No, they removed him because he was spouting hateful and inciting language.
That’s exactly why they removed him.
Yes, by users and customers of the service. He may have been popular, but that doesn’t mean much if your sponsors leave you.
You’ll have to be more precise as to what it is that you think that I am agreeing with you on, but chances are, since you started your “question” with “So”, I would say that it is unlikely that whatever interpretation you have come to is correct.
If you think that I am saying that the government should require a private company to provide a platform, you are very mistaken.
No one is owed a platform either.
The difference is, is that the government can punish you for your speech, if it were not for the 1st amendment. All a social media company can do is no longer give you a platform for it.
Do you see the difference at all? In the first case, someone from the government comes and arrests you, or at the very least threatens you, while you are on your soapbox. In the second, someone is just not letting you use theirs.
Completely different in pretty much any way that is rational.
That may be the case, in which case you need to convince enough of your fellow US citizens to update the first amendment to prohibit speech that you feel is harmful.
I wouldn’t be dead set against it, but it would take a pretty compelling argument for me to come over to that side. And adjustments would need to be pretty subtle to avoid some pretty severe unintended consequences.
I disagree, as it is more the audience who is at fault for listening than the speaker for speaking. Better education and becoming “inoculated” to memes and other social media influences, as well as public pressure on social media companies to better police their TOS is probably a much better outcome.
I do fear giving the govt any more control over our speech than absolutely necessary, as one day, I may want to say something the govt doesn’t want me to say.
I don’t think that anyone owes me a platform to express myself, but I am concerned about actually not being allowed to.
Only in the sense that, if someone sends me a chain letter, me not passing it on to 6 of my friends is a limitation on their free expression. (Does anyone remember chain letters, are they still a thing?)
Sure, it does “limit” your free expression, but I don’t think that it restricts your freedom of expression. That’s a nuanced difference, but I think it is very important for this topic.
I see having access to social media platforms to be a privilege, not a right.
Exactly, and how wide would that be? Would the SDMB now be beholden to whatever laws are passed here? Would the mods and the community no longer be able to set and enforce their own standards?
I am sure that they do?
Why? Seriously, why?
Or you can end the “monopoly” by creating a variety of platforms yourself. Hey, look at this, we are on an alternative platform right now! Problem solved, we can go back to bed.
Oooh, and I can go on whatever alt-right site I want, and if they kick me off, then I can have them arrested for violating my constitutional rights!
And this is a great argument for net neutrality. As net neutrality does ensure that everyone has access to the same potential audience.
Removing net neutrality actually does allow for the restriction on someone’s ability to speak.
Just out of curiosity, OP, what is your position on net neutrality?
As well as calls for legislative or constitutional remedies.
Well, the definition of oligopoly is “a state of limited competition, in which a market is shared by a small number of producers or sellers.” Given that they have near infinite competition, and a tremendous number of producers and sellers, it falls far short. The board that we are currently posting on right here and now is proof of this.
What would this look like? Would your proposed legislation prevent us here on this messageboard from determining and enforcing our own rules of conduct?
This is true, so how about giving actual concrete proposals that you think would remedy the situation you find to be intolerable, rather than just repeating that you don’t like it?
Yeah, that was a bit messed up. When they started filtering against hate speech, suddenly conservatives started being caught up, so they had to not do so, because they were being accused that their neutral filter was politically biased.
They were being pressured and threatened to allow hate speech, largely by the government itself. Do you want to change this from pressure from the president and some members of congress into actual codified legislation?
Sure, if they violated the terms of service.
Well, no, that part would be because the group in control has passed the legislation that you want them to pass to control these companies.
This is an extremely poor summary. If social media companies chose to block political speech that I do not think that they should block, I would be concerned. And I would use my freedom of speech to express that concern, and my resources as a consumer to punish that speech. (This of course, would be an example of “cancel culture”, something that some of the participants of this thread would also like to stomp out.)
I would not go crying to the government to tell them that they have to compel a private company to carry that speech.
I mean, yeah, that’s part of the joy of freedom. Some of us seem to care more about freedom than others in this thread, and it’s not those who are looking to have legislation put restrictions on the TOS a private company may enforce.
Look at where you are typing this, and expressing this argument right now. That is proof positive that you are wrong.
You are the one making an assertion here that is counter to the actual fact that you are currently using a social media platform that is not a part of this oligopoly that you claim has excessive power. If you were right, then this board would not exist.
What I see as your argument is that the government is the only entity that is allowed to police speech, and that individuals and private companies may not. That runs rather counter to the most basic principles of freedom of speech and expression, IMNSHO.
Actually, it illustrates the dangers of having a government put pressure on a private company. They gave him far more rope than they should have due to threats from him and other legislators.
Would you rather put that in the hands of the government?
Agreed. I don’t trust the government to dictate to individuals and private companies what speech they may and must allow.
By “any group” does that include this messageboard? Do you not think that we should be allowed to set and enforce our own rules of conduct?
I haven’t, not really. I’ve heard this assertion, but when asked for examples, it’s never really held up to any level of scrutiny.
I disagree. I think that there is a huge difference between the government, which by definition has a monopoly on the speech that it allows, and a social media platform, which if someone doesn’t like, they can go to another, or make their own.
You’ve seen ATMB whenever someone thinks that they are being inconsistently modded. Do you really want to get the government involved in that discussion?
Yes, and the last place as well. If you don’t like the modding on twitter, you can leave. If you don’t like the modding here, you can leave.
What I disagree with, is if you don’t like the modding here, you can go to a government regulatory body, and get lawyers and bureaucrats involved. That’s a good way to actually have an oligopoly. If modding were subject to lawyers and regulations, the SDMB and any other site that can’t afford to have thousands of lawyers will shut down instantly. Then we only have a few massive social media companies, who are regulated by the government.
That would be a severe issue with freedom of expression.
They were going about it wrong by bowing to pressure from the government to allow this speech, as it was claimed that it would be politically biased to only ban the hate speech. They are, due to public pressure, which includes those contributing those ad dollars, now changing this, to enforce these rules, and not allow people to get away with violating their terms of service due to threats from the government.
Do you have any idea what that regulation would look like? Would this messageboard be subject to that regulation?