Senior Don Juan
- Jun 18, 2018
- Reaction score
Then when my bank and payment processors ban me I have to start up my own payment processor and bank too.
Not sure where to start with this. In the interest of keeping it short, your logic simply doesn't work. Yes, you can choose not to do business with them. However, FB, Google, Twitter, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, they literally have technology market cornered.You are WAY off. Twitter, Facebook, et. al are all for profit businesses that sells advertising targeting users based on their behavior on the internet. As businesses they are allowed to enforce terms of service which EVERYONE signs as a condition of using that platform... they give themselves, in these terms of service, the unilaterally right to change conditions 'at will'. If you are a user and you don't like this, then don't sign the terms of service and use it. They are not making 'publisher' decisions, they are enforcing terms of service, which is their right to do. They have never claimed that they are a publisher.
If you as a business want to be led around by the nose by SJWs, that is YOUR RIGHT to do.... then you get to suffer the consequences of your actions. There was a business that decided to start charging men more for coffee because of the mythical wage gap, that coffee shop is now going out of business. There was a not-for-profit business engaged in a worthy cause I was involved in, then got full of themselves and some SJWs decided it was a good idea to have an event where white people had to pay more.... because 'white privilege' ... Well now I don't have anything to do with them and neither do a lot of people.
You only become a 'publisher' when you start creating content. Facebook and Twitter, et. al DOES NOT create content. The only issue with social media platforms is if they have an obligation to inform the public of the veracity of claims made on their service. Personally I think they do... they should not limit what people post and say, but I believe it is appropriate for them to place context on what is published on their platform. So if some Russian troll posts a 'story' from a mythical service called "American Freedom Press", detailing that Hillary Clinton was running a sex slave operation out of a pizza place, I think Facebook or Twitter can and should detail exactly where the story comes from... then people get to decide if they want to believe it. No one can police what people chose to believe, and there was a butt load of really stupid sh!t that finds it's way on social media that people believe because human nature is that we make emotional decisions about things, then look for evidence that justifies their belief. Few people rationally evaluate everything they see.
People have the right to say what they want... even if it made up BS. Private companies have the right to set conditions on doing business with them.... AGAIN. If you want to exercise free speech, and you can not find a platform that is willing to host your content, then go create your own service.... really it's not that hard. You can go out, buy a server, become an ISP, hire a developer and you are off and running. Your reach will not be as good as broadly used platforms, but the right of free speech does not require others to listen or read what you have to say.
You are changing the subject. If the problem is that large businesses have formed monopolies I agree.. and the answer is to break them up.Not sure where to start with this. In the interest of keeping it short, your logic simply doesn't work. Yes, you can choose not to do business with them. However, FB, Google, Twitter, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, they literally have technology market cornered.
Again... you are changing the subject. The problem is does government have the right to COMPEL speech. Not compete in a market of ideas. People have the right to free speech, they do not have the right to be profitable in their speech and they certainly do not have the right to require people listen or read them.Yes, I suppose if you had some capital, you could start some competitor but that is extremely unlikely to rise to any sort of level that would be real competition for them, to give say for instance, conservatives or libertarians, another choice besides their platforms. Not only do they have a war chest that would simply outlast you, no matter how poor their business model or product is and no matter how much better your product is than theirs.
This is a completely different subject... This isn't about free speech, it's about companies securing a monopoly. Microsoft should be broken up, as should Amazon, Google.... and a number of organizations, especially National Banks.Do you honestly think, and I've ready many an article on the shady business practices of Microsoft just for one, that these companies would ever let you get to the point where you could compete with them? Microsoft has literally gotten into a genre of business to simply put out of business another rising company that they thought might be competition for them down the road. How would you ever undo the stranglehold that they have on the market at this point? Our country's fortunes literally rise and fall with their success at this point.
They control markets because many of our politicians are bought and paid for. We could and should break them up.At this point, the horse is out of the barn and they now control the market, for better or for worse. And they lean largely liberal, fascist, communist mindset. Compare what they do and what they want to do, you see a perfect implementation of this in China's social credit score. Do you really want that here? I hope your answer is no. But that's what they want to do.
Okay... now we are back to it social media providers are content producers or not. They are not, and they have never claimed to be. They are publishers and since the do not make money directly with published content, then they can not be held liable for what shows up on their platform... We could change the law making them liable, but that would only mean more content would be screened out because then they would be fiscally responsible for what appears on their platform.These companies want it both ways. They want you to publish your content and they want to control what you say/do on their platform.
Yes, but to be more correct they reserve the right to take control and ownership over your content unless you post that you have copyrights to what you put out. If you do not copyright your content, anyone can take it... all FB says is that none of their users can take ownership of content without their approval. If you post a song on FB and it isn't protected, and another user takes it and starts making money from it, Facebook can sue them because not only do you have to agree that un-copyrighted material you post belongs to them, but if you are a viewer then you also yield ownership rights to FB.They literally have items in their terms of service that give them control over your content once you publish it.
You have the right to free speech. Companies have the right to deny you service provided you are not violating any other laws. For example, a restaurant can enforce a dress code: they can not deny service to minorities. If Congress changes the laws so that it is illegal to deny terms of service based on anything... well fine... let's debate this and see if it has broad support. The US Constitution gives you the right to free speech... the Constitution does not guarantee the right to wide distribution of speech.However, if you are a company, business, organization and you want to reach people on a wide scale, it's going to be pretty much impossible without using their platform at this point.
The US Constitution does not guarantee that you will be successful in business only that you are free to pursue happiness. When you are in business there are always environmental changes that you have no control over that will 'ruin' you. If, for example, you have a car wash place... then the city closes your street for three months for road repairs, you are screwed. I've seen things like this happen all the time... it is the nature of business.And to your point, I suppose they can change their terms of service at a moment's notice but with the reach and power of their platform, that is simply not manageable by most people or businesses, that can literally ruin them at a moment's notice.
It might be wrong, but it is their right to do this. If their advertisers are telling them that they do not want their products marketed side by side with content that their customers do not approve of... well.... then it is a business decision. Companies have the right to protect their brand... if in the process of protecting 'their brand' they end up losing content and viewers... well then they will suffer the consequences of their actions.Youtube invited content publishers in to create content to make them great. They didn't say "Oh, we only want liberal opinions on our platform", "We only want cute puppy and kitten videos on our platform", they invited everyone. Now that they have all the control and money, now they get choosey, that's wrong.
This is a different topic and really this is an old debate that actually goes back to the Gutenberg Bible in the 15th century where people were worried that the printing press would have an undo influence on the masses, where a publisher of a printing press who be able to exercise undo influence on the masses. Then radio... then TV... now the internet. But people always find a way to get their points across. When conservatives felt their voices were not heard on TV... they went to AM Radio, eventually an entire TV cable station was dedicated only to conservative content (FOX)... if there is a demand for content, people will find a way to get it... unless the government mucks things up and tries to control the market of ideas.These companies want net neutrality, in the guise of fairness and a level playing field for everyone, but what they really want is the control. Make no mistake about it, they're grabbing for even more power and it would appear by your post, that you at least tacitly support them doing so.
You are mixing Constitutional protections with with ideas that are not an enumerated right. It is illegal to discriminate on race, religion, and the courts have ruled discrimination against sexual orientation, in certain instances can also be illegal. Now if the government steps in and compels equal access for political and social opinions, well okay... change the law. But if we do that you would be opening up a whole can of worms that I'm not sure many people would like. Anytime the government steps in and tries to control anything it gets fvcked up. Let the free market work.I'll finish this up with, if you want to start letting people and companies discriminate on the basis of political opinions, race, religion, orientation, there's not many people, besides your standard SJW, that will be allowed on any of these platforms and the web in general.
SJWs and political correctness have been around for centuries. This is not a new phenomenon. People will always use media in an attempt to shape a narrative or promote a political position... and every time there is a new 'technology' be it the printing press... radio... TV.... now the internet, people have always been fearful of the results. New media ALWAYS brings about change... it is the natural order of things. The only time this is a problem is when government attempts to control this, dictating content. If we allow Government to order private companies and individuals what the MUST allow... then where does it end?A site like this, don't worry, they'll eventually get to you and your opinions on here, most of which would fall short of the SJW ideal mindset and then I guess, you're gone. But I suppose if you want to start letting people discriminate, you can do that but you can't say, SJWs, you can discriminate against western culture, whites, males, christianity, but everyone else, that usually means white males, you can't be discriminating at all. When you start applying these cultural norms, values and other aspects of morals and ethics, it usually leads to ugly outcomes for society in general. See the bolshevik revolution, mao's takeover of china, stalin's purge of anyone who looked at him the wrong way.
Setting up an ISP is really not that hard. I have 5 servers right now that I own, I could plug any one of them, set up access portals with routers, and the only limits I would have is bandwidth. Would it be simple... no problem really. I did this all the time in the mid-90s for companies. It was harder then but today with scalability any undergrad in computer engineering could do this for you with a $300 used server in a half a day.Becoming an Internet Service Provider is not realistic.
Terms of Service? They are being violated. These companies that write these ToS enforce ambiguous parts when they disagree with the viewpoint and do not enforce the clearly defined parts. I understand they have a "right." What I say is this is not good. Not good at all. It is a problem. There are systematic efforts by these large monopoly corporations to silence people of certain viewpoints. I can't make my my own Facebook, bank, search engine, youtube, isp and God knows what else.
The government is already involved.But then you have the government involved in regulating content... history has shown this seldom ends well. Getting the government to enforce 'freedom' is an oxymoron because government is the antithesis of freedom.
Did you know a woman can be totally UN-ATTRACTED to you...
And she'll still sleep with you?
If you've ever seen a girl go home with some asshole she didn't even LIKE, you know this is true.
But how is this possible?
Because deep inside her brain, sexual desire has nothing to do with what you LOOK like...
And everything to do with how you make her FEEL.
Matt Cook knows this all too well.
Matt is a nice guy... but he steals women from JERKS all the time.
In this free video training below, he'll show you how he does it:
There is a difference between dictating what can't be said and what MUST be said. When the government starts telling you what you MUST say... that's a problem. Besides the German High court just ruled that broadcasters are required to air ad campaigns by Nazis so this decision banning content of Facebook will likewise be over-turned. http://news.trust.org/item/20190516093755-c5bvu
I would normally agree, however when Companies choose to provide services to only a specific ideology they no longer become Companies but instead are Super PACs and need to be treated VERY differently.You have a right to free speech, you do not have the right to be on a platform and be published. Host your own website and you can do whatever you want. You can put up a sign on your own property: you do not have the right to put a sign on my property.... it's just that simple.
Don’t worry.Guaranteed, this will not end well. I'm telling you, when people feel like they can no longer either safely or at all express themselves, it's going to get ugly.
The Governnment already treats Corporations different than Super PACs.Who shall treat these companies differently, how shall they treat them differently, and why. The context was your statement.
I guess I don't get what people on this thread are clamoring for exactly. Regulation of private business to compel them to do business with anyone? Regulation of speech as with pre-Citizens United campaign finance laws?The Governnment already treats Corporations different than Super PACs.
These are for profit Corporations acting as Super PACs because effectively they are "donating" services based on political ideology.
Regulate them for what they are actually doing.I guess I don't get what people on this thread are clamoring for exactly. Regulation of private business to compel them to do business with anyone? Regulation of speech as with pre-Citizens United campaign finance laws?
Yeah but what regulations?Regulate them for what they are actually doing.
They are Super PACs masquerading as corporations.
Which means they are skirting the super PAC regulations.