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.

 

SCOTUS agrees to hear case about social media censorship

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

So then lets just ban social media altogether. That would be the ultimate ending to this. Social media has decimated a young person's skill to interact with another human face to face.




posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 07:50 AM
link   
SCOTUS agrees to hear case about social media censorship

You take the utility/internet arguement and expand it to social media.

Your employers use it to determine if you get hired or not.

So the regulation already in place covers it.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Well, in a way it kind of is about social media.

Because really, if you think about it, how do you differentiate between the two? And that was kind of my point.

FailBook has a "like" button, but broadcast TV has had a "like" button far longer (i.e. ratings), and they both work off the same principle both at the individual level and the corporate level. If people don't 'like' what they see then they don't click/view/read, etc. And, when they don't click/view/read then advertisers pay less (if at all) to advertise.

Now, one could make an argument that PBS type stations don't advertise, but that's arguably not true and an off-topic rabbit hole we probably don't want to go down here (because it gets into all sorts of other issues like defining 'advertising' and examining revenue streams).



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: GrandePoobah

The right to refuse service stands with the company. It is not the governments job to regulate that. It’s kinda like if a business wants to be whites only. Well fine they can do that but chances are they will fail. Less government damnit. And with all the people here complaining about Twitter censorship and Twitter in general you would think they would be happy to see it go. So then why support this?


If your idea was correct then you should also be unable to espouse certain views in any public forum. Should you not be allowed to disagree for instance to complain about your mayor in front of your local courthouse to other citizens of your town?

The idea that these companies are just businesses stops when they become public forums, which facebook and twitter and youtube are.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Well, in a way it kind of is about social media.

Because really, if you think about it, how do you differentiate between the two? And that was kind of my point.



Because in this case a private company is managing a public entity which the case argues is still part of the local government. Facebook and Twitter don't manage any publicly owned outlets.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
If this eliminates even a fraction of the censorship that has been occurring, then I don't see it as a bad thing at all.

Sure, we can focus on the butthurt, but if we start accepting that some forms of censorship is acceptable, then where does that stop?


So this is a valid question, but I think you need to look at it from a different perspective to find the answer.

You assume, by your question, that there once existed a starting point which wasn't censored in broadcast TV or media. This is a logical fallacy. There has always been censorship. And then to question when it will stop is just an extension of this. One should assume it will never stop until it is absolute. In fact, one should really look at it like backing DOWN from absolute censorship presently.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I won't disagree with that.

ETA - BUT...is that really a censorship issue, or more of an anti-trust issue?


edit on 10/17/2018 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 08:01 AM
link   
It's a state issue.

qz.com...

Google is not a private company.

Not in the sense private is suppose to mean.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


Once upon a time a newspaper owned by Alexander Hamilton called The New York Post refused to run op-eds by anti-Federalists since Mr. Hamilton, who according to the Broadway documentary, could sing, dance and was black, was also a Federalist and didn't like those poop faces.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I won't disagree with that.

ETA - BUT...is that really a censorship issue, or more of an anti-trust issue?



Time Warner, et. al., is accused of suspending people because of their political views and submitted programming that the public station managers didn't agree with.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

One could make the same argument for FailBook, Twatter or even PBS.

The only difference is the direction of information flow (compared to Google).



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


Facebook and Twitter don't manage public entities on behalf of the government, PBS is public so not really apples to apples.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Sure can.

www.theverge.com...

In fact the STATE can argue that those companies are hindering their data collection efforts, by banning 'bad people'.




posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Understood.

But, wasn't the underlying reasoning of TW, in their practices, ultimately to enhance their position in the market?

TW doesn't care about anything but $$$$$. That's it. If it doesn't distill down to market share TW ain't going to worry about it.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
But, wasn't the underlying reasoning of TW, in their practices, ultimately to enhance their position in the market?

TW doesn't care about anything but $$$$$. That's it. If it doesn't distill down to market share TW ain't going to worry about it.



That may well have been the corporate goal but the case is revolving around the local management. Time Warner is a huge company and I'm assuming by the time it percolated up the damage had been done.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Youtube and Facebook trying to have it both ways.

Either they don't police their site for content and are not held liable for copyright/content infringement posted on their site

OR

They can censor content they don't agree with AND they are also held liable for copyright/content infringement.


Can't be both public and private at the same time.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I get it! I'm agreeing with you on that point! No argument.

What I'm saying is, I think you're missing a word in your last sentence, "theoretically". PBS is theoretically public, I mean that was the idea anyway back in the beginning. However, as we all have seen, PBS is far from unbiased which is the fundamental underpinning of "Public" broadcasting, right? So, we have to ask; where does this bias come from?

The obvious (and likely correct) answer is from their 'donors', right? Maybe/maybe not. Now enter TW into the equation and PBS is no longer 'public' under their oversight.

Yes, at the surface it's about censorship, but at the core it's a much larger issue. It is this larger issue which should be before the SCOTUS, not the censorship issue.

Heh, heh, here's a possible solution...maybe we should appropriate federal funding for "Conservative TV", "Independent TV" and "Liberal TV". Then ban ALL media companies from oversight of any of them. That'd teach 'em!

All I'm saying is, I don't think the 'censorship' issue, in this context, what should be before the SCOTUS.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
...PBS is far from unbiased...


Is it?
Then why hasn't a DOJ run by the people who it is being biased against taken them to court?


The obvious (and likely correct) answer is from their 'donors', right?


Is it? I was watching Nature last night, Koch Industries was a sponsor.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 08:53 AM
link   
So..... With Kavanaugh already deeming constitutional rights null and void (circular logic within his 4th amendment opinion) and a predominately Conservative court (which is perceived to be pro-business, as most Conservatives are)......

..... You guys REALLY think they are going to rule against social media censorship?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHSGDGBADSHJBSDHASBASHAHAHAHAHAHVDHAHAHAHAHAHADHKDAHKADHAHKV ADHKAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

I LAUGHED SO HARD I COUGHED UP PART OF MY CHEESEBURGER I AM EATING. Seriously though, I know it's messed up, but let's be serious here...



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
...

Is it? I was watching Nature last night, Koch Industries was a sponsor.


I do have to admit; that's more than just a little amusing right there! (Seriously?)

Though I've seen stranger. Then again, have you ever heard of Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge??

Nawww, say it ain't so, right?



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join