Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-09-2018, 08:07 AM
Barack Obama Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 274
Giant social media platforms should not have the right to ban people they don't like.

With the trend of giant social media platforms banning Alex Jones, the issue of freedom of speech on the internet specifically on social media platforms has became a growing issue. So first of all, the private sector which includes these platforms have the right to run their business and website however they want. However, these are giant platforms of which many people literally make their living off of. Therefor they should be held to a higher standard as their decisions affect a lot more people. If a platform like facebook, twitter, or youtube decides to ban someone because of the things they say, that is a violation of their rights. They are literally infringing upon people's liberty to tweet, make a video, or post something on facebook. Due to the size of these platforms, they are more than just some guy's privately owned business/website. They have become something of a public thing that should operate within some rules public things would operate in. If some private company created a hive mind that allowed humans to transfer their consciousness into a computer and hear whatever thoughts other people are thinking would we allow that private company to dictate what people can and can't think of? If something becomes so big that it's now essentially apart of a person's means to speak or communicate, then shouldn't it be regulated by a force that isn't based on the whims of a single person or a select few with little to no principles or regulations?

With alex jones banned on various platforms we have jumped down a rabbit hole. It is an inevitability that if we allow giant private companies like Facebook or Twitter to ban their users on a whim then eventually suppression of things you may agree with will occur. Say you're a far leftist, what if Twitter/FB decides they don't want anyone on their platforms even mentioning or alluding to abortion. Abortion and any information or conversations about abortion and pro-choice specifically are suppressed and eliminated. You can no longer talk about or be pro-abortion on FB, is that fine? When something like social media becomes as big as it has, the market can't fix things it's self. People can't just go to the next FB/myspace which doesn't suppress it's user's freedom of speech. Not enough people will switch, it is simply too big and the alternatives aren't competitive enough. With this being considered, the government should step in and say hey if you're a giant platform people make a living off of and interact with their friends/family/strangers literally majority of their lives on, then you can't ban people because their rights their constitutional rights are applied and you must abide by them. To what degree should this be regulated? Well in my opinion to the fullest degree. In America we have limited freedom, limited freedom of speech. However the internet I believe we shouldn't even have that gray area for. It should be black and white, you should have absolute freedom to use racial slander, promote and spread malicious ignorance / blatantly false information, and whatever other crap people could argue shouldn't be allowed. The problem isn't the speech it's self, the problem isn't alex jones or whoever else saying parents were paid to fake mourn the deaths of their children in a shooting. The underlining problem is education and the general population's ability to decipher what is true, credible, and rational. Instead of even focusing on how the government would go about regulating to what extent giant platforms like FB/twitter need to allow freedom of speech under their private set of rules, we should be more focused on being realistic and the principles we want to uphold. People should have absolute freedom, and this is one area where we can make that a reality and if we don't it will have serious ramifications for generations. Private citizens can block ignore whatever content they wish, but more importantly they can determine for themselves how real something is. IF they cannot, it is up to their peers to educate and convince them, or even more importantly it's up to their educational background to prepare and train them for this sort of social interaction/learning/researching. People can take care of themselves, but the government should step in when bigger people and telling smaller people what they can and cannot say/do. Especially when those bigger people control pretty much every aspect of the smaller people's lives. If a giant platform like FB/youtube needs to address / suppress someone's speech or ideas then they should have to go through the government not just their CEOs or share holders. As technology and these platforms grow larger, people's lives will become more ingrained into them. We need to recognize giant companies or platforms have to be held to a higher standard or else people will ultimately be oppressed not by their government but by their own private sector.
  #2  
Old 10-09-2018, 08:12 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 30,924
This is a business decision, for the most part. These platforms would rather ban extremists than lose many regular users who don't want to be bombarded with extremist crap on these platforms.

Banning Alex Jones and his ilk might lost FB some users, but keeping him probably loses them many more. Same goes for white supremacists and other extremists.

IANAL, but I don't think there's any constitutional way to prevent FB or other platforms from setting and enforcing rules on what content they allow.
  #3  
Old 10-09-2018, 08:21 AM
Barack Obama Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
This is a business decision, for the most part. These platforms would rather ban extremists than lose many regular users who don't want to be bombarded with extremist crap on these platforms.

Banning Alex Jones and his ilk might lost FB some users, but keeping him probably loses them many more. Same goes for white supremacists and other extremists.

IANAL, but I don't think there's any constitutional way to prevent FB or other platforms from setting and enforcing rules on what content they allow.
People watched Alex Jones because they found it funny/entertaining, a smaller portion of them actually found it a credible source of information. Due to the sheer size of these platforms, losing so many people it'd actually affect them due to a single guy or group of people isn't going to happen. There are far more people who have no idea who alex jones is using your platform than there are who know who he is and are actively upset by what he says. Like i said, the users are responsible for themselves. If someone is hearing alex jones and believes it then it's their peers responsibility to educate and convince them. This is a problem that shouldn't be solved by the big corporate heads. It should be solved at the base level, education.

And maybe not but certain constitutional rights should apply to various degrees. Such as a person's freedom to say whatever batshit crazy shit they can think of despite how many people they trigger. If there was competition so that a single person was actually able to run off enough people to significantly hurt Twitter/FB, then there would be no reason to even establish a higher ruler on this issue. The core issues are 1) The platforms are too large, and 2) people are uneducated/misinformed. If FB/Twitter could actually lose significant business due to a bunch of nazi profiles that nobody will see, then they wouldn't be big enough or have enough control over society to even warrant the government stepping in to begin with. What I'm saying here is they are too big, and they have too much control, and the ramifications for allowing them to do as they please outweighs the potential issues we will have with the government stepping into their affairs.
  #4  
Old 10-09-2018, 08:31 AM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 4,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
What I'm saying here is they are too big, and they have too much control, and the ramifications for allowing them to do as they please outweighs the potential issues we will have with the government stepping into their affairs.
So, just so I am getting this straight, are you suggesting the government dictates what a private business publishes or doesn't publish?
__________________
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
- C. Darwin

Last edited by Icarus; 10-09-2018 at 08:31 AM.
  #5  
Old 10-09-2018, 08:40 AM
Barack Obama Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
So, just so I am getting this straight, are you suggesting the government dictates what a private business publishes or doesn't publish?
Yes, if a private business is a means of communicating / information that is so large that other businesses and markets rely heavily and sometimes entirely on it, then yes the government should stop them from infringing on people's rights to do things.

Big difference from the government telling or convincing a media company to run pro-government stories. If the airforce didn't control GPS and instead it was a private company, do you think we should let that private company dictate all the markets that rely on it? Should a private company have the power to literally destroy billion dollar markets because the whims of a few people? These social media platforms are almost on par with the significance GPS has for many businesses. Millions of people rely on it, and theres billions on the line if something happens.

Edit: I know I wouldn't make much of a lawyer, but hopefully my point is clear and construct.

Last edited by Barack Obama; 10-09-2018 at 08:43 AM.
  #6  
Old 10-09-2018, 08:45 AM
road_lobo road_lobo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Behind you
Posts: 18
Americans have a right to free speech, not a right to speech free of consequences.
  #7  
Old 10-09-2018, 08:52 AM
Barack Obama Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by road_lobo View Post
Americans have a right to free speech, not a right to speech free of consequences.
That doesn't warrant or justify this case. Threatening or defaming someone is different than propagating malicious false narratives. I can say Bill Clinton raped a women all I want so long as I'm not harming his income or personally harassing him. At least to my knowledge. In which case someone is believed to be warranting a ban from a platform like twitter, the company should have to go through a higher court to justify and execute this action.

Edit: If I tell people we need to go to point A and do whatever, let's say blow up a hospital. Then I should be reported, I should be held accountable to some degree. However it shouldn't be a private company deciding whether or not what I said should get me banned. I believe it should instead go to a court where they will decide the significance of such a thing (in the case the company decided it's significant) and whether or not to hold me accountable for what I said. And again, the bigger something is the higher of a standard it should be held to. If the sitting US President tweets people should start murdering journalists, then he should probably be held more accountable than some troll with 1 follower saying the exact same thing. It's a matter of priority, resource management, and scale.

Last edited by Barack Obama; 10-09-2018 at 08:57 AM.
  #8  
Old 10-09-2018, 09:02 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,643
And if that court rules that all anti-Republican posts should be removed from those social media sites, you'd be cool with that?
  #9  
Old 10-09-2018, 09:04 AM
Barack Obama Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
And if that court rules that all anti-Republican posts should be removed from those social media sites, you'd be cool with that?
Then that's a problem with the electorate, and democracy has failed.
  #10  
Old 10-09-2018, 09:09 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,643
Personally, I would think Democracy has failed if a government official was telling private companies what they can/can't have on their sites.
  #11  
Old 10-09-2018, 09:12 AM
Barack Obama Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Personally, I would think Democracy has failed if a government official was telling private companies what they can/can't have on their sites.
Like they do my property? Yeah, probably has. I'm advocating for education and reason, because democracy doesn't seem to work too well when you have ignorance and greed as a driving force behind expansion. Just my personal opinion though.

Last edited by Barack Obama; 10-09-2018 at 09:13 AM.
  #12  
Old 10-09-2018, 09:19 AM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is offline
Friend of Cecil
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
If a platform like facebook, twitter, or youtube decides to ban someone because of the things they say, that is a violation of their rights.
Which rights? Certainly not guaranteed by the First Amendment, which only restrains government from limiting freedom of speech. You have no right to express yourself on a platform just because it is big. Success does not change the right of a publisher to control the content of their platform. I wish I could force Fox News to carry more left wing viewpoints, but I have no such right. And neither do crackpots like Alex Jones.
  #13  
Old 10-09-2018, 09:25 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Like they do my property? Yeah, probably has. I'm advocating for education and reason, because democracy doesn't seem to work too well when you have ignorance and greed as a driving force behind expansion. Just my personal opinion though.
The government is telling you what free speech rights you have on your property? In which way are they doing this? Are they making you place pro-Trump signs in your yard, or what?
  #14  
Old 10-09-2018, 09:28 AM
Barack Obama Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Which rights? Certainly not guaranteed by the First Amendment, which only restrains government from limiting freedom of speech. You have no right to express yourself on a platform just because it is big. Success does not change the right of a publisher to control the content of their platform. I wish I could force Fox News to carry more left wing viewpoints, but I have no such right. And neither do crackpots like Alex Jones.
I do have the right, I have the basic universal right to do whatever I'm capable of to begin with. And I most certainly have the right to prevent a group of people from monopolizing a resource or utility that I require for my livelihood (thanks to democracy and sometimes guns)

Imagine a world where we all just shit piss eat and sleep in our homes, meanwhile we log onto a virtual reality platform where majority of people spend their time. Should the private company in charge of such a thing be the ones to dictate it? Or should the government step in and say you have to give us freedom? Let's assume in a more extreme circumstance a private company has control over most people's entire reality. Should they have the right to torture and do whatever fucked up shit they can think of? Or does the government step in and say we have a right to this virtual world to live how we see fit?

If a human becomes god, should that human have absolute power or should they distribute their power? Do you believe in the greater will of the people, or the handful of individuals? Does the well being of everyone matter more or less than the well being of a handful? Should the people in power grow stronger or should the people beneath them? To what degree exactly does a private company have to become large enough for it to warrant government intervention? I'd say once it starts affecting the everyday lives of average people.
  #15  
Old 10-09-2018, 09:35 AM
BeepKillBeep BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Private citizens can block ignore whatever content they wish, but more importantly they can determine for themselves how real something is. IF they cannot, it is up to their peers to educate and convince them, or even more importantly it's up to their educational background to prepare and train them for this sort of social interaction/learning/researching.
I agree that there's need to be a bigger focus on teaching children critical thinking skills.

However, the main thing I've learnt from the rise of social media is that people are stupid, and content to be stupid (cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias appear to be the norm, rather than the exception I had always assumed them to be). So, no people cannot determine what's real and what isn't. Additionally, their peers cannot simply educate the misinformed as to what's real and what isn't (studies have shown that quite often presenting facts to somebody in opposition to what they already believe reinforces the flawed belief system). It is funny, I used to think the downfall of humanity would be caused by nuclear weapons, or superbugs; however, now I know the truth. Our downfall is going to be caused by weaponized misinformation. So, I really don't have a problem with keeping Alex Jones types off of big information platforms for the greater good.

Last edited by BeepKillBeep; 10-09-2018 at 09:36 AM.
  #16  
Old 10-09-2018, 09:36 AM
Barack Obama Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
The government is telling you what free speech rights you have on your property? In which way are they doing this? Are they making you place pro-Trump signs in your yard, or what?
The government tells me what I can and can't have onsite. Apparently I can't build a meth lab in my front yard.
  #17  
Old 10-09-2018, 09:45 AM
Human Action Human Action is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 7,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
I do have the right, I have the basic universal right to do whatever I'm capable of to begin with. And I most certainly have the right to prevent a group of people from monopolizing a resource or utility that I require for my livelihood (thanks to democracy and sometimes guns)
Wait, what's being monopolized here? The internet?
  #18  
Old 10-09-2018, 09:52 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
The government tells me what I can and can't have onsite. Apparently I can't build a meth lab in my front yard.
What does a meth lab have to do with free speech?
  #19  
Old 10-09-2018, 09:53 AM
PastTense PastTense is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,837
All Alex Jones has to do is create his own website and anyone with a browser can easily access it--if he doesn't want to use the massive number of alternatives to Facebook/Twitter...
  #20  
Old 10-09-2018, 09:55 AM
Barack Obama Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep View Post
I agree that there's need to be a bigger focus on teaching children critical thinking skills.

However, the main thing I've learnt from the rise of social media is that people are stupid, and content to be stupid (cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias appear to be the norm, rather than the exception I had always assumed them to be). So, no people cannot determine what's real and what isn't. Additionally, their peers cannot simply educate the misinformed as to what's real and what isn't (studies have shown that quite often presenting facts to somebody in opposition to what they already believe reinforces the flawed belief system). It is funny, I used to think the downfall of humanity would be caused by nuclear weapons, or superbugs; however, now I know the truth. Our downfall is going to be caused by weaponized misinformation. So, I really don't have a problem with keeping Alex Jones types off of big information platforms for the greater good.
I think you're wrong. People are only as stupid as their environment allows them to be. So there is was a man named Terry Davis, he wrote his own programming language (modified C / Holy C) which he programmed his own operating system with. The guy learned to write asm on vas systems for ticketmaster in the 1970s or something, has a psychotic episode, has schizophrenia, and a number of other illnesses. He believes god told him to write a 640x480 16bit color display operating system with it's own compiler, kernel, 2D/3D graphic library, and numerous other things. He also had delusions of aliens, and thought the CIA was fucking with him. Despite this, he was intelligent enough to build an incredible piece of software. What was the issue here? Well for one society was not robust enough to handle this kind of person. But more importantly his early education was lackluster. He had a religious upbringing, and as a result of his episode he fell back into beliefs of the supernatural. Now I'm not trying to insult religion but rather make a point here, this guy like many people on the internet was incapable of being reasoned with on things we generally understand as being fabricated or false. Yet, he had such great capabilities due to his intellect, and even despite this odd mental issue he was somewhat rational, understood he'd go to jail if he runs over people he believes to be CIA, and stuff like that. He could have been reasoned with, or more importantly he could have been educated and raised in such a way that his sort of disbelief and irrational behaviors / ideas could have been far more constructive. All these flat earth alien lizard people are actual people and they aren't always complete retards. They can be reasoned with, but more importantly the things they're hell bent on believing or emotionally investing themselves in can be prevented and channeled in a much more constructive way, had they received a proper education early on and for society to be robust enough to allow what intelligence they do have to flourish.

This is preventable, and it is fixable. Life is always evolving and humans are no different. In every retard there is genius, it's just a matter of extracting it and how you go about handling their stupid side.
  #21  
Old 10-09-2018, 09:58 AM
Barack Obama Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Action View Post
Wait, what's being monopolized here? The internet?
Social media. There may be millions of facebooks, but there is only one with billions of users. More specifically people's means to communicate with friends and family, as it's becoming increasingly more online and through facebook. And undoubtedly will continue to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PastTense View Post
All Alex Jones has to do is create his own website and anyone with a browser can easily access it--if he doesn't want to use the massive number of alternatives to Facebook/Twitter...
See above. Lack of competition, market wont fix it's self. Too big.

Last edited by Barack Obama; 10-09-2018 at 10:02 AM.
  #22  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:00 AM
Barack Obama Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
What does a meth lab have to do with free speech?
The government tells you what to do. Therefor democracy has failed according to you. The government tells me I can't put a meth lab in my front yard, just like they tell people they can't post pedo pictures on their website, just like they should tell facebook/Twitter they can't ban people on a whim (due to their size). Were you following our conversation at all?
  #23  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:03 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Again, Titletown
Posts: 21,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
I do have the right, I have the basic universal right to do whatever I'm capable of to begin with. And I most certainly have the right to prevent a group of people from monopolizing a resource or utility that I require for my livelihood (thanks to democracy and sometimes guns)
Where are these rights written down? What right do you have to prevent someone from buying all the available real estate preventing you from setting up a shop in a popular location? IMO, your definition of rights doesn't match the common usage nor the law.
  #24  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:05 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
The government tells you what to do. Therefor democracy has failed according to you. The government tells me I can't put a meth lab in my front yard, just like they tell people they can't post pedo pictures on their website, just like they should tell facebook/Twitter they can't ban people on a whim (due to their size). Were you following our conversation at all?
You might have a point if I ever said that the government shouldn't be able to tell us what to. But instead, I said this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Personally, I would think Democracy has failed if a government official was telling private companies what they can/can't have on their sites.
  #25  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:06 AM
simster simster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
With the trend of giant social media platforms banning Alex Jones, the issue of freedom of speech on the internet specifically on social media platforms has became a growing issue. So first of all, the private sector which includes these platforms have the right to run their business and website however they want. However, these are giant platforms of which many people literally make their living off of. Therefor they should be held to a higher standard as their decisions affect a lot more people. If a platform like facebook, twitter, or youtube decides to ban someone because of the things they say, that is a violation of their rights. They are literally infringing upon people's liberty to tweet, make a video, or post something on facebook. Due to the size of these platforms, they are more than just some guy's privately owned business/website. They have become something of a public thing that should operate within some rules public things would operate in. If some private company created a hive mind that allowed humans to transfer their consciousness into a computer and hear whatever thoughts other people are thinking would we allow that private company to dictate what people can and can't think of? If something becomes so big that it's now essentially apart of a person's means to speak or communicate, then shouldn't it be regulated by a force that isn't based on the whims of a single person or a select few with little to no principles or regulations?

With alex jones banned on various platforms we have jumped down a rabbit hole. It is an inevitability that if we allow giant private companies like Facebook or Twitter to ban their users on a whim then eventually suppression of things you may agree with will occur. Say you're a far leftist, what if Twitter/FB decides they don't want anyone on their platforms even mentioning or alluding to abortion. Abortion and any information or conversations about abortion and pro-choice specifically are suppressed and eliminated. You can no longer talk about or be pro-abortion on FB, is that fine? When something like social media becomes as big as it has, the market can't fix things it's self. People can't just go to the next FB/myspace which doesn't suppress it's user's freedom of speech. Not enough people will switch, it is simply too big and the alternatives aren't competitive enough. With this being considered, the government should step in and say hey if you're a giant platform people make a living off of and interact with their friends/family/strangers literally majority of their lives on, then you can't ban people because their rights their constitutional rights are applied and you must abide by them. To what degree should this be regulated? Well in my opinion to the fullest degree. In America we have limited freedom, limited freedom of speech. However the internet I believe we shouldn't even have that gray area for. It should be black and white, you should have absolute freedom to use racial slander, promote and spread malicious ignorance / blatantly false information, and whatever other crap people could argue shouldn't be allowed. The problem isn't the speech it's self, the problem isn't alex jones or whoever else saying parents were paid to fake mourn the deaths of their children in a shooting. The underlining problem is education and the general population's ability to decipher what is true, credible, and rational. Instead of even focusing on how the government would go about regulating to what extent giant platforms like FB/twitter need to allow freedom of speech under their private set of rules, we should be more focused on being realistic and the principles we want to uphold. People should have absolute freedom, and this is one area where we can make that a reality and if we don't it will have serious ramifications for generations. Private citizens can block ignore whatever content they wish, but more importantly they can determine for themselves how real something is. IF they cannot, it is up to their peers to educate and convince them, or even more importantly it's up to their educational background to prepare and train them for this sort of social interaction/learning/researching. People can take care of themselves, but the government should step in when bigger people and telling smaller people what they can and cannot say/do. Especially when those bigger people control pretty much every aspect of the smaller people's lives. If a giant platform like FB/youtube needs to address / suppress someone's speech or ideas then they should have to go through the government not just their CEOs or share holders. As technology and these platforms grow larger, people's lives will become more ingrained into them. We need to recognize giant companies or platforms have to be held to a higher standard or else people will ultimately be oppressed not by their government but by their own private sector.
you have the "right" to run your own server on the internet and post whatever crap you want on it.

You do not have the "right" to put your crap on other people's websites - regardless of size or visibility of said website.

Ironically, the Net Neutrality rules that the Trump administration revoked were intended to make sure that your 'website of crap' would get just as much play as the other guys.

Last edited by simster; 10-09-2018 at 10:09 AM.
  #26  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:07 AM
BeepKillBeep BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
I think you're wrong. People are only as stupid as their environment allows them to be. So there is was a man named Terry Davis, he wrote his own programming language (modified C / Holy C) which he programmed his own operating system with. The guy learned to write asm on vas systems for ticketmaster in the 1970s or something, has a psychotic episode, has schizophrenia, and a number of other illnesses. He believes god told him to write a 640x480 16bit color display operating system with it's own compiler, kernel, 2D/3D graphic library, and numerous other things. He also had delusions of aliens, and thought the CIA was fucking with him. Despite this, he was intelligent enough to build an incredible piece of software. What was the issue here? Well for one society was not robust enough to handle this kind of person. But more importantly his early education was lackluster. He had a religious upbringing, and as a result of his episode he fell back into beliefs of the supernatural. Now I'm not trying to insult religion but rather make a point here, this guy like many people on the internet was incapable of being reasoned with on things we generally understand as being fabricated or false. Yet, he had such great capabilities due to his intellect, and even despite this odd mental issue he was somewhat rational, understood he'd go to jail if he runs over people he believes to be CIA, and stuff like that. He could have been reasoned with, or more importantly he could have been educated and raised in such a way that his sort of disbelief and irrational behaviors / ideas could have been far more constructive. All these flat earth alien lizard people are actual people and they aren't always complete retards. They can be reasoned with, but more importantly the things they're hell bent on believing or emotionally investing themselves in can be prevented and channeled in a much more constructive way, had they received a proper education early on and for society to be robust enough to allow what intelligence they do have to flourish.

This is preventable, and it is fixable. Life is always evolving and humans are no different. In every retard there is genius, it's just a matter of extracting it and how you go about handling their stupid side.
You're counterargument is ... one guy? For every Terry Davis there are millions of not-Terry Davis (Davises? Davi?)

Last edited by BeepKillBeep; 10-09-2018 at 10:07 AM.
  #27  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:10 AM
Barack Obama Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
Where are these rights written down? What right do you have to prevent someone from buying all the available real estate preventing you from setting up a shop in a popular location? IMO, your definition of rights doesn't match the common usage nor the law.
inalienable rights. I can physically do whatever I'm physically capable of doing in this world. I could shoot the person setting up shop in a popular location for example, that is my inalienable right. You cannot take that away from me nor give me that right. Sure you could physically restrain me and throw me in a cage, but that too is your inalienable right. Maybe that's not legal definition but I'm not talking about an imaginary construct I was talking about what I can literally do.

Laws on a piece of paper do not dictate everything that I can and cannot do. They are imaginary constructs created by humans. You originally asked me which rights do I have to say what I want on social media, that's also an inalienable right. I can say and do whatever I want, but more importantly is that by principle I should have the right to say what I want. Once you build a platform as large as facebook or twitter, your right to have god-like rule over the users of that platform diminishes, and the rights of each individual are amplified.
  #28  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:12 AM
simster simster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
inalienable rights. I can physically do whatever I'm physically capable of doing in this world. I could shoot the person setting up shop in a popular location for example, that is my inalienable right. You cannot take that away from me nor give me that right. Sure you could physically restrain me and throw me in a cage, but that too is your inalienable right. Maybe that's not legal definition but I'm not talking about an imaginary construct I was talking about what I can literally do.

Laws on a piece of paper do not dictate everything that I can and cannot do. They are imaginary constructs created by humans. You originally asked me which rights do I have to say what I want on social media, that's also an inalienable right. I can say and do whatever I want, but more importantly is that by principle I should have the right to say what I want. Once you build a platform as large as facebook or twitter, your right to have god-like rule over the users of that platform diminishes, and the rights of each individual are amplified.
so - your inalienable right is to force someone else to be a platform for your views - even if their inalienable right to say "fuck that" is infringed?
  #29  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:17 AM
Barack Obama Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep View Post
You're counterargument is ... one guy? For every Terry Davis there are millions of not-Terry Davis (Davises? Davi?)
Humans are animals, if I can teach a pig to throw trash in a trash can, I can certainly teach a kid to determine whether or not a conspiracy video is real or not. Just because your/our teaching method are not robust enough does not mean it's hopeless or that people are doomed to forever be too stupid to figure out what's real and whats fake news.
  #30  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:20 AM
Barack Obama Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by simster View Post
so - your inalienable right is to force someone else to be a platform for your views - even if their inalienable right to say "fuck that" is infringed?
No never said they have to be for my views, I'm saying they have to be for freedom of speech. And if that freedom of speech is stretching past it's reasonable boundaries then someone higher up like a court should determine whether they should or shouldn't restrict/suppress that person's speech.

Philosophically people should have the right to say whatever they want, and more importantly giant platforms should be recognized differently than small ones and have different standards as giant platforms consume most peoples everyday lives.
  #31  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:21 AM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 33,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Personally, I would think Democracy has failed if a government official was telling private companies what they can/can't have on their sites.
Yup. The OP, like many, confuses what is actually meant by freedom of speech and exactly what the governments role is. The governments role isn't to ensure that private companies have to provide their customers with free speech. The very thing the OP is advocating would be a violation of free speech wrt the constitution.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #32  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:21 AM
Procrustus Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW.
Posts: 11,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
That doesn't warrant or justify this case. Threatening or defaming someone is different than propagating malicious false narratives. I can say Bill Clinton raped a women all I want so long as I'm not harming his income or personally harassing him. At least to my knowledge. In which case someone is believed to be warranting a ban from a platform like twitter, the company should have to go through a higher court to justify and execute this action.
First of all, I disagree with your premise and your concern about these platforms having too much power. I think the world would be a better place if Twitter and Facebook didn't exist, but I don't think the government has a right to to force them to provide a platform for anyone. IMO, they should ban Trump, but that's their decision.

Specifically, you're wrong about the underlined part. If you knowingly or with actual malice say something false about Bill Clinton, you can be sued. (you probably won't, but that's a different question.) It's liable per se to accuse someone of a sex crime and he doesn't have to establish you've harmed his income or personally harassed him.
  #33  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:30 AM
Barack Obama Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by simster View Post
you have the "right" to run your own server on the internet and post whatever crap you want on it.

You do not have the "right" to put your crap on other people's websites - regardless of size or visibility of said website.

1) Yes.

2) No.


This is where you're not following me, whether it's personal belief or misunderstanding. Once a company like FB or Twitter gets so large to the point they are now (they will continue growing), their right to do what they want with their website diminishes as the individual user's right increases. Why? Well think about post-depression. We allowed the private sector to run amuck, putting children in unsafe work conditions, underpaying workers, having unsanitary work places. What'd we do? Took away some of the freedoms those companies had and increased the freedoms/rights of the workers. Now, companies have to obey certain laws and regulations, they can't force kids to stick their hands into machines anymore. That was their right, their freedom, they could do whatever they wanted with their business, and if the individual people or users or workers didn't like that they could just go somewhere else. Well that was until the government/people had enough of it and made a change.

Now the issue with social media is a bit different. We have majority of people using these platforms to communicate with others, and run their businesses on. It's like my GPS example earlier. If the airforce didn't control GPS and instead some private company did, would we allow them to do whatever they want with something tons of multi-billion dollar markets rely on? No. If the internet and the whole concept of it was invented and controlled by a single private company, would we allow them to amass so much power they control the entire world's first type 1 civilization communications technology? No. IF we did that'd be stupid, no single person or private company should have the power to control so many peoples lives and affectively oppress people or constrict people/businesses on a whim.
  #34  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:34 AM
Barack Obama Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Yup. The OP, like many, confuses what is actually meant by freedom of speech and exactly what the governments role is. The governments role isn't to ensure that private companies have to provide their customers with free speech. The very thing the OP is advocating would be a violation of free speech wrt the constitution.
Crazy idea, but maybe the constitution should be updated somehow. Maybe, idk ensure corporations don't oppress people. Seems to me like there wasn't a lot of emphasis on the fact a matrix could eventually exist where people live in an artificial reality created by a group of people who could literally change peoples lives on a whim.

Sorry but I don't believe a corporation should have the same rights or more rights than you and me. Especially when they're as big as FB/Twitter or Amazon, Walmart...

Last edited by Barack Obama; 10-09-2018 at 10:35 AM.
  #35  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:35 AM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 33,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
1) Yes.

2) No.


This is where you're not following me, whether it's personal belief or misunderstanding. Once a company like FB or Twitter gets so large to the point they are now (they will continue growing), their right to do what they want with their website diminishes as the individual user's right increases. Why? Well think about post-depression. We allowed the private sector to run amuck, putting children in unsafe work conditions, underpaying workers, having unsanitary work places. What'd we do? Took away some of the freedoms those companies had and increased the freedoms/rights of the workers. Now, companies have to obey certain laws and regulations, they can't force kids to stick their hands into machines anymore. That was their right, their freedom, they could do whatever they wanted with their business, and if the individual people or users or workers didn't like that they could just go somewhere else. Well that was until the government/people had enough of it and made a change.

Now the issue with social media is a bit different. We have majority of people using these platforms to communicate with others, and run their businesses on. It's like my GPS example earlier. If the airforce didn't control GPS and instead some private company did, would we allow them to do whatever they want with something tons of multi-billion dollar markets rely on? No. If the internet and the whole concept of it was invented and controlled by a single private company, would we allow them to amass so much power they control the entire world's first type 1 civilization communications technology? No. IF we did that'd be stupid, no single person or private company should have the power to control so many peoples lives and affectively oppress people or constrict people/businesses on a whim.
So...we should honor the constitution until companies get too big, then we should ignore it because it's expedient to do so since they are so big? Should we do similar things if religions get too big? Have a freedom of religion until a religion gets big enough that the government has to step in to control or suppress it...for the good of the people of course. Same with the other protected rights in the constitution? Size is the key?
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #36  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:37 AM
Procrustus Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW.
Posts: 11,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
1) Yes.

2) No.


This is where you're not following me, whether it's personal belief or misunderstanding. Once a company like FB or Twitter gets so large to the point they are now (they will continue growing), their right to do what they want with their website diminishes as the individual user's right increases. Why? Well think about post-depression. We allowed the private sector to run amuck, putting children in unsafe work conditions, underpaying workers, having unsanitary work places. What'd we do? Took away some of the freedoms those companies had and increased the freedoms/rights of the workers. Now, companies have to obey certain laws and regulations, they can't force kids to stick their hands into machines anymore. That was their right, their freedom, they could do whatever they wanted with their business, and if the individual people or users or workers didn't like that they could just go somewhere else. Well that was until the government/people had enough of it and made a change.
Interesting point. I get it. You're timing is off, however. Most of the progressive era reforms were instituted well before the Great Depression.



Quote:
Now the issue with social media is a bit different. We have majority of people using these platforms to communicate with others, and run their businesses on. It's like my GPS example earlier. If the airforce didn't control GPS and instead some private company did, would we allow them to do whatever they want with something tons of multi-billion dollar markets rely on? No. If the internet and the whole concept of it was invented and controlled by a single private company, would we allow them to amass so much power they control the entire world's first type 1 civilization communications technology? No. IF we did that'd be stupid, no single person or private company should have the power to control so many peoples lives and affectively oppress people or constrict people/businesses on a whim.
People can, and do, communicate and do business in many ways other than Facebook and Twitter. If someone could be banned from the entire internet, that would be a problem. Being banned from Facebook, well, that might suck, but life goes on.
  #37  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:37 AM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 33,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Crazy idea, but maybe the constitution should be updated somehow. Maybe, idk ensure corporations don't oppress people. Seems to me like there wasn't a lot of emphasis on the fact a matrix could eventually exist where people live in an artificial reality created by a group of people who could literally change peoples lives on a whim.

Sorry but I don't believe a corporation should have the same rights or more rights than you and me. Especially when they're as big as FB/Twitter or Amazon, Walmart...
It IS a crazy idea...which is probably why you aren't getting a lot of traction in this thread. But corporations don't have more rights, wrt the government or free speech than you or I do. What they have is more ability than we do...they have a bigger network and audience. You could do exactly the same thing...or I could have, had I went to work for Facebook when I was a lot younger or started it myself, had I thought of it.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #38  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:47 AM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
The government tells you what to do. Therefor democracy has failed according to you. The government tells me I can't put a meth lab in my front yard, just like they tell people they can't post pedo pictures on their website, just like they should tell facebook/Twitter they can't ban people on a whim (due to their size). Were you following our conversation at all?
...and the same way they should tell Walmart they have to sell only American-made goods? And the very same way they should tell Walmart that anybody who's poor can take what they want without paying?

The fact that you (personally) have fallen for Facebook's schtick, doesn't mean everyone else is required to do the same. Facebook is not a public utility - it's a private business. If you want your government to buy control of Facebook, you should vote accordingly.
  #39  
Old 10-09-2018, 11:50 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,402
After I finished reading the posts so far, I'm reminded of what George W. Bush said after Trump's inaugural address: "That was some weird shit."

To review:

1. The government should compel private companies to allow others to use their services, on the basis that the government prohibits you from operating a meth lab. (!)

2. Crazy conspiracy theories and racists screeds need to be protected just as much as the fingers of children working in factories, perhaps more so. (!!)

3. We all have the inalienable right to murder. (!!!)

That's some weird shit.
  #40  
Old 10-09-2018, 12:10 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 39,971
If I can perhaps offer a midway opinion, sort of;

i think in theory there is a case to be made that government should correctly regulate, in the public interest, communications media where that company in question is in a monopolistic or oligopolistic position. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, in some areas, by necessity, it does that - with use of the airwaves, for example. It is theoretically possible that a social media platform could assume a monopolistic position. The protection of the citizenry from monopolies is a legitimate state interest, and in the case of media that protection could, perhaps, take the form of regulation that ensures freedom of expression.

Where the OP goes wrong (at first, he goes wrong a lot later on) is simply in assuming Facebook or Twitter have already assumed such a position. They simply have not; no social media platform today even approaches anything resembling a monopoly. If anything, Facebook's future doesn't look fantastic - the new generation simply doesn't use it. The odds are than in ten years it'll be a minor social media player, long since replaced by others. Regulating them would simply be preposterous. But, in theory, a social media platform COULD reach that stage.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #41  
Old 10-09-2018, 12:14 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Again, Titletown
Posts: 21,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
inalienable rights. I can physically do whatever I'm physically capable of doing in this world. I could shoot the person setting up shop in a popular location for example, that is my inalienable right.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

-- Inigo Montoya
  #42  
Old 10-09-2018, 12:45 PM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is offline
Friend of Cecil
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,344
Barack Obama: Do corporations like Facebook have any inalienable rights?
  #43  
Old 10-09-2018, 01:09 PM
simster simster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
If I can perhaps offer a midway opinion, sort of;

i think in theory there is a case to be made that government should correctly regulate, in the public interest, communications media where that company in question is in a monopolistic or oligopolistic position. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, in some areas, by necessity, it does that - with use of the airwaves, for example. It is theoretically possible that a social media platform could assume a monopolistic position. The protection of the citizenry from monopolies is a legitimate state interest, and in the case of media that protection could, perhaps, take the form of regulation that ensures freedom of expression.

Where the OP goes wrong (at first, he goes wrong a lot later on) is simply in assuming Facebook or Twitter have already assumed such a position. They simply have not; no social media platform today even approaches anything resembling a monopoly. If anything, Facebook's future doesn't look fantastic - the new generation simply doesn't use it. The odds are than in ten years it'll be a minor social media player, long since replaced by others. Regulating them would simply be preposterous. But, in theory, a social media platform COULD reach that stage.
Agreed - there is also the concept of "public square" that could come into play here - and that Facebook/Twitter, etc are teh current 'public square'.
  #44  
Old 10-09-2018, 01:52 PM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastTense View Post
All Alex Jones has to do is create his own website {...}
Speaking of that website, from Alex Jones's TOS,
Quote:
You will not post anything libelous, defamatory, harmful, threatening, harassing, abusive, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, racially or ethnically objectionable, or otherwise illegal.

If you violate these rules, your comment(s) and/or user name will be deleted.
AJ reserves the right to do to everyone else exactly what YouTube (et al.) did to him.

CMC fnord!
  #45  
Old 10-09-2018, 05:02 PM
Barack Obama Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
So...we should honor the constitution until companies get too big, then we should ignore it because it's expedient to do so since they are so big? Should we do similar things if religions get too big? Have a freedom of religion until a religion gets big enough that the government has to step in to control or suppress it...for the good of the people of course. Same with the other protected rights in the constitution? Size is the key?
Yep. If a religious cult amasses a following significant enough to bring up a national issue of millions of people killing themselves in some misguided belief god told them to, then yeah something should be done.

Size is the key, If there is a militia that has thousands of guns and is posing a threat to people or the government, then the government should step in and take their guns. Corporations aren't people, they should only be given rights to a certain extent especially when they acquire significant power. Nobody is equal, everybody and everything is different from one another. A giant corporation the size of Amazon/Walmart or FB/Twitter should be held to a different standard than a smaller ones. The US has chosen to allow the private sector to flourish by giving them rights and upholding their liberties. Once parts of the private sector become strong enough to affect the daily lives of each and every person, the source of information they get for news, and where they eat/sleep, and how they communicate with family, how they run their businesses, then the government should step in and regulate them so they don't potentially hurt billions of dollars worth of businesses using their platform, or oppress people's socialization on their platforms.

Every law is liable to change and improvement. No law should be set in stone, homicide can be justified just like taking away certain guns can be justified. Certainly, lifting certain liberties giant companies have can be justified.
  #46  
Old 10-09-2018, 05:09 PM
Barack Obama Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
If someone could be banned from the entire internet, that would be a problem. Being banned from Facebook, well, that might suck, but life goes on.
This is where I disagree. Facebook is more than just a regular privately owned website. It's one that billions of dollars for multiple different markets rely on. The assets of fb are not worth the amount of money markets rely on fb for. Again to get to my GPS argument. Billions if not trillions of dollars rely on GPS. We spend maybe a couple million to throw a hunk of metal into space so we have GPS. That hunk of metal may only cost a few million but the markets utilizing and relying on GPS are worth billions. The good thing about GPS is the US government owns it, the airforce specifically is in charge of it. Now the same thing applies if a private company owned GPS. Should the Gov allow them to have the power to rip apart billion dollar markets on a whim? I don't believe so, I believe the gov should step in kick down their door tell them to get on the floor and throw them in the back of a black van where they're then told they have to ensure certain liberties or rights of the users of their product. If the government can protect me from it's self, then it can protect me from myself/private sector.
  #47  
Old 10-09-2018, 05:12 PM
Barack Obama Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
...and the same way they should tell Walmart they have to sell only American-made goods? And the very same way they should tell Walmart that anybody who's poor can take what they want without paying?

The fact that you (personally) have fallen for Facebook's schtick, doesn't mean everyone else is required to do the same. Facebook is not a public utility - it's a private business. If you want your government to buy control of Facebook, you should vote accordingly.
Then how large does something have to be until it's seen and regulated as a public utility? If we all literally lived inside the Matrix, should a private company dictate what we experience? Or should the gov step in and say hey, you can't torture people in this virtual world, you can't rape people in this virtual world. You can't delete this virtual world, because so many people rely on it and it's pretty much their lives.
  #48  
Old 10-09-2018, 05:19 PM
Barack Obama Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
If I can perhaps offer a midway opinion, sort of;

i think in theory there is a case to be made that government should correctly regulate, in the public interest, communications media where that company in question is in a monopolistic or oligopolistic position. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, in some areas, by necessity, it does that - with use of the airwaves, for example. It is theoretically possible that a social media platform could assume a monopolistic position. The protection of the citizenry from monopolies is a legitimate state interest, and in the case of media that protection could, perhaps, take the form of regulation that ensures freedom of expression.

Where the OP goes wrong (at first, he goes wrong a lot later on) is simply in assuming Facebook or Twitter have already assumed such a position. They simply have not; no social media platform today even approaches anything resembling a monopoly. If anything, Facebook's future doesn't look fantastic - the new generation simply doesn't use it. The odds are than in ten years it'll be a minor social media player, long since replaced by others. Regulating them would simply be preposterous. But, in theory, a social media platform COULD reach that stage.
Well that's the only argument to be made, that they have not become large enough to fill such positions. My argument is we've open pandoras box and it's an inevitability now. So we should do something now, start the process of ensuring people's liberties are upheld on social media, before it becomes a norm of letting them do what they want and just hoping they don't start suppressing views you agree with. Because once FB/Twitter starts banning all talk about how bad Russia is, then I'm pretty sure more Americans are going to get on board with the idea these private companies shouldn't have the power of gods once their products become so big they're used in every aspect of peoples daily lives.
  #49  
Old 10-09-2018, 05:23 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 11,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Then how large does something have to be until it's seen and regulated as a public utility? If we all literally lived inside the Matrix, should a private company dictate what we experience? Or should the gov step in and say hey, you can't torture people in this virtual world, you can't rape people in this virtual world. You can't delete this virtual world, because so many people rely on it and it's pretty much their lives.
Refresh my memory - are you arguing that people on facebook should be prevented from inciting people to torture and rape people, or the opposite?


Also, you're saying that the government should be able to tell Facebook they can't shut off the power and go home? That they're required by law to continue paying for servers and electricity to power them, and people to maintain them?

That's what we call municipalization - a government takeover of a privately owned company. And if the government was to actually do that, well, good luck with that. Facebook would move its offices offshore and shut off every government worker's facebook account out of spite.

Absent doing that, though, I don't see where the government gets off telling people what they can and can't do with their own privately owned servers.
  #50  
Old 10-09-2018, 05:24 PM
Procrustus Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW.
Posts: 11,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
This is where I disagree. Facebook is more than just a regular privately owned website. It's one that billions of dollars for multiple different markets rely on. The assets of fb are not worth the amount of money markets rely on fb for. Again to get to my GPS argument. Billions if not trillions of dollars rely on GPS. We spend maybe a couple million to throw a hunk of metal into space so we have GPS. That hunk of metal may only cost a few million but the markets utilizing and relying on GPS are worth billions. The good thing about GPS is the US government owns it, the airforce specifically is in charge of it. Now the same thing applies if a private company owned GPS. Should the Gov allow them to have the power to rip apart billion dollar markets on a whim? I don't believe so, I believe the gov should step in kick down their door tell them to get on the floor and throw them in the back of a black van where they're then told they have to ensure certain liberties or rights of the users of their product. If the government can protect me from it's self, then it can protect me from myself/private sector.
Not being a facebook user, I guess I disagree. No one is forced to use it as a business platform, and many do quite well ignoring it. If a buisness "relies" on facebook, it better make sure it complies with the wishes of the good people at facebook. In the old days people used the Yellow Pages. If the Yellow Pages didn't want to take your ad, tough luck and find another way. Look at it this way, facebook could close it's doors tomorrow if it felt like it (Atlas Shrugged). Then what? A bunch of people would have to make different plans. Such is life.

Regarding GPS, yes, the government should have the power to turn off access to its satellites if it wants to. Good for us, it doesn't want to.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:42 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017