So these are private companies and they can make their own rules and determine who they want to do business with...that's the classic argument...However, these social media companies have become the de facto public square, there must be regulations to ensure peoples free speech rights are protected.
prove me wrong Jow Forums
>protip: you cant
>prove me wrong Jow Forums
But you're right and any rational person agrees.
>inb4 random lolbert sperg shits the thread up
I thought pol supported the free market :^)
INTERNET BILL OF RIGHTS WHEN
We grew up.
which is why something concrete must be done otherwise the problem will only get worse
and they are conducting commerce
>Jow Forums
>libertarian
whew. Ron Paul called. It's 2008 again
Absofuckinglutely...but this is an exception because it has become the public square. That's the point of the thread,
It has always been like this since newspapers.
We live in an oligarchy, deal with it.
a game must have an umpire. multiple companies colluding to essentially banish who they want from the web is highly unethical and monopolistic.
you might not believe this, but if msm was saying lefties were spreading dangerous info online and must be stopped, id side with the lefties
Anti Trust laws already exist for effective monopolies. I dont much care for them but its becoming clear the internet will be seized as a public utility or at least some of the jewgles of the world will be broken up because of censorship abuse. Ofc that has its own set of new and likely much worse problems.
lol, apparently Tim took down his faggy video defending the banning of Pat Little, and pulling the intellectually cowardly/lazy "right wing SJWs" with anyone who mentions overwhelming Jewish representation in government/finance/media.
When you own 99% of a market share, and decide you want to dictate who can use it and how people use it then essentially you've become a trust and we have never let that shit slide in America. You can't own 99% of a public forum which broadcasts to billions of people and then just blatantly dictate who gets to use it. And in case faggots like this fucking cuck are wondering this whole thing is long overdue and it has absolutely nothing to do with economics
Basically what Naomi Klein was warning about in No Logo, except aimed at the wrong side.
>We live in an oligarchy, deal with it.
And the best way to deal with it is regulating them so that they can not censor legal speech.
It’s a trap dummies. Dems want to hear you say get the government involved just look at the bill Mark Warner is trying to get through now. Once big G gets involved they can really weaponize it against us.
>the only alternative to government regulation is letting psychopathic CEOs censor every bit of truth that contradicts their narrative
Sounds like a nightmare.
>all regulation is bad because bad laws exist
No. Good laws are good, bad laws are bad. Why is this so hard for lolbert spergs?
>IS THIS THE MOST SALIENT TWEET OF 2018
My first thought though you put it more articulately
If these platforms are now determining who can say what and policing it, isn't that accepting liability for their user content? Seems unreasonable that they can on one hand absolve themselves from what their users say, then on the other hand actively police what their users say.
good call bro
good point
>Jow Forums is majority libertarian
i thought we were nazis?
Every business within the US is obligated to operate within the bounds of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. Internet providers, domain registrars and social media companies are not magically excluded from these obligations. If they abuse the civil rights of US citizens, then they need the hammer dropped on them by the feds.
This is good, we can use this. Point out that anything that isn't censored by Facebook, is condoned by Facebook. They'll drop the censorship or censor everything making another platform the norm.
This. I watch neither InfoWars nor TYT, and I don't want either of them banned from the Internet by corporate censorship.
get that "blue checkmark white hate" infographic going with a big old "not censored = condoned" headline and we may have something
We need to start putting together a list of Rights, for The Internet Bill of Rights. aka IBOR, push #IBOR, Internet Bill of Rights, and start the brainstorming and list making of what these rights should be!
see
A state sponsored equivalent website would be hard to push.
The most realistic thing that can happen is one of us creating an alternative with nos censorship that is at least as good and somehow economically viable. That also sounds very hard.
Hopefully normies will eat themselves and they will start to leave their over-policed platforms when it's gotten boring because nothings allowed.
Burgers on Jow Forums support a man with protectionist policies. You were wrong to begin with.
Note that leftist usually have people like Sorros and co helping them develop such projects. We have no one.
see
Libertarianism is still here.
It's nationalist libertarianism now.
it's still a bad idea and your shitty other thread didn't need to be made, faggot
Under certain justice systems, like Germany's, you could theorically prosecute them, for what that gook hired by the NYT wrote for instance. Except the USA don't have anti-hate-speech laws and in all countries that have those you'll have trouble finding one judge ready to prosecute a company for allowing anti-white speech on their platform.
Thats gab, and gab is dying from no funds
pic related is very important to this thread. I highly encourage anyone read it before they continue posting. It single destroys this smug canadian faggot's post.
forgot pic.
>other thread
>your
I never made another thread. I'm never OP.
>it's still a bad idea
This isn't a compelling argument. Even if it were granted that crossing the 'government regulation' line was a bad idea, the current set-up of allowing clinical psychopaths to use their corporate power to censor everyone can't possibly be much worse. They will do everything in their power to steal the mid-terms unless Trump acts right fucking now.
>the free market cücks of Jow Forums are upset that their own rules are being used against them
OHNONONONONONO I'm not sure whether to womp or cry. This is great.
>p r i v a t e c o r p o r a t i o n
You faggots are thinkin like liberals that is not thinking and using feelings. Getting the government involved will always make everything worse but it feels like they could. It feels like the government could do a lot of things right but they don’t and never will.
So someone send this to Alex Jones and tell him to crowdfund a lawyer. I'd chip in a bit and I don't even listen to him.
somebody need to sue all of them and take it to the supreme court
see , tardling. The ancap spergs were the only free market cucks here, and most have grown past it.
> p u b l i c a l l y s u b s i d i z e d e n t i t y
>another lolbert retard ITT
see
I know right.
You get the government involved, and every platform becomes a privatized NPR. This is not ideal.
if Trump got on gab and tweeted everything on there and not twitter then MSM would have no choice but to follow him there. So would a bunch of lefties.
Just get the government to rule these platforms utility companies. I mean Verizon and AT&T can't ban you for hate speech.
This free speech thing really comes down to the type of corporate entity the said business who wishes or not to regulate it. Technically companies are defined as living beings with human being rights.
If there was to be any regulation at all, I would push for making these platforms enforce their terms of service in an equal manner, by law. Once enough accounts on both sides ended up vaporized, the push for censorship by means of these nebulous 'hate speech' clauses would poof out of existence as well, and become a lot more defined... make the enemy play by their own rules.
ha ha if you don't like it why don't you ghettoize your speech and become irrelevant, sweaty? ;)))
A better way to deal with it is to go Charlie Hebdo on the ruling class.
>wrong side
All private stock corporations are necessarily right-wing.
Then why hasn't that happened for the Postal Service? Aren't you being tendentious?
Neither can the Postal Service.
>private companies can do what they want
>BAKE THE CAKE BIGOT
pick one and only one faggot
>Once big G gets involved they can really weaponize it against us.
jokes on libtards and democrats since they are the most vocal and obscene..
>Neither can the Postal Service.
Exactly it's an easy fix for this problem that everyone pretends doesn't exist.
The postal service would be more comparable to the ISPs in this case. Nothing but the actual delivery apparatus. You push data in, data shits out the other side. Social media isnt at the post office level, its a full layer above it.
Monopolies arent free market kys leaf
Yeah well Americans only have themselves to blame. I for one support Twitter/Facebook/etc because they deserve every ounce of power retarded Ameribros give them and people need to stop being retarded, not expect a savior.
As if our shitheel Israeli government gives a single fuck about the constitution anymore
Yeah I remember that big 2016 Pepsi vs Coke presidential debate. Coke totally destroyed Pepsi which is why I voted Coke for president.
This is seriously the most retarded shit ever, it’s almost like an English 101 professor said these exact words and some retard took it literally.
see . The correct fix is sweeping free speech legislation so any corporation can't violate basic human rights. It's so simple.
A cake shop is not a self-professed public forum, retard. A university is not a safe space, fuckface. A licensed hypnotist does not usually go around acting as an exterminator by convincing people they do not see the mice shit
Think about what that would mean in the context of the NFL horseshit, and the damage its done there
>b-but muh gobmint
Indeed. On the other hand, Google has its own ISP arm and Verizon owns Yahoo, which can boot people off for being unmutual.
>Nothing but the actual delivery apparatus
That would be "net neutrailty", which the ISPs oppose. They strongly prefer not to be commodity "dumb pipes" so as to increase their revenue per user.
Still, with private interests like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon's content businesses out of the picture, stuff like home hosting has a real chance of happening.
That would challenge 130 years of judicial and legislative precedent treating corporations, which at their root are just games scored by KPIs, as if they were people. Might want to go to the root of the problem.
>No one should interfere with my free speech
>I will achieve this with MORE government
You all make it so easy for (((them))).
>Get honest digits
>Jow Forums cannot refute that private companies should be free to do this because the people are largely stupid
>implying (((they))) don't like libertarianism
>implying (((they))) aren't using libertarianism to get to their superior positions over the goyim even today
If he straddled the fence any harder he'd be shitting white picket planks every time he squatted.
They banned proud boys, I wonder how many antifa accounts twitter got rid of? Im guessing any kind of account that celebrates fist fights will get hit?
What does niggerball have to do with this? (or anything relevant to humanity, for that matter)
>That would challenge 130 years of judicial and legislative precedent treating corporations as if they were people
As utterly insane and unjust as this has always been, there's already existing legal precedent to prevent them from censoring us. Regardless, it's badly needed.
>communist
>capitalism is predatory
>corporations are evil
>the larger the corporation, the more evil they are
>believes everything monopolistic corporations tell them
>cares deeply about the rights of monopolistic corporations
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Isn't Trump's twitter time line a public square as well? Yes it began as a humble personal account of a TV show character, but just like social media platforms it has grown into a juggernaut of what it once was.
Why are the drumptarded so hypoctical?
The Supreme Court has ruled that ownership doesn't mean absolute control of person's right in the past. They also ruled that the more public your business is, the more the first amendment applies to your business.
The idea that you can ban certain opinions because they hurt your feelings is socialist/ communist faggot shit. These cunts need to fuck off to China and worry about their social credit score.
>What does niggerball have to do with this? (or anything relevant to humanity, for that matter)
Just used as an example that if a corporation was mandated to allow these idiots to protest on the field during the anthem, they would continue to watch their profit evaporate to nothingness while they watched helplessly from the sides.
It's coming, snownigger.
>ownership doesn't mean absolute control of person's right in the past
But they haven't ruled on whether this applies to "information services" like social (((media))).
>The idea that you can ban certain opinions because they hurt your feelings is
the basis of free speech rights in bourgeois liberalism, first written about by John Milton, who explicitly excepted "blasphemy" and rudeness from the "rightful" bounds of free speech. The Victorian Era happened, like it or not. It has been ever thus ever since.
Besides, the real targets of this censorship are economic dissidents on both the left and right who disagree with neoliberalism. "Muh Russia" is literally a way to stigmatize the left wing of the party so the Establishment can suck underageb& dick on donor-funded junkets.
Saved
>Just used as an example that if a corporation was mandated to allow these idiots to protest on the field during the anthem,
No, that's on company time. I can't call everyone who walks into McDonalds a nigger if I worked the register there. same thing.
But saying 'nigger' on twitter off of company time should be entirely protected and should be made illegal for an employer to fire someone because of something they said on social media.
See common carrier.
Also, WHO in these companies is deciding who to ban and who isn't? And under what conditions? And why? And what happens if they make a mistake, or do something improper? They now need an infrastructure to monitor all this shit, and the users should demand to know how it works.
>The correct fix is sweeping free speech legislation so any corporation can't violate basic human rights. It's so simple.
I was mainly addressing this statement you made.
Lol no. Libertarian kikes are retarded
Hear hear!!
It is curious. It was not all that long ago the libtards were all about hating on the “big companies”. All of a sudden they are in love with Jewgle, Amazon, FB, etc. what are they gonna do when these big companies have to change with the times and find conservative CEOs to deal with the Trump Administration? They have already signed off on letting these companies have the public space.
I loved yesterday’s post from the college kid. His Uni gave a tunnel for “Free Speech” graffiti but announced “No offensive speech will be tolerated”. I laughed my ass off at that. How can they even unironically say that?
Here's the thing:
Social media is not the public square. It's the soap box in the middle of the public square. You got something on your mind, there are a thousand outlets. These social media companies are merely soap boxes that you can stand on to be a little louder than those without a soap box.
That being said, these are soap box companies who have tons of ads on them. If they feel your opinions do not represent 1) those ads and 2) their soap box, they have every right to take it away from you.
Disagree? Well, you signed those terms of service indicating that you're allowing them to do this to you.
They are not the public square; they're a slight elevation to the otherwise public square called the internet.
Make your own soap box if you really want.
>implying CEOs aren't already conservative
>implying this whole muh russia thing isn't about keeping both parties economically right-wing
>muh contracts
So where is the REAL public space, then? 90% of residential ISP services won't let you host your own server.
make tWanr5zw.com.
the internet is huge.
i do believe in the free market of ideas
allowing (((companies))) to control that market is not a good idea.
>So these are private companies and they can make their own rules
And they all have one thing in common...don't tell me, I'll figure it out what (((they))) have in common.
You clearly don't know enough about the Internet to have an opinion on anything about it. Please find a service provider who will host a video of your suicide. I look forward to watching it.
We support a market free from parasites...
.. if you know what I mean.
:^)
INTERNET BILL OF FIGHTS WHEN
This user gets it.
Kill yourself, neoliberal.
The government is funding these squares and then calling them “private.” If you don’t censor as the government wants you too, it stops giving you funding.
Google is a CIA front company like Air America. It’s parent company (real name) is literally Alphabet Incorporated.
When was there a public square that was open to everyone? News media, radio and television were the only public spaces prior to the internet that mattered. No one cares about the guy standing on the street with a sign.
I'm not saying I agree with Twitter controlling the public space, since they're controlled by a homosexual neo-liberal elite intent on destroying everything beautiful, but it's not like it was better 30 years ago, in fact it was much worse. The only danger is losing what we gained via the internet, but this is likely inevitable. The establishment has pushed the technological advances of instant mass communication through the internet, and now it's got everyone hooked it is time to clamp down and seize back control. That's how it must work.
Free market is little more than a euphemism for (((international businessmen and bankers))) they have no loyalty to their host nations, and Jow Forums is right to hate them for encroaching on their government.
Any internet bill of rights would just serve to give the state more control over the internet.
The state created this problem, it purposely helped these companies become monopolies so it could learn how to analyze macro data on people.
Google was founded on CIA money and it’s real name is Alphabet Inc.
any meeting space of groups of people is considered public space via court. There is a contract which commands the rules of that space such as the constitution/local laws then defacto those companies which host the public space must follow such laws. this is perfectly consistent with libertarianism.