Big Tech is going to come for you Mr. President

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Who decides what's controversial, and where the line in the sand is?

I think that is a great question. of who decides the line. Maybe it should be the users? I am just throwing out ideas. But in society it is usually society that dictates what norms are not okay and what is okay.

That's essentially what's already happening. People haven't stopped using it, so by virtue of use, most agree with the platform.

No matter where that line is decided, not everyone will be happy. It is what it is.

originally posted by: American-philosopher

Do you think it could hurt their business model if people could freely throw around the N bomb?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I think ofcourse basicall guidelines should be followed. I think most people would agree that swearing, mass profanity use is not okay. Maybe since you are broadcasting content=speech we could follow FCC guidelines?

I don't think most people would agree profanity shouldn't be allowed. I think most are okay with reading profanity.

But this is just further evidence that not everyone will be happy whatever the rules are. Luckily it's not a big deal to me as I'm not really a user of the platform unless there is some company that only does support via Twitter (that's a whole other rant for me).

a reply to: network dude

There's actually a fine line they are tightrope walking on being "just a forum" for other people's content, to now being a publisher and news source. Being just a forum for content protects them from lawsuits, copyright issues, basically everything. They would lose that designation by now being a news source and publisher.

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: network dude

This is a little bit of a bigger issue then "Private company they can do whatever they want" When you have a tech compnay that can remove or deem a protest/rally not okay and then can support a different type of rally and protest. I think thats an issue of fairness.

again some of these platforms need to be loked at almost as if its a public square because I think that how the users view them.

here comes the slippery slope. How much power is too much? Where should we have drawn the line, so we know what threshold to put on success. I don't like the way social media as a whole seems skewed to the left, but I'm just too damn lazy to design a new platform. But I do have a great URL and an Idea.

Right wingers calling for more government interference on private enterprise. The republicans have done a 180 into fascism.

Might as well tear up the Constitution and Bill or Rights while you're at it....

So the newest update to this saga is President Trump is set to sign an excutive order on social media.

Trum p to sign Excutive order in regard to social media

so as far as what President might actually do I heard mention of something ATS member Meniscus mentioned. that the communcations decency 230 act might be looked at?

a reply to: HalWesten

The first amendment is a red-herring here. They can and will do whatever they want with their "platform."

The real problem is they have now taken on the monstrous task of "fact-checking" anyone.

1) The outcome of "fact checking" always depends on who you pay to find the facts for you.

2) How will Twitter deploy this "solution" at-scale? With an algorithm? There aren't enough hours in the day to "fact-check" all the nonsense on Twitter if your using real humans and it will take a long time to train an algorithm to be any good at spotting today's "facts" and falsehoods, let alone tomorrows. This becomes a huge problem when you have avoided government regulation by claiming your service is a platform, NOT a publisher.

A publisher retains editorial control over their "platform." The gas company doesn't scrutinize every molecule of gas for bad gas (pun intended) but a publisher does scrutinize what they publish at a granular level.

Now Twitter can be regulated like a publisher.

3) Is anything NOT "fact-checked" by Twitter is defacto truth? Because Twitter didn't fact-check Trump's Scarborough con-theory. Did Joe really kill that intern? That is what is implied by a policy of selective fact checking and we all know that Twitter is the home of the Whopper.

This was a knee-jerk decision made by a yoga-stoner who is clearly in way over his head and there will be a regulatory price for it. Frankly, I'm all for Social Media tech bros facing comeuppance for their massive sense of entitlement/arrogance.

originally posted by: HalWesten
Problem is, none of these are first amendment issues. Those are all non-government companies and they can do what they want. You don't have to use them, there are alternatives to Facebook that aren't doing the same thing. Before you say "but they don't have any users!", neither did FB or Twitter when they first started.

It's not hard to just not use them. If you're addicted to those social media sites, maybe you should re-evaluate your priorities.

Only as long as they don't act as a publisher - and they are now without question acting as a publisher.

I would argue that they have been for a long time by shadow banning or outright banning posters they don't like.

Just like a newspaper when they start publishing lies they can be sued for slander. Not that it is easy to win such a case, but just the threat of it has a tendency to restrict what they might be willing to publish.

As far as just avoiding social media, that is fine for some individuals, but they can effectively meddle and change elections by just influencing a small amount of people.

This is far far far more than Russia was accused of, and the left went hysterical over that. Basically with Democrats cheating is perfectly fine if it helps them get their way. That is why they want vote by mail, they plan to cheat on a huge scale.

Republicans unwillingness to play that dirty could lead them to lose. But if the cheating is exposed and it leads to Trumps loss or is even commonly believed that it has happened, there is going to be some form of civil war.

a reply to: American-philosopher

They are privately owned companies.

So, are you saying we need more regulation on those privately owned companies?

originally posted by: American-philosopher
So the newest update to this saga is President Trump is set to sign an excutive order on social media.

Trum p to sign Excutive order in regard to social media

I have no idea what that means. It seems to me whatever is in that will not be enforceable.

I don't understand how we have gotten to this place where presidents willy nilly can write executive orders and it is somehow viewed as a valid law. Does not seem constitutional to me - however there is no chance in hell congress would do anything about this abuse, so I guess I kind of understand the attempt, even though my instinct is it will accomplish nothing.

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: Echo007

originally posted by: HalWesten
Problem is, none of these are first amendment issues. Those are all non-government companies and they can do what they want. You don't have to use them, there are alternatives to Facebook that aren't doing the same thing. Before you say "but they don't have any users!", neither did FB or Twitter when they first started.

It's not hard to just not use them. If you're addicted to those social media sites, maybe you should re-evaluate your priorities.

If social media sites want to keep "platform" protection, they shouldn't be allowed to censor or manipulate information. Twitter, Facebook, instagram, Youtube and Reddit censor/manipulate. They promote Corporate media above all another news sources. Majority of US media is left wing.

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. The claim was made that it is a 1st Amendment violation and it's not. That's all I'm saying.

I do see a way trump could legally make them stop censoring. By declaring them aiders and abedders of enemy nations, OR ban them from using the government created internet infrastructure.

Right wingers calling for more government interference on private enterprise. The republicans have done a 180 into fascism.

Might as well tear up the Constitution and Bill or Rights while you're at it..

a reply to: olaru12

again this is a biggr issue then just government getting involved in private enterprise. we have platforms thay are banning people, silencing people, erasing videos, trying to dtermine what is truthful and what is not.

These platforms are major influencers in not just this country but around the world.

So, are you saying we need more regulation on those privately owned companies?

a reply to: scraedtosleep

I am saying we need to FUNDAMENTALLY (And I know there's irony there with the word fundamentally) We need to fundamentally change how social media is legislated arbutrated.

If it takes an Excutive order to FUNDAMENTALLY change how social media is banning people. I am all for it.

Private companies should not be arbitters of truth.

originally posted by: American-philosopher
Private companies should not be arbitters of truth.

They aren't...

It's up to you to find the truth. You can reject or accept anything on social media. Take responsibility!!

Just like a retail shop...If you don't like how it is being run...don't shop there. Simple...

Keep Government out of free enterprise. Let the market place decide what the American citizen wants to read, buy, watch or participate in. Is that Fundamental enough for you?

a reply to: olaru12

But Amazon.com decimated brick and mortar retail and Twitter is the only game in town. There is nothing simple about not having any choices except for not having any choices.

Likewise, Twitter is for Tweets because that's where the people who Tweet and who read Tweets are. Just as Facebook is the defacto (TBH, I have no idea what they are for anymore) platform for keeping in contact with your family and (lol) "friends" because that's where all your family and friends are.

There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about how they manage "their business." This is probably a distraction though. I'm a lot more concerned about terrorists using both, for example, than I am democrats or republicans, even if both lie like dogs.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

But Amazon.com decimated brick and mortar retail and Twitter is the only game in town. There is nothing simple about not having any choices except for not having any choices.

My brick and mortar retail store was destroyed by the "lock down" and there are plenty of twitter like social media sites.
Plenty of choices actually. Let the American consumer decide for themselves without government intrusion what social media site they want to use..took me 2 min. to find this information. Plenty of choices!!!

makeawebsitehub.com...

originally posted by: olaru12
My brick and mortar retail store was destroyed by the "lock down"...

You and many more. Earnings are coming out and companies like Dollar Tree/Family Dollar and Dollar General have reported record earnings. Why? Because government crushed small businesses and the middle class with this asinine lockdown.

Government does more to crush competition to Amazon than Amazon. I never shop on Amazon with the exception that some people still insist on giving me birthday presents which all end up being Amazon gift cards. I cannot tell you the last time I spent my own money on there, I always shop local.

The draft is online for a few hours now it seems

thenationalpulse.com...