RIP Swiss Family Robinson

[Wildabeest]

It immediately became almost impossible for the president of the United States of America to make a statement to a large audience over the internet after Jan 6th, and Parler lost their hosting.

Yeah, Presidents had no ability to communicate with their constituents for 230 years prior to Twitter. Oh, wait. Didn’t they used to have press conferences and have to answer hard questions from reporters? It was so long ago, I can hardly remember.

 

[Nick87]

Yeah, Presidents had no ability to communicate with their constituents for 230 years prior to Twitter. Oh, wait. Didn’t they used to have press conferences and have to answer hard questions from reporters? It was so long ago, I can hardly remember.

Waiting for the next biden press conference...

 

[Wildabeest]

Waiting for the next biden press conference...

You and me both.

 

[rwc101]

Nobody wants to wake him up from his nap.

 

[Nick87]

Nobody wants to wake him up from his nap.

You sure it's a nap?

 

[rwc101]

You sure it's a nap?

Don't like to talk about death in front of the kids.

 

[ImBillT]

Yeah, Presidents had no ability to communicate with their constituents for 230 years prior to Twitter. Oh, wait. Didn’t they used to have press conferences and have to answer hard questions from reporters? It was so long ago, I can hardly remember.

Different communications for a different time period. You should be concerned about political censorship regardless of where comes from and who it is directed at.

What happens when the press is no longer free, the internet is controlled by the government and newspapers don’t exist? Can’t happen? Look at China.

 

[ImBillT]

Luckily Vocl will save the day.

Not sure what that is.

 

[ImBillT]

I probably did miss your point, but I do agree that Luther was correct on many things and, of course, he did have some flaws too. Documents existing in totality, whether print or digital, can be taken out of context or misconstrued for whatever purposes the purveyor chooses, and it is incumbent on the recipients to be informed. Unfortunately, this is probably not the state of some elements of our current society.

Of course things can be taken out of context. It is only with the existence of the whole that context can be found. The danger of someone misusing portions of a widely available information are far lower than the danger of someone manipulating a information that they alone control.

I’m just saying that completely abandoning all or most physical copies of information in favor of the cloud is potentially a bad call in the long term.

 

[Wildabeest]

It just got serious...

 

[406dn]

Different communications for a different time period. You should be concerned about political censorship regardless of where comes from and who it is directed at.

What happens when the press is no longer free, the internet is controlled by the government and newspapers don’t exist? Can’t happen? Look at China.

You are trying to have it both ways. First Trump can't access social media on the internet and then you worry about the government controlling the internet.

I see no reason why a private enterprise should be compelled in facilitating a politician with spreading easily refuted lies. It's their business, their rules, their decision regarding who has access to their platform.

I've long understood that no newspaper is under any obligation to print anything I might want printed.

 

[longbow51]

"I see no reason why a private enterprise should be compelled in facilitating a politician with spreading easily refuted lies. It's their business, their rules, their decision regarding who has access to their platform."

Everything a politician says is a lie to the other side. The three years of Russia collusion were easily refuted as well, but the media was not shy about shouting about it from almost every outlet. And that's fine.

It's just very dangerous to allow a very few people; Amazon, Google, Youtube, Facebook and the few remaining relevant print media decide what is and is not relevant.

 

[406dn]

It's just very dangerous to allow a very few people; Amazon, Google, Youtube, Facebook and the few remaining relevant print media decide what is and is not relevant.

The media has always had that power. And the Constitution clearly states they have that right.

 

[ImBillT]

You are trying to have it both ways. First Trump can't access social media on the internet and then you worry about the government controlling the internet.

I see no reason why a private enterprise should be compelled in facilitating a politician with spreading easily refuted lies. It's their business, their rules, their decision regarding who has access to their platform.

I've long understood that no newspaper is under any obligation to print anything I might want printed.

That’s not having it both ways. Trump controlling his own account on the internet, is not the same as government controlling the internet.

You see no reason that private companies should be compelled to facilitate speech, and YET you almost certainly use a phone. Do you know what a common carrier is? There is an excellent case to be made that a certain class of private business should be held to similar standards as common carriers. Believe it or not, it is illegal for ATT, Sprint etc. to drop your call, or cancel your service because they don’t like what you are saying or what you’re doing over the telephone. You use their wires and their towers and their software, yet they no longer have the legal authority to restrict you. In the case of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Amazon, we face a very dangerous situation in which a handful of people control and manipulate what 99% of America sees and does. It’s time for some new laws imposing restrictions similar to those imposed on common carriers.

It really shouldn’t matter what side you’re on politically to be concerned about that.

 

[ImBillT]

The media has always had that power. And the Constitution clearly states they have that right.

Actually no they don’t. News papers, TV shows, and radio shows are not entirely protected from liable laws and certain types of lawsuits involving false information. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Google are because they received special protections from the Clinton administration based on their being a platform by which any individual can self publish and exercise their freedom of speech. It really makes sense. Platforms are not legally responsible for what users publish. Today, Facebook sorts out ideas they don’t like on your dashboard, and has even begun banning users they disagree with. Twitter has openly banned and shadow banned those whose political beliefs they do not like. YouTube has done the same. Google controls what shows up in your search results if they don’t like what you’re searching. Amazon shutdown services for a business that was fully in compliance with their terms. By picking and choosing what users publish, and what users see, they are not compliant with the original intent of platforms and should not be receiving protections.

 

[406dn]

That’s not having it both ways. Trump controlling his own account on the internet, is not the same as government controlling the internet.

You see no reason that private companies should be compelled to facilitate speech, and YET you almost certainly use a phone. Do you know what a common carrier is? There is an excellent case to be made that a certain class of private business should be held to similar standards as common carriers. Believe it or not, it is illegal for ATT, Sprint etc. to drop your call, or cancel your service because they don’t like what you are saying or what you’re doing over the telephone. You use their wires and their towers and their software, yet they no longer have the legal authority to restrict you. In the case of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Amazon, we face a very dangerous situation in which a handful of people control and manipulate what 99% of America sees and does. It’s time for some new laws imposing restrictions similar to those imposed on common carriers.

It really shouldn’t matter what side you’re on politically to be concerned about that.

I'm not going to go back and forth, other than to say Twitter, Facebook, etc all have terms of agreements to use their platforms. If you violate them, they reserve the right to give you the boot. He might have some sort of case if he had paid for their service,, but he was there under their conditions, at no cost to him.

The rest of your argument is a non sequitur. They are not close to being analogous. One involves private speech the other public.

I find it amusing you want new laws imposed by the government as to what the public sees and does. That sounds like tyranny to me.

 

[ImBillT]

I'm not going to go back and forth, other than to say Twitter, Facebook, etc all have terms of agreements to use their platforms. If you violate them, they reserve the right to give you the boot. He might have some sort of case if he had paid for their service,, but he was there under their conditions, at no cost to him.

The rest of your argument is a non sequitur. They are not close to being analogous. One involves private speech the other public.

I find it amusing you want new laws imposed by the government as to what the public sees and does. That sounds like tyranny to me.

What term did Trump violate, how many users have violated the same term and yet continue to get service? It’s very easy to creat rules that no one can possibly follow, and then selectively enforce the rules. It’s been done by governments for centuries.

The rest of the argument is so far from non-analogous that you decided to label it as a non-sequitur in order to avoid addressing it. A personal account on Facebook or anything similar is no less private that a phone call. I supposedly have control of what I say, and control of who can see it. Facebook controlling who actually gets to see it, is no different than if ATT prevented your phone ringing when I called you without yours or my knowledge or consent. Whether it is true or not, I do not know, but Mike Lindell claims that his Twitter account continued to tweet for WEEKS after Twitter had locked him out. You’re okay with that?

Actually I don’t suggest that we place laws restricting what the public sees and does. I’m in favor of PREVENTING the restriction of what the public sees and does. You’re twisting my position.

 

[longbow51]

What term did Trump violate, how many users have violated the same term and yet continue to get service? It’s very easy to creat rules that no one can possibly follow, and then selectively enforce the rules. It’s been done by governments for centuries.

The rest of the argument is so far from non-analogous that you decided to label it as a non-sequitur in order to avoid addressing it. A personal account on Facebook or anything similar is no less private that a phone call. I supposedly have control of what I say, and control of who can see it. Facebook controlling who actually gets to see it, is no different than if ATT prevented your phone ringing when I called you without yours or my knowledge or consent. Whether it is true or not, I do not know, but Mike Lindell claims that his Twitter account continued to tweet for WEEKS after Twitter had locked him out. You’re okay with that?

Actually I don’t suggest that we place laws restricting what the public sees and does. I’m in favor of PREVENTING the restriction of what the public sees and does. You’re twisting my position.

Free speech just doesn't fly with quite a few folks around here.

 

[mtmiller]

Free speech just doesn't fly with quite a few folks around here.

Can you post any speech you want to on this forum?

 

[VikingsGuy]

At some point a private service becomes a “public accommodation/common carrier”. As one goes along that continuum the govt has more power to set rules of service. With those enhanced requirements around non-discriminatory service there typically is a removal of liability for the actions of users/customers and for many service management decisions.

Society has yet to settle on this balance when it comes to social media. To date social media has gotten to have its cake and eat it too. They retain control of speech and access to their platforms, but have been shielded from liability resulting from their choices. I think it is time they are one or the other - either be a shielded common carrier without content liability or a private service with right to control content but full liability for those choices.