RIP Swiss Family Robinson

[VikingsGuy]

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

The right to free speech is between the people and their government and has nothing to do with people and their social media service - or any other private relationship.

 

[morley.tyler]

Apologies in advance for the lack of pics...

*3 eggs, so yellow/orange, I think the Chickens that laid them were from Hanford
*Fine grated Tillamook Medium Sharp Cheddar
*Perfectly Ripe Avacado
*Diced Ham (Thick cut)

Folded nicely into a French Omelet, just a touch runny.

Topped w/ a little leftover avocado, and drizzled w/ a teaspoon of Litehouse Bleu Cheese Salad Dressing (Sandpoint, Idaho-Go Bulldogs) and a splash of Cholula.

If this troubles you, you're a Stinkin' Communist.

 

[Irrelevant]

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

Nothing prevents him or anyone else from starting their own social media site and blasting whatever rambles they have floating around to the masses. He can then pick to allow, or not, anyone else he wants to use his social media site.

 

[ImBillT]

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.

It’s been a while since you’ve spoken my mind.

 

[ImBillT]

Nothing prevents him or anyone else from starting their own social media site and blasting whatever rambles they have floating around to the masses. He can then pick to allow, or not, anyone else he wants to use his social media site.

The same once applied to your telephone service, but as a society, we decided that was unreasonable. I suggest that it has benefited society, and freedom. I also suggest that a similar change is past due with internet platforms.

 

[Irrelevant]

The same once applied to your telephone service, but as a society, we decided that was unreasonable. I suggest that it has benefited society, and freedom. I also suggest that a similar change is past due with internet platforms.

We're not talking about the internet. We're talking about a specific site.

 

[ImBillT]

We're not talking about the internet. We're talking about a specific site.

We weren’t talking about ANY phone, we were talking about individual telephone companies. They’ve all been regulated, and it actually promotes freedom, rather than restricts it.

I like capitalism, but I acknowledge that some level of anti-trust laws are necessary to keep capitalism working as intended.

I like private property rights, but TX is considering preventing apartment complexes from restricting the possession of firearms in the apartment and in the parking lot. Essentially, an apartment complex can’t say that it’s my home, and then prevent me from exercising rights that TX guarantees me inside my home.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

We weren’t talking about ANY phone, we were talking about individual telephone companies. They’ve all been regulated, and it actually promotes freedom, rather than restricts it.

The comparison would hold for Verizon, comcast, charter, century link etc. ISPs

Facebook, Google, Hunt Talk, are all business.

Poor metaphor but is what it is.

The internet are the roadways, sites are the individual business, servers are the commercial buildings people rent. Essentially we are all hanging out in a hunting themed bar that Randy owns, he leases the space from a company that owns the building. It's his bar so he can kick out anyone he wants. He can't control who drives by and looks in the window or stands on the sidewalk outside, but he can say who gets to enter.

It gets kinda sticky though when you live in Alaska and the only store in town is Walmart and they ban you. (Metaphor for getting banned from social media)

 

[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?

What happened to your response? Did you remove it or did someone delete your freedom of speech?

 

[Deleted member 20812]

 

[ImBillT]

The comparison would hold for Verizon, comcast, charter, century link etc. ISPs

Facebook, Google, Hunt Talk, are all business.

Poor metaphor but is what it is.

The internet are the roadways, sites are the individual business, servers are the commercial buildings people rent. Essentially we are all hanging out in a hunting themed bar that Randy owns, he leases the space from a company that owns the building. It's his bar so he can kick out anyone he wants. He can't control who drives by and looks in the window or stands on the sidewalk outside, but he can say who gets to enter.

It gets kinda sticky though when you live in Alaska and the only store in town is Walmart and they ban you. (Metaphor for getting banned from social media)

Yes BUT Facebook, Twitter and HuntTalk are basically publishing businesses. Other publishing businesses are held legally responsible for what they publish. Internet “platforms” have been granted protections that other publishers do not have, based on the idea that they essentially allow you and me to self publish, and are therefore not responsible for what you and I say. As soon as they moderate, filter or otherwise manipulate what you and I are allowed to say, there is a very solid argument that those protections no longer exist. It’s likely that laws will have to be revised or new laws passed to actually hold them responsible. What SHOULD happen is that an internet “platform” would have to decide if they were going to moderate, and open themselves up to lawsuits, or leave things unmoderated and accept their platform protections. I’m confident that certain types of moderation would and should be protected. It wouldn’t be a choice between anarchy and monarchy.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

View attachment 176930

I may be addicted to those.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I may be addicted to those.

Crack. 100%.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Apologies in advance for the lack of pics...

*3 eggs, so yellow/orange, I think the Chickens that laid them were from Hanford
*Fine grated Tillamook Medium Sharp Cheddar
*Perfectly Ripe Avacado
*Diced Ham (Thick cut)

Folded nicely into a French Omelet, just a touch runny.

Topped w/ a little leftover avocado, and drizzled w/ a teaspoon of Litehouse Bleu Cheese Salad Dressing (Sandpoint, Idaho-Go Bulldogs) and a splash of Cholula.

If this troubles you, you're a Stinkin' Communist.

Reminds me of the old dial-up modem posts . . .

 

[morley.tyler]

Reminds me of the old dial-up modem posts . . .

View attachment 176936

Swiss. Pick a side...

 

[Wildabeest]

Yes BUT Facebook, Twitter and HuntTalk are basically publishing businesses. Other publishing businesses are held legally responsible for what they publish. Internet “platforms” have been granted protections that other publishers do not have, based on the idea that they essentially allow you and me to self publish, and are therefore not responsible for what you and I say. As soon as they moderate, filter or otherwise manipulate what you and I are allowed to say, there is a very solid argument that those protections no longer exist. It’s likely that laws will have to be revised or new laws passed to actually hold them responsible. What SHOULD happen is that an internet “platform” would have to decide if they were going to moderate, and open themselves up to lawsuits, or leave things unmoderated and accept their platform protections. I’m confident that certain types of moderation would and should be protected. It wouldn’t be a choice between anarchy and monarchy.

Quick question. If you owned a social media platform and could be held liable for content published on it, would you give Trump an account?

 

[ImBillT]

Quick question. If you owned a social media platform and could be held liable for content published on it, would you give Trump an account?

They could only be held liable if they moderated. Their platform protections come from allowing users to publish things largely free from moderation. So either they allow him, and accept platform protections, or they moderate and open themselves up to lawsuits. You’re suggesting the exact opposite.

 

[Wildabeest]

They could only be held liable if they moderated. Their platform protections come from allowing users to publish things largely free from moderation. So either they allow him, and accept platform protections, or they moderate and open themselves up to lawsuits. You’re suggesting the exact opposite.

You didn’t answer the question. So I’ll ask you an easier one... do you prefer Cabot or Tillamook?

 

[ImBillT]

You didn’t answer the question. So I’ll ask you an easier one... do you prefer Cabot or Tillamook?

I didn’t answer the question because it’s entirely irrelevant. It shouldn’t matter what you think of Trump or what your politics are to see that censorship from a company that receives platform protections flies in the face of why platform protections exist. They exist to protect a business that allows users to self publish from legal liability for what users publish. However, when the platform begins selectively moderating user publication, and user viewership, then at some point they essentially become the publisher, and no longer deserve platform protection.

Now I’ll answer your question. Yes, if I owned a platform like Twitter, I would allow Trump to post, and I would allow his opponents to post. Just as you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater(there are some limitations on freedom of speech) there are currently some limitations that a platform can implement without losing status as a platform. I’m not entirely sure what they are, but I’m assume they are VERY broad. I’m suggesting that we need some legislation to reign it in somewhat. What Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and Amazon have done recently flies in the face of what platform protections came into existence to solve.

The Amazon issue is REALLY close to the common carrier issue.

edit: I answered a question different from what you asked. If I was legally responsible for what any user said, then I would not allow Donald Trump, or anyone else, to say anything. Platform protections are an important thing. Without them, Facebook, Twitter and HT could not exist. However, they receive them based on the idea that they really don’t control what the user can publish or see. Facebook and Twitter are grossly violating that premise. Platform protection needs serious reform. FaceBook and Twitter have so grossly violated the basis of platform protections that it may even be possible to take successful legal action against without reform. Unfortunately that’s probably an expensive enough gamble that no one wants to take it until the law gets reformed.

 

[Wildabeest]

censorship from a company

This statement is an oxymoron. You need to look up the definition of censorship.

I’m suggesting that we need some legislation to reign it in somewhat.

We sort of agree on this; however, my concerns are more about what can be housed (and protected under Section 270) on a platform vs. whether a provider can choose to exclude stuff. If a platform knowingly solicites and houses a marketplace for underage sex trafficking, they should be criminally and civilly liable for doing that. Currently under Section 270 they are not, and there are operators blatantly taking advantage of this and winning in court. Whether Trump has a platform to spew his nonsense pales in comparison. IMO.

Now back to our regularly scheduled cheese commercials.