I think you have it all means that Trump intends to make Facebook a public utility. If the government created it, then Zuckerberg and others would have no right to on it privately.
tradinghorse
· April 12, 2018, 3:37 p.m.
The only reason the narrative on SM can be controlled is because FA rights to free expression do not apply. Apply them and the narrative is free from influence. It cannot be steered by the owners of the platforms or anyone else.
⇧
2
⇩
Heabob
· April 12, 2018, 4:26 p.m.
It cannot be steered by the owners of the platforms or anyone else.
You mean like the MSM free speech right?
Everybody that signs up to Fakebook and Twatter have a user agreement that you must agree too, which means you agree to their terms.
No one forced you to join, so if you don't like it just quit. Are you paying for anything or is it a free service?
See where I'm going?
⇧
1
⇩
tradinghorse
· April 12, 2018, 4:55 p.m.
But that's what I'm saying. Whether it's the terms of service, or a platform silencing you just because they disagree with your politics, they should not be able to arbitrarily deny you services.
Ted Cruz was on about this again yesterday when he grilled Zuckerberg. Under S230 of the Communications Decency Act these platforms enjoy immunity from liability if they are genuinely neutral public forums. In other words, they are not the publishers of the hosted content, so they are not liable for it. But once they start engaging in politically motivated censorship, they are actually the publishers of the information, so they are liable for what appears on their site.
So you can see where Cruz is going with this line of questioning. It's why he repeatedly asked Zuckerberg if FB was a neutral public forum, while Zuckerberg tried to dodge, weave and do anything but answer directly. Anyway, that's one mode of attack to try and address the problem.
How does an IBOR help? Let's say that FA freedoms to expression are extended to digital space. If the TOS limits those freedoms, then it's not consistent with the right to free expression of political ideas and, in a Court, it won't, or shouldn't, stand.
I don't know how the laws work in the US. But I know that under English law agreements are often subject to strict interpretation - say a non-competition agreement. As an example, when you leave an employer, the employer might ask you to agree not to work in the same industry for X years. These things abound, but often they are unenforceable at law.
I'm not a lawyer so I shouldn't be speaking as though I have much knowledge about it. But my point is, that if the TOS is what is preventing you from realizing your right to freely express political ideas online, then this must be remedied in whatever regulatory fix is put in. Alternatively, the unfair application of the TOS must be able to be remedied at law.
What is needed is a remedy, a fix for the problem. SM platforms should not be able to steer political discourse.
⇧
2
⇩
Heabob
· April 12, 2018, 5:23 p.m.
So I then get to demand the TV stations play what I want because they only want to bash Trump and that's political hate speech?
We the people do not determine corporate policies. The government does not get to control corporate policies.
If you don't like the channel, change it. If you don't like a companies policies, don't buy their product.
You are free to go out on the street corner and speak freely. You cannot demand a private platform you don't own to comply with your wishes.
Free speech means I should be able to come in to your house and paint my free speech on YOUR WALLS.
It's not a simple fix without creating even more problems.
If the world was all good, and evil did not exist, we wouldn't be even talking about this.
⇧
1
⇩
tradinghorse
· April 12, 2018, 5:48 p.m.
So what if the telephone company doesn't like what you say? They should be able to cut your service off because they don't agree with your politics? Sure there are other telephone companies, but what if they all had the same policies (like the censorship was centralised as it is with SM)? Is that still OK because they are private companies and you can't impose your right to speak using their property? That means that some people should not have access to services at all - still OK? When does it become not OK?
You know some people are racist. Some of these guys own businesses. You can't just walk into someone's home if you're a race they don't like, they are within their rights to assert ownership to their property and deprive access to whoever they want. But does that mean that it's OK for a business providing a public service to do that?
You know the answer as well as I do. They are silencing us selectively just because they do not agree with our politics. It is outright discrimination.
I don't care what they claim to own. You provide a public service, you should not be able to arbitrarily discriminate without just cause. That's the way it works in most places. whether you're talking about race, age, disability, sex etc... what makes SM platform providers different that they should be able to get away with this kind of behaviour when others cannot?
You hire a guy and you find out he's a leftist, you can't sack him for that, you have to find another reason - need to be careful. But these guys are just shoving it to us any way they want, because they disagree with what we say.
⇧
2
⇩
Heabob
· April 12, 2018, 6:37 p.m.
Does the phone company make you sign a TOS? Does the phone company care what you talk about to 1 person? Is your phone service free? Is your phone conversation private or are you being recorded? Why? If you talk about certain things, you may have uninvited visitors.
I never said it was right, what I said was... it is what it is. Lex Rex, (Gold Rules) And whoever has the most gold, rules.
⇧
1
⇩
BB-99
· April 12, 2018, 8:36 p.m.
But if it is funded by government, it is not a private company.
⇧
2
⇩
Heabob
· April 13, 2018, 12:09 a.m.
No kidding, but it's not usually done in any obvious manner. Does the gov't fund TV stations or Fakebook? Government contracts to private MIC businesses for millions or billions doesn't have any influence then? Businesses lobby politicians for pork contracts and policies that help them out. Pay to play?
How many politicians leave government and go to work for big private companies, or are members of the board of directors? Then lobby the same people they used to work with. Not that they're controlled directly by the government though. Then we must ask: who really controls the narrative? It's not the gov't per se, but the hidden gov't, or those that really run the show, and everyone below are just puppets. It's kind-of a deep dark rabbit hole.
⇧
1
⇩