That’s where I disagree with you.
Free speech as prescribed from the first amendment is that the government can’t censor your political opinions or religious beliefs.
You are still accountable for any actual harm you caused from your speech such as speaking hate it inciting violence or crimes to occur.
There no restrictions on what privately own platforms can do, a long a they do it fairly.
Facebook, You tube, Ywitter and such are privately owned and can chose who gets to be their guess and use their platform as a soap box.
That isn’t censorship, that just them keeping their own house. You can go elsewhere if those platforms don’t want you their.
No, because then any website would vulnerable to spurious lawsuits because of random people posting stupid shit on them and that would harm both small, medium and large websites, eventually ending in draconian rules that will stifle speech on the internet out of sheer legal necessity.
I’m only against giant corporations being in complete control of the internet’s largest and most used websites, and that more oversight should be places on them (the political pressure that was put on Zuckerberg basically, but institutionalized), plus breaking some of these corporations apart to avoid monopolies or excessive power in the hands of a single one (separating google and youtube would be a start).
Removing legal protections from all websites would only lead to greater harm to the small fries and the end users.
So, you’re a Vet with mental issues, posting thinly veiled & delusional threats, supporting a movement to undermine the will and rights of the American people, and backing a proven corrupt conman/grifter in office that not only is “profiting of the suffering” of all Americans, but is the leading cause it!!!
I see what you’re saying… It is tricky, and putting checks and restructuring how we handle social media and how they handle the information that users put on their site is something that will have to be addressed eventually.
But the whole reason Trump is so butthurt about Section 230 is that twitter is able to censor, delete, or moderate what he tweets.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to line up pretty close to what you’re talking about. He even outlined in his executive order earlier this year that twitter is the American town squares and where information is exchanged and debates are held in the modern world. He argues that it’s wrong for them to censor information that isn’t illegal or obscene.
I agree that it’s sketchy for one company or website to have that much power to control information, but that’s where I would say that the freedom of the press is the safety net. If twitter starts pushing a radical agenda and has a call to action of it’s userbase, the press can call them out on that shit. Then the American people have the choice to go somewhere else.
Besides, twitter is not as heterogeneous as you think.
80% of twitter is affluent millennials. 32% of them have grad degrees. This is info that Twitter put out in it’s investors meeting.
It’s really a place where rich, college educated people have taken the wheel.
But, I dunno. It is kinda fucked for them to be the shepherds of that much information, but it tricky to limit the ability of them to “clean house” while letting them remain a free and independent company.
A corporation has all the rights that you or I have, as fucked as that is.
I think this is a different argument. My point is less about free speech and more about the risk of having corporations in control of most of the internet and the stuff that is allowed to be seen there.
It’s also about how certain websites have become so huge and influential on society that treating them as just another kind of regular private property is becoming willfully ignorant: Zuckerberg got blasted because the way he ran things at Facebook was helping the right-wing to spread misinformation through aimed ads, making Facebook money in the process. Politicians eventually demanded him to be more responsible, but technically speaking he was just running the site like a normal business.
The problem is that the social influence Facebook now has makes it impossible to run it like a normal business, because the actions of the management at Facebook have social and political consequences, and they should be responsible for that in some way.
I would also argue that people having the options of going elsewhere if they don’t like how a private company is handling things is potentially dangerous in general.
It may not be the case with the internet yet, because Parler shows that niche websites can spontaneously be born and have success (unfortunately in this case), but speaking in general when a private company grows to establish a monopoly or an almost-monopoly it may become practically impossible for the user to seek alternatives, even if in theory you have the illusion of choice under a free market.
Just like you have the illusion of choice between Youtube and the countless other video websites that are not anywhere near having Youtube’s reach and numbers. In theory Youtube has a lot of competition, in practice not so much.
I’d say it’s ok to announce terrorist attack ahead of doing them, but since our govt. continues to pander to these people, it’s more of rallying cry to get the GOP, police and military ready to help them and stock up on supplies
Except you have the choice. There are alternatives. And you don’t like them start your own.
Many of the alt right got sick of Facebook and started Parsel or what ever it’s called. Myspace still exists. Fb was founded by a college student who lost all his friends on a stunt that turns his site big.
He may…(…more than likely will) dodge jail or type of serious punishment post-presidency, but boy he is “fucked!!” once he reaches the point of his natural life that he must rely on others!
And after that, Republican Jesus will be waiting to embrace him in warm embrace.
Though Republican Jesus, might just be a tad bit redder than he expected with two pointy horns on his head, and a large pineapple to shove up his ass for all eternality.
