It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I warned trump haters; trump now may take action against social media companies

page: 11
68
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Grambler

Warren would say that the precedent would have already been made for the government to determine content.



Ok then I guess we should stop regulation of power companies, or warren will say the precedent allows her to shut power off from conservative houses.




posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Grambler

Warren would say that the precedent would have already been made for the government to determine content.



Ok then I guess we should stop regulation of power companies, or warren will say the precedent allows her to shut power off from conservative houses.


Power companies don't have a constitutional protection.

Power companies probably do shut off power and keep power on for those they favor.

The 1st Amendment is too precious for any administration to manage.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Grambler

Warren would say that the precedent would have already been made for the government to determine content.



Ok then I guess we should stop regulation of power companies, or warren will say the precedent allows her to shut power off from conservative houses.


Power companies don't have a constitutional protection.

Power companies probably do shut off power and keep power on for those they favor.

The 1st Amendment is too precious for any administration to manage.


It would be illegal for a power company to shut of service based on someones politcal beliefs.

Google is not the press. Neither is facebook or twitter.

The press can be held responsible for the things they say.

Is twitter held responsible for what a random user posts?

NO. Because they are not the press.

They are more akin to a public message board.

Show me where the first amendment protects public message boards.

Now again, I see the argument form both sides. But google facebook and the rest are definitely close to being a public utility than they are to being the press.
edit on 29-8-2018 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

How is Facebook a news site? Facebook is an advertising platform. Facebook actually removed trending news. Are you forced to go to Facebook or Google as your sole source of news and information? Can you go and type in the website name to get to Briebart or Infowars? Do policies on privately owned platforms like Twitter remove your access to Alex Jones? This is cake-gate on a different level, you can still get your cake.

If I google Alex Jones right now - guess what, the pages is filled with Alex Jones stories. If i type in "conservative news" - guess what? The top links are townhall, national review, redstate, etc... How is your access being affected (even directly through google).

Get a grip.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 10:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Grambler

Warren would say that the precedent would have already been made for the government to determine content.



Ok then I guess we should stop regulation of power companies, or warren will say the precedent allows her to shut power off from conservative houses.




Power companies don't have a constitutional protection.

Power companies probably do shut off power and keep power on for those they favor.

The 1st Amendment is too precious for any administration to manage.


Google is not the press. Neither is facebook or twitter.

The press can be held responsible for the things they say.

Is twitter held responsible for what a random user posts?

NO. Because they are not the press.

They are more akin to a public message board.

Show me where the first amendment protects public message boards.

Now again, I see the argument form both sides. But google facebook and the rest are definitely close to being a public utility than they are to being the press.



Perhaps you should read the first amendment - "of the press" is only part of it.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Speedtek

Get a grip?

I am trying to have a conversation of a very complicated issue.

If you would like to a be snide in this way, perhaps we should end the conversation.

Yes, I am arguing Facebook isnt the press or a news site. The government shouldnt have the right to tell a news site what they can censor from their site.

These companies are much different.

And just because you can google alex jones and things come up, doesnt mean all sorts of methods of censorship to benefit a political ideology are occurring.

The studies are quite clear on the impact of these sites, and how being censored from them can literally destroy a business, or swing an election.

There is a litany of evidence of how powerful these companies are in everyday life.

Yes you can avoid them, like you could the power company.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Public message boards should not be governed.


They should be free. In this instance what we have is ideological assholes owning the public square and booting people from it because of their beliefs.


What you might be arguing for is having the government mandate to an owner that they must have everyone be able to speak.


Instead of having the government mandate and regulate free speech, simply take the case to court.




Public accommodation laws appear to function well within the confines of the Constitution.

If internet "public forums" were under Public Accomodation laws then we would not have to have the government step in.

Now it might take this topic to the Supreme Court, but that's as far as it should go.

In my most humble opinion.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Speedtek

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Grambler

Warren would say that the precedent would have already been made for the government to determine content.



Ok then I guess we should stop regulation of power companies, or warren will say the precedent allows her to shut power off from conservative houses.




Power companies don't have a constitutional protection.

Power companies probably do shut off power and keep power on for those they favor.

The 1st Amendment is too precious for any administration to manage.


Google is not the press. Neither is facebook or twitter.

The press can be held responsible for the things they say.

Is twitter held responsible for what a random user posts?

NO. Because they are not the press.

They are more akin to a public message board.

Show me where the first amendment protects public message boards.

Now again, I see the argument form both sides. But google facebook and the rest are definitely close to being a public utility than they are to being the press.



Perhaps you should read the first amendment - "of the press" is only part of it.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Is telling a power company they cant refuse to allow people of a political ideology to use their product against the first amendment by abridging their freedom of speech?



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Speedtek

So mulitnational corporations are supposed to get the same rights as human beings? (including the right to squash the voice of human beings they dont like?) [as public utilities??]



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

But thats basiclly what I am arguing for.

It should be illegal for these companies to ban peoplk]e based solely on political ideology.

The government will investigate whether or not this is occuring.

If it is, they should be forced to correct it.

Thats it. Not telling facebook or twitter what they can or cant say.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Right right, perhaps I am being a bit snippy, but I'm finding myself approaching stroke level bamboozlement of even having to argue the merits of "government controlled media content".



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Speedtek

Now realize its actually "media" (multinational conglomerates) that 'control' the government.


edit on 29-8-2018 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Its not just media - its any mega corporation with a ton of money to through around, thank Citizens United for that.
edit on 29-8-2018 by Speedtek because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Speedtek
a reply to: Grambler

Right right, perhaps I am being a bit snippy, but I'm finding myself approaching stroke level bamboozlement of even having to argue the merits of "government controlled media content".


I m not suugesting that.

I am suggesting the government not allow censorship of people based on political belief on public utilities.

The debate is over if these are public utilities.

I could make an equally storng worded statement as you did.

"I cant believe I am having to argue the merits of why the government should not allow the censorship of people based on their politics of public utilities"

Of course that doesnt represent your position anymore than your comment represents mine.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Mmmm, okay.

?


Public Accommodation laws have already been tried and tested. Nothing new has to be invented to resolve this issue.

Simply place public forum websites under the umbrella of Public Accommodation.


That way no administration can have a say in it because the law lends itself to allowing everyone if you have a company that openly serves the public.


Now ideological sites can create memberships to get around that issue, but if you don't require an application process, then you should be under the umbrella of public accommodation.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

You are again conflating websites to utilities.

A public utility is a business that furnishes an everyday necessity to the public at large. Public utilities provide water, electricity, natural gas, telephone service, and other essentials. Utilities may be publicly or privately owned, but most are operated as private businesses.

Typically a public utility has a Monopoly on the service it provides. It is more economically efficient to have only one business provide the service because the infrastructure required to produce and deliver a product such as electricity or water is very expensive to build and maintain. A consequence of this monopoly is that federal, state, and local governments regulate public utilities to ensure that they provide a reasonable level of service at a fair price.

Utility regulation is due to the natural monopoly of a utility. Google is not in a vacuum - you are not forced to use it.
edit on 29-8-2018 by Speedtek because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Yeah, that sounds fine, though I would want to look in to it more.

Do you think doing this would allow warren to censor people?

I dont. And I think that this would stop the deocrats from telling tech companies who to censor.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Exactly.

Now WE have solved the issue.


Unfortunately government doesn't listen to any of us.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Speedtek

Are you forced to use a telephone? Yet it is considered a utility.

The point is google has over an 80% market share on searches alone.

The vast amount of public speech for individuals occurs on these sites.

We should consider making these sites a public utility for the same reasons telephones were made so.

And I guarantee when telephones were made a public utility, people made the exact same arguments as you did.

Is the government now cennsoring peoples phones use?



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Grambler

Exactly.

Now WE have solved the issue.


Unfortunately government doesn't listen to any of us.



Have we?

Hahahaha!

I wish. I am sure somehone smarter than me would tell me why that plan would be bad.

I am willing to admiot I dont know the answer because this is very complicated.

All I know is that the status quo is not working, and so we need to have a discussion on how to fix it.

Our solution sounds pretty good to me right now, but I am open to change.



new topics

top topics



 
68
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join