Twitter should be held legally accountable for Carlos Maza’s incitement of violence

a reply to: tanstaafl

Correct, net neutrality only applied to ISP's and was about (de)prioritization of traffic. It was a simple ploy by the big tech companies to try to pass off their expenses to ISP's. It had nothing to do with this.

Not sure why CS is trying to tie it in.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Ummm, no, net neutrality had nothing to do with the evolution of the internet.

I didn't say it was. I said that it along with the other variables I listed have created the environment for the context of this thread.

It hasn't been repealed for long, and while it may seem like they aren't going to abuse it to the extent advocates predicted... That doesn't mean they won't take advantage of things here and there.

The point being, the stage got set where corporations have leveraged power in policy making while also safeguarding themselves from scrutiny.

Regulation may not be the answer, but certainly citizens always having the most rights along with corporations having a limited role in elections is a good place to start. Campaign finance caps, individual contribution caps, and restructuring how lobbyism works can all be great things that still allow people to have a voice without giving them excess equity when it comes to how our nation governs.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: tanstaafl

Correct, net neutrality only applied to ISP's and was about (de)prioritization of traffic. It was a simple ploy by the big tech companies to try to pass off their expenses to ISP's. It had nothing to do with this.

Not sure why CS is trying to tie it in.

I didn't imply that it was the end all be all in this, rather a symptom of how government views corporate vs private rights. ISP's could prioritize twitter while slowing competitors that give more freedoms to opinions that can be voiced.

While this hasn't happened yet, we are too reactionary as a country instead of being proactive. By the time we're left complaining, it's typically too late.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
It hasn't been repealed for long,

But more importantly, wasn't in effect for very long either.

It is a non-factor.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Yes, but that assumes they're beholden to twitter, not subscribers. It's a faulty premise. I'd much prefer we allow freedom as long as possible before we start regulating things. I mean, if we start down the path of regulating based on could happen, we're not a free society for long.

originally posted by: cognizant420
a reply to: Grambler

I do not think social media should be held accountable at all for anything anyone does or says on there platform. I'm 100% against censorship. I'm 100% for free speech. I would be more willing to hold the FBI accountable for not doing anything about social media posts.

So you're 100% against censorship, but choose to turn a blind eye to Youtube censorship and promoting videos that call for you to milkshake people you disagree with?

That isn't called censorship, that's called aiding and embedding criminal activity.

a reply to: Grambler

I agree 100%. Carlos Maza is whiter than me, and he is whiter than Ngo, yet like every "white liberal" he claims Ngo and other hispanics as well as people of other races are racist simply for not being "left-wing."

a reply to: Grambler

Do you think phone companies should scan your text messages for offence too. What about your phone calls do you think they should be monitored and edited too by these private companies.

:-)