People used to use a physical public square to exercise their rights under the First Amendment to The Constitution of The United States of America, however developments in technology have replaced the physical public square with a virtual one via social networking sites.
Normally doctrine would support those private entities' right to decide who they associate with and what kind of content they allow on their sites, but the fact that they have become the primary medium to exercise the right to free speech by billions of people, it is a social imperative that they are regulated to ensure that those rights are not infringed upon.
Social networking sites have demonstrated that they cannot be relied upon to be good faith arbiters of the rights of the people. What say you Jow Forums?
Should social networking sites be regulated like utilities?
This is exactly what fascism is. I support this. Fuck off libfag
Jayden Carter
no. we should just burn the companies to the ground.
Owen Miller
sure is shill in here
William Rodriguez
The S A L I E N C E of this lad
Hudson Murphy
>the government should force private companies to publish my opinion on shit
Landon Ortiz
How to tell someone is a millennial: they dion't realize public discussion is when you go(outside) somewhere and talk to someone - even without the help of communication devices, about a thing.
Robert Wilson
Fuck off kike.
Twitter is not a public square. It is a private business.
I know you are a kike because instead of petitioning for a publicsquare.gov you are trying to convince us to restrict private entities. Faggot
Hudson Sullivan
Did you not hear Zuckerberg? He's not a publisher. It's not being forced to publish anything.
Jonathan Sanchez
Marsh v Alabama
Joseph Thompson
>People share ideas >on social media If I like to call somebody faggot or be inclined to be called faggot Jow Forums is enough
Colton Allen
>the government should force telephone companies to transmit my messages Yep.
Charles Phillips
AND THATS A GOOD THING
you know because the large corporation that writes the news said so
When you deal with the Left it is ALWAYS a matter of "freedom for me but not for thee," and they will ALWAYS abuse your scruples to strip you of your ability to act.
Then, they'll crush your scruples anyway. So please, shut the fuck up. Something must be done.
>publicsquare.gov Now I want this A government-sponsored anonymous imageboard with no rules and free flow of "ideas"
David Ortiz
Fuck you kike nigger. Corporations are legal fictions allowed to exist by privilege of the people. They have no rights. Get out the way or get cut down
Blake Cruz
>This is exactly what fascism is. Seems you're finally getting wise- >I support this. You moron.
Easton Perez
many internet companies monopolize the public square where users can interact in a quasi-public mode
speech should be protected by the first amendment in these areas
who would disagree with this?
Evan Lopez
i feel bad for you kiddo.
>net neutrality >wahhhh twitter cant ban me!!!111
pick 1.
>baker can discriminate because he's a private business >wahhhh twitter can't ban!!11
pick 1.
Nicholas Gutierrez
I find myself having to shed more and more of my libertarian ideology as communism quickens the pace. I don't know if America has seen such an aggressive attack on our basic constitutional rights. It has been a slow march since the 60's, but clearly the plan has been to go full speed. We have activists dropping all pretense of supporting "socialism" and advocating for communism, and trying like hell to push socialism toward the middle of the political spectrum. This has rendered all of my prior non-interventionist, small-government ideology useless.
Yes, social networking needs to be regulated, like utilities. Discriminatory hiring practices over the years (using the pretense of "inclusive, non-discriminatory" hiring practices to hire almost exclusively far leftists [women/feminists, gays, minorities]) has finally taken its toll. Now that the left has swung toward oppressive communist practices, they have no qualms with abusing their powers as employees of major social-media platforms. The government needs to step in. There simply is no other way to fix this now. The problem is too big and is out of control.
These problems can be avoided in the future if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is interpreted to include political beliefs. Currently it only protects, religion, country of origin, ethnicity, and gender. If political ideology is added to this, companies and universities can no longer legally discriminate against conservatives, moderates, libertarians, etc.
Bentley Bell
What kinda commie cuck wants to give "the people" anything at all? The masses are too stupid and will just hurt the elite who has tirelessly worked all their lives for their fortunes
Luis Lewis
This. If Christian bakeries are forced to make wedding cakes for fags and celebration cakes for people who have just cut their genetalia off, it follows that we should legally force a Kiken bakery to make this.
>Twitter’s average monthly active user base was 335 million for Q2, up 9 million year-over-year and down 1 million quarter-over-quarter.
>US population: 325.7 million (2017)
apparently its not ok for the us government to censor the speech of 325 million people but its perfectly fine for Twitter to censor the speech of 335 million people
Levi Peterson
Something must be done! Muh Twitter! Muh YouTube! Fuckn faggot retard
Nolan Wilson
The Civil Rights Act was declared unconstitutional in 1883. The kikes waited 80 years and passed it again in 1964. It's still wholly unconstitutional for the same reasons outlined in 1883.
Ryan Torres
America's first ammendment will protect Jow Forums but will the site be open to being sued by countries that believe in hate speech?
Nolan Brooks
Maybe you shouldn't debate things on the internet and instead should talk to people in person or through the mail.
Nathaniel Ross
>America's first ammendment will protect Jow Forums fuck off retard the first amendment doesn't protect written word
Mason Ward
imageboards are probably going to be a special case scenario
Nathaniel Collins
Or maybe we should just start killing Jews?
Jace Peterson
>I find myself having to shed more and more of my libertarian ideology as communism quickens the pace. So becoming more big government to fight big government? And some how big government wont fuck us over cause it's a big government you like?
Andrew Lewis
Are you retarded?
Carson Long
change your look Tim pls
Hudson Ward
Irrelevant, shill
Ethan Johnson
Privatisation of the means of free speech is the final solution to the free speech problem.
Reminder that the Jews understand (or should understand) that free speech will get them killed, because free speech makes people antisemitic.
There is nothing big government about regulating legal fictions that only exist by privilege of the government and people in the first place. Corporations should be subject to enhanced government regulation simply to ensure that the God-given rights of the people are not INFRINGED. Private small businesses should be free to operate how they want.
Hudson Clark
If you have any other possible solution to the current situation of social media companies gaining a monopoly over online public platforms for expression, and abusing said monopoly by violating peoples' First Amendment rights, do please share it with the class.
Lucas Powell
>I support having a bunch of californian poofters deciding to ban me for supporting fascism because this i fascism which is what I want
If the kikes use their Talmud to silence us in the virtual public square, we will have no choice but to take our message to the streets. This is a good thing in the long run.
Hunter Collins
but SCOTUS ruled they DONT have to, so you're a fucking retard
Leo Harris
>censor speech because it pushes the wrong narrative >private companies can do what they want >Forced to bake cake or suffer consequences >private companies can't just do what they want
No, he's in favor of regulations on small businesses run by actual people so they can't afford to compete and thinks that legal fictions in the form of corporations that are granted the privilege to exist by the people should be free to infringe on everyone's rights.
Ryan Hernandez
Corporations have been abusing people in every way imaginable for ages. And I'm supposed to think that the line in the sand is Alex Jones being removed from Youtube.
Grow up you child.
Xavier Long
This issue is easy to resolve.
>If the service is free, then the "public" is ok to use and then, no private legal stuff could be applyed. >No censorship, no admittance, etc.
>If the service is for pay. All the private liberties are applied, censorship, admittance, etc.
Easy. Make them pay a toll or make them play by public rules.
>"BUT NOW WE WILL HAVE TO PAY TO USE YT AND FB!!!!!!" No my dear retard, in the moment any social network becomes pay, it dies. No one pays, ever.
Owen Barnes
look it up cock sucker.
Aiden Adams
Fuckn loser...wants to make social media a public utility lol. Why not just create a public forum and call it publicsquare.gov? Why go after private companies? This is some kike shit
Jaxon Rivera
These shills seem like a bot
Henry Wood
"No my dear retard"
Caleb Harris
>the government should force private companies to sell groceries/ provide medical care for/ not levy a 10,000% 'fuck you' tax to Democrats
Free country bro, political affiliation is not a protected class
Joshua Powell
Wonder if Pool has seen this yet, I'm sure they're building a case
Matthew King
Not according to the homos in this thread
Sebastian Ortiz
This post explains why Americans of European descent must be cleansed, ethnically and culturally. It's like those articles after Zuckerberg's Senate hearing which said that it was all about 'old people not understanding technology'.
Only the White man sets the boundaries, only he enforces the rules which benefit the personal freedoms of the masses. And nobody else catches Jew by the hand, not allowing a minority to have an ABSOLUTE power over us all.
Blake Richardson
>it's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything >I've lost my freedom but now I'm free
This makes me think... Perhaps they saw the potential of Jones taking the matter to court and settling for millions, which is why they censored him in the first place. If Jones is a sellout, then he will accept the settlement and disappear from the face of the Internet as a power move.
Then, they will repeat and do the same with other conservative speakers, until there are none left.
Dylan Richardson
esplain
Caleb Kelly
If you have any other solution, spill it. Or just keep calling people kikes. Fucking autistic sperg.
Parker King
Two Sides to the argument:
1) Youtube ect are companies and there is a free market, therefore they can do what they want with their property and platforms.
2) Right to freedom of speech and the reality of the present day should allow all people to express there opinions online in anyway they see fit.
I personally believe in the free market and the right that companies have to do what they want. The alternative approach would mean more laws and more regulations. Making it legally binding for you tube to broadcast things that they don't want to is awfully close to compelling speech, which is defiantly not what we want.
Most people have been reacting to this by condemning youtube's actions and this will soon catch on. If youtube continues to censor political (or other) opinions that it finds unfavorable then people will find another outlet.
So basically: Youtube can do whatever they want, although this is setting a precedent that will eventually be the undoing of Youtube, it was a poor business decision.
Caleb Wright
Whats gay is if the government steps in, you'll probably have to use your real name, verified with your social security number when logging on. There will be "decency" standards, and a lot more restriction on what you can talk about. Especially because you KNOW some ((lawyer)) is going to make the "publisher not a platform" argument and make speaking against a protected class a crime because they've kiked the constitution into it, by claiming anything a private citizen says on it is endorsed by the government.
Google, microsoft, Facebook and Twitter are monopolies that need to be broken up. Then alternatives that actually offer anonymity and freedom will have a fighting chance of making it.
Sebastian Hughes
I bump truth
Henry Wright
libertarianism can only be achieved through fascism. this is the realization of Jow Forums. the red pill.
Chase Rodriguez
>I am a millennial faggot that thinks some companies private platform is mine to do with what I want just because I can't recall a time they did not exist.
Banning you from a platform does not silence your voice idiot. Take it to the streets if you got something important you want to say.
Andrew Bailey
Without governmental regulation you would've still had lead in your gasoline, which is incredibly toxic. And a good business decision is to continue using lead because it's easier to produce. Without government ban on lead you'll still be choking on it. SOME regulation is a net-good for society. And rights of individuals and society at large are above rights of arbitrary business entity.
Easton Ramirez
Google Civil Rights Act declared unconstitutional in 1883
Connor Edwards
>right that companies have to do what they want. Why companies though? Why is your unit of measurement a company and not an individual?
Michael Torres
PUBLICSQUARE.GOV... public social media without infringing on private businesses. Seems like a less Jewish approach.
Ryder Taylor
Funny, we existed just fine prior to their creation. Managing someones 'feels' is not their job kid.
Hunter Robinson
Get a load of this boomer shareblue
Camden Long
Everyone with a business should hang a No Jews Allowed sign out front until this shit is fixed.
Brayden Phillips
>Most people have been reacting to this by condemning youtube's actions and this will soon catch on. If youtube continues to censor political (or other) opinions that it finds unfavorable then people will find another outlet.
Wrong. Youtube has a monopoly on the video sharing industry, unlike seen by any other platform on the Internet. Google has competitors like Bing, Yahoo, etc... But Youtube? You can not share your videos on any other site to get exposure that is not Youtube, because it's the only popular video sharing site on the planet. Now, there are competitors in the streaming industry, but not video sharing industry.
Christopher Parker
nobody is forcing people to use certain platforms. people can still do what they did before to get things going. if they don't do that, it's their problem and not of the platforms they use. >Should social networking sites be regulated like utilities? using wrong reasons to undermine freedom. fucking hell Americans are dumb.
Matthew Robinson
If it didn't silence my voice they wouldn't do it in the first place you retarded nigger
Wyatt Richardson
Jfc this lolberg...
YouTube is the best video platform because it's the one that caught on. It's baked in audience gives it an insurmountable advantage over everyone else, because they've got a million x the traffic and, due to said traffic, all the money in the world to improve it exponentially or buy out any viable competitors for unspeakable sums of money the second they become a threat.
Monopolies, Bruce, have you ever heard of them?
Ryan Long
Sounds like a free speech containment zone you kike.
Hudson Barnes
It's almost like that was the whole idea from the start.
Ayden Carter
They're banning and censoring specifically to silence voices that are not convenient for their narrative actually.
Brayden Parker
They can end censorship or we will destroy the internet. Those are the only options.
Robert Richardson
when something gets too popular in the u.s., it can be forced to become a public utility. this happened with every single public utility company there is today. they have to provide the service no matter what the company thinks. we will see social media become public utility companies in our lifetime.
Levi Carter
>"Innocent monopoly", or monopoly achieved solely by merit, is perfectly legal, but acts by a monopolist to artificially preserve that status, or nefarious dealings to create a monopoly, are not
Xavier Turner
If it doesn't happen within months, you will see war in the streets and the internet fiber will be dug up and cut.
Hudson Foster
Do you know what the term 'silencing' means?
Locking you up and hiding you away silences your voice. Telling you you cannot be a faggot on a privately owned platform does not.
I know it is hard for some of you teens to grasp such logic, but that does not mean it is not applicable. Social media is not the only way to express yourself. Can you grasp that? I wonder how all the big cultural changes from the past managed to occur when social media did not exist...hmm...such a mystery isn't it.
Dumbshit..
Asher Murphy
Hi Tim.
Asher Collins
A monopoly that suppresses the God-given rights of the people is not innocent.
Sebastian Parker
First we have to force people to use their real names before it's a public space.
>Social media is not the only way to express yourself. That's right, I have a gun and I will slaughter kikes in their homes and synagogues if I can not speak.
Hudson Watson
M O N O P O L Y P U B L I C U T I L I T Y Even I know your laws better than you and your basedfriends lolberts.
Zachary Barnes
Learn to read faggot, the definition is there and it is not based on your opinions
Samuel Foster
Anonymous speech is a right.
Easton Martin
Yep, they want to play the role of tyrants they can (and will) get the historical response to tyranny.
Technocrats are short-sighted morons, their end is near. Pathetic
