm31

Active Member
Spazbyt said:
And for anyone doubting Elon's intentions with the purchase of Twitter just remember he could have just as easily bought and paid for everyone in congress for a fraction of the price.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt Elon's intentions either... In my uneducated opinion:

Elon has a dream... Mars. He wants to go to Mars. Everything he does is ultimately in pursuit of that dream. Fulfilling it requires a high functioning, capitalistic society in order to succeed at such a huge financial undertaking. And Elon knows that free speech is foundational.
 
bobfriesenhahn

bobfriesenhahn

Hooked
Sharkey said:
Sorry, I’m not following you. Are you talking about the Citizens United case that deals with corporate campaign contributions?

That case, which in my opinion was one of the worst decisions out of the SCOTUS in the last 50 years, ruined elections for sure. But it doesn’t have anything to do with whether the First Amendment controls what Twitter can and cannot ban from its platform.
Click to expand...
Yes, and right. The provision of Twitter services has nothing to do with the First Amendment. There is no amendment which says that you have the "Right to Tweet". Twitter has the full right to control it's platform, within the bounds of what is allowed by federal law.

Twitter is really no different than this forum.
 
Sharkey

Sharkey

Word Ninja
bobfriesenhahn said:
Twitter is really no different than this forum.
Click to expand...
Winner, winner, chicken dinner! I completely agree with you.

That’s why one of my original questions was about whether there is a tipping point where an online platform gets so big that it should be treated differently.

I don’t want the government telling Eddie what he has to allow (or disallow) on this forum anymore than I want it telling Twitter what to do. I hope all of the people screaming for “free speech” on Twitter wisen up and view the big picture through the same lense that you and I have discussed.
 
JT@623

JT@623

Hooked
Sharkey said:
Are you saying that you think the First Amendment should apply to private corporations generally, or that you think Twitter’s viewership is so large that the government should step in and tell Twitter what it can and cannot put on, or remove from, it’s site?

Should the same concepts have been applied to something like the Rush Limbaugh show? Why not?

Is it the absence of a competing opinion on that particular social media platform that bothers you, or are you bothered by the absence of a different social media platform that has competing opinions?
Click to expand...
This conversation is exactly my point we can agree or disagree without our head’s exploding or one of the moderators canceling mine or your comments . People being fired from a job for there views or tweets is a slippery slope when a corporation has that influence. I don’t believe government should control any part of my life but government influences in a platform such as twitter is obvious.
 
JimLee

JimLee

Hooked
Sharkey said:
Winner, winner, chicken dinner! I completely agree with you.

That’s why one of my original questions was about whether there is a tipping point where an online platform gets so big that it should be treated differently.

I don’t want the government telling Eddie what he has to allow (or disallow) on this forum anymore than I want it telling Twitter what to do. I hope all of the people screaming for “free speech” on Twitter wisen up and view the big picture through the same lense that you and I have discussed.
Click to expand...
I think the line was severely blurred when the White House began directly communicating with privately owned social media companies and telling them what they want censored. Both twatter and facecrook became de facto government entities at this point. I agree that the government doesn't belong in any privately owned companies business, but when every elected official has a platform on these media sites when does it stop being a private entity and when does the First Amendment come into play? I postulate that an elected official calling for the censorship of any content on any platform = government intervention.
 
Last edited:
Spazbyt

Spazbyt

Hooked
I think Elon buying Twitter is a grate thing. I was afraid that even if new alternative social media sites could get off the ground let alone compete it would only further divide Americans. With both sides experiencing different "realities" locked away in their respective echo chambers.
Elon vows the Twitter algorithm will be transparent. That should at least instill some confidence in the system and make it much more tolerant. Two thing Americans need a lot more of these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom