Alphabet, Facebook, and Twitter are all privately owned companies that can ban whoever they want.
They're not blocking anyone's right to free speech just like me not allowing someone on my YouTube channel isn't censoring their free speech. These are private companies and if people like AJ don't like it they can go somewhere else. It's their company, who are you to tell them who they can or can't censor?
1. Prove me wrong. 2. If there is an argument to made in regard to antitrust laws, what is it? 3. If neither are currently possible: wat do?
If trump blocking a chick on twitter infringes on her free speech, banning alex jones is also infringing on his free speech. Fuck off nigger.
Logan Evans
How are either of those infringing on free speech?
Nicholas Harris
sorry sweetie, a judge said Trump cant block people or their first amendment rights are being violated
Parker Lee
Yeah we'll see how that works out
Ethan Sanders
>If trump blocking a chick on twitter infringes on her free speech Nice strawman argument, but OP didn't say that Trump blocking a chick on twitter infringes on her free speech.
Logan Butler
ok kike
Grayson Brown
yep, they can go make their own platforms if they want to spout nonsense
> It's their company, who are you to tell them who they can or can't censor? The FCC Faceberg and Twitter are subject to the Communications Act of 1934.
SEC. 2. [47 U.S.C. 152] APPLICATION OF ACT. (a) The provisions of this act shall apply to all interstate and foreign communication by wire or radio and all interstate and foreign transmission of energy by radio, which originates and/or is received within the United States
SEC. 202. [47 U.S.C. 202] DISCRIMINATION AND PREFERENCES. (a) It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage
>unjust or unreasonable discrimination to >make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons >to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage
Seems these would be hard to prove in court. Thanks for the info I'll read more about it
Christopher Hill
crony capitalism exacerbates inequities with respect to market share
William Sanchez
>Communications Act of 1934. Are you sure this doesn't just apply to public communications?
Xavier Hernandez
Facebook and Google aren't common carriers. That could be changed, but for now they can ban whoever they want.
Carter Cox
They actually do meet all the criteria for Common Carriers. The issue is that the FCC is a corrupt agency that gets to pick and choose who they want to apply the rules to. All the talk about new laws and such is bullshit. All that needs to be done is to enforce the current laws equally and these Lefty tech companies would all get reigned in real quick.
Nathan Fisher
I'm no fan of the FCC, but I'm not sure they even have the power to designate common carriers. I think that power lies with Congress, and as much as I wish they would do it, I don't see it happening any time soon.
Justin Harris
It applies to common carriers. Which YouTube, Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter et al. are not. But I would not be surprised if before long we see a push to classify social media platforms as common carriers.
Jayden Jackson
So you believe a privately owned company can violate anybody's rights because they are privately owned? How about company that don't hire blacks? Or restaurants that don't serve women? How about bakery that doesn't serve gays? Funny how that all goes out the window now because it's Alex Jones were talking about.
Ryan Howard
If there are already the proper regulations in place within that classification to curb these current problems, I'd love to see it argued
>So you believe Strawman incoming >a privately owned company can violate anybody's rights because they are privately owned? Fuck yeah bud nailed it. >a privately owned company can violate anybody's rights How is a company like Twitter not letting someone use their services violating their rights?
How are they violating their rights?
Nolan Watson
>not sure they even have the power to designate common carriers.
The FCC does in fact get to decide who their mandate applies to. Just search anything about Net Neutrality, you will see this mentioned repeatedly.
Noah White
See question 2, dimwit. Nice straw man use of a straw man argument.
Landon Powell
Yeah wtf is with congress. >Republican majority in all houses >still nothing gets done
Charles Harris
monopolies that will be destroyed
Andrew Sullivan
They are Monopolies who should be broken up.
Isaac Rodriguez
Can that be argued legally though?
Dylan Harris
First time posting, jew?
Dominic Richardson
Do you know what antitrust laws are? If so how does Trump being ruled not allowed to block people apply?
Jack Butler
>Alphabet, Facebook, and Twitter are all privately owned companies that can ban whoever they want.
Not while using publicly owned and financed infrastructure, they can’t.
Joseph Turner
Yes it has been done before.
Jordan Jones
With the same companies or you mean in general?
Adrian Russell
google, Twitter, and fb all sell advertising space on their sites. They freely admit that promoting content on their platform has monetary value in the billions of dollars. A similar argument would be that hiding competitors content has a monetary value at least as high as promoting your own. Federal law bans corporations from making “direct or indirect” contributions to federal elections. That ban extends beyond cash contributions to “any services, or anything of value.” In other words, corporations cannot provide federal candidates with free services of any kind. Designing algorithms that censor an entire political party going in to midterm elections and giving free advertising to their opponents is clearly a valuable service. transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml
Ryder Stewart
How is a private company like a bakery violating gay rights by not letting them use their services? Or a company not hiring blacks or Hispanics or Asians? How are they violating their rights?
Caleb Bennett
In General and it would be hard to argue that Google and Apple aren't Monopolies given the same treatment that Microsoft received when they monopolies the market place.
Carter Jones
*Monopolised
Easton Allen
>1. Prove me wrong. You're right What we need is competitors. Since Youtube basically has a monopoly they can do whatever they want. But that isn't happening any time soon
Carson Miller
we should just kill everyone and start over at this point.
>It applies to common carriers. Which YouTube, Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter et al. are not Incorrect. They all meet the criteria for Common Carrier designation. The issue is that the FCC literally has the mandate to decide who they want to apply the Communications Act to. Because of this they are corrupt as hell, the big networks basically run the FCC and they are all aligned with the Tech Left.
Why is no one doing it? Too rich? Too much influence?
>Youtube basically has a monopoly How? I understand they control most of the market, but the market is infinite, isn't it? You can't punish a company for being successful, or can you?
Sure, it's a good way to learn. I think this is a genuine problem and I'd like to hear some thoughts on it, you got any or fuck off?
>Because of this they are corrupt as hell, the big networks basically run the FCC This checks out. Revolving door similar to the FDA
Jackson Peterson
>but the market is infinite, isn't it? How can the market be infinite? People only have a specific amount of time to spend watching videos and therefore watching ads >You can't punish a company for being successful, or can you? Nobody is talking about that
Joshua Harris
They aren't, that's the point.
Luis Baker
>2. If there is an argument to made in regard to antitrust laws, what is it?
FB, YT etc enjoy the freedom of being treated like a private company while providing a public service discriminately.
It'd be like if the phone company didn't allow one political party when it was new.
Censoring ideas falls squarely under discrimination and when the platform owns every phone line, or every TCP session that matters, first amendment rights are broadly being violated.
As we have already discussed adding communication to the basic rights of humans to survive along with food water shelter etc. this is no small thing and the broad right to not be discriminated against for having a certain worldview trumps any company's right to censor on their platform.
You can't say the first amendment matters, and then buy up the world's services to make it private rendering it an ineffectual piece of paper. There's no difference between a company and a government in this beyond scope and how they are financed.
You're arguing they should be punished because they are a monopoly, so we are talking about that.
The obstacle is proving they are monopoly, and you're arguing because, Youtube being the size it is, sucks advertisers from going elsewhere, to the point that it's a monopoly, right?
So you're essentially arguing the monopoly point too, then? Do you think they should be reclassified under the FCC's common carrier guidelines?
Carter King
........For now until Trump nationalizes big tech ;)
Oliver Jones
>You're arguing they should be punished because they are a monopoly, I have literally never said that you retard
Joseph Bailey
>It'd be like if the phone company didn't allow one political party when it was new. This was in fact a big issue back when telephony was new. It is mentioned by FDR as being a principal reason for the necessity of the FCC(Communications Act of 1934) transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf
Nolan Allen
Fair point. You want competitors, my apologies. I think that's probably the least likely scenario to work.
Christopher Martin
Its not just a monopoly its a PAC at this point.
Your phone carrier doesn't have the right to listen in on your conversations and fuck with you over political opinions or anything else.
Dominic Reyes
No body reads the TOS that they agree to when using a service. They can do what ever they like cause you gave them permission to.
Noah Barnes
A contract or TOS still cannot violate your rights. You can't make up a contract for black slavery and then be like well whatever he signed the contract.
