# Freedom of speech with respect to social media outlets **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 13, 2018, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-with-respect-to-social-media-outlets/819550 "2018-08-13T21:34:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-with-respect-to-social-media-outlets/819550/21 "2018-08-14T02:01:25Z")
What monopoly? It’s not like Ma Bell - you want a telephone, you have to get it from Ma Bell. There were no other service providers. I’m busy right now posting on an alternative social media outlet. It’s called the SDMB. Facebook does not have a monopoly. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-with-respect-to-social-media-outlets/819550/22 "2018-08-14T02:03:21Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > First, I don’t know why conservatives want to associate with crazy pants Jones at all. He’s not conservative, he’s a conspiracy nutter. I mean, seriously, why are they embracing him? It’s so weird. It’s politics at its most tribal: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” “Obama and Clinton are my enemies.” “Jones is continually attacking my enemies.” “Therefore Jones is my friend and I must defend him.” ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-with-respect-to-social-media-outlets/819550/23 "2018-08-14T03:04:37Z")
I’m not familiar with the California constitution, but I’ll take it as a given that there’s some provision there that requires a business owner to allow people to exercise speech on their property. But that’s still not analogous to Facebook. If a shopping mall allows people to pass out pamphlets, the mall has no involvement with the speakers. If they simply take no action at all, the pamphlets will still be handed out. But Facebook does take an active part in distributing messages shared on their platform. They store the information on their servers, and transmit it over their bandwidth. That makes it, in at least some sense, Facebook’s speech, and so Facebook’s rights apply. Nor do I think it would be appropriate to treat social media platforms as public utilities. The existing utilities have special status because material barriers to entry give them natural monopolies: To start a new water or gas company, you’d need to run pipes all over the city, and for a new phone or electric company, you’d need to run wires all over the city. To the extent that there’s a monopoly that needs to be busted, or at least more strictly regulated, it’s the ISPs. Which are often, in fact, the same phone company monopoly that the government should have broken up, but never meaningfully did (Ohio Bell was just as much of a monopoly, for an Ohioan, as Mama Bell ever was). ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-with-respect-to-social-media-outlets/819550/24 "2018-08-14T04:07:55Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I’m not familiar with the California constitution, but I’ll take it as a given that there’s some provision there that requires a business owner to allow people to exercise speech on their property. But that’s still not analogous to Facebook. If a shopping mall allows people to pass out pamphlets, the mall has no involvement with the speakers. If they simply take no action at all, the pamphlets will still be handed out. But Facebook does take an active part in distributing messages shared on their platform. They store the information on their servers, and transmit it over their bandwidth. That makes it, in at least some sense, Facebook’s speech, and so Facebook’s rights apply. > > Nor do I think it would be appropriate to treat social media platforms as public utilities. The existing utilities have special status because material barriers to entry give them natural monopolies: To start a new water or gas company, you’d need to run pipes all over the city, and for a new phone or electric company, you’d need to run wires all over the city. To the extent that there’s a monopoly that needs to be busted, or at least more strictly regulated, it’s the ISPs. Which are often, in fact, the same phone company monopoly that the government should have broken up, but never meaningfully did (Ohio Bell was just as much of a monopoly, for an Ohioan, as Mama Bell ever was). Same could have been said about Microsoft. Yet that didn’t stop the government from anti-trust actions. At some point companies get far too much power and then the state steps in. ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-with-respect-to-social-media-outlets/819550/25 "2018-08-14T05:12:24Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Same could have been said about Microsoft. Yet that didn’t stop the government from anti-trust actions. At some point companies get far too much power and then the state steps in. My gut feeling is that Facebook has far too much power right now. My proposals for dealing with that are probably beyond idiotic. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-with-respect-to-social-media-outlets/819550/26 "2018-08-14T05:21:24Z")
> [@DavidwithanR](#): > > Into its component parts (separate corporation runs the data collection than runs the chat platform)? Regional entities? Whatever US courts would decide would be a suitable way to gut its monopoly. Regional entities? While it made a modicum of sense to break up Ma Bell regionally, since it was a conglomeration of regional companies to start with, it makes NO sense wrt to an internet company. How would Facebook be broken up regionally? Illinois Facebook, Cincinnati Facebook, New York New England Facebook, Pacific Facebook, etc.? ---
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-with-respect-to-social-media-outlets/819550/27 "2018-08-14T05:25:04Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > Sorry about that. Cat stepped on the keyboard, and hit submit. I went back and fixed it, but missed the window. Mods, could you just end the post with “should not be printed”? I’ve lost track of what my whole point was. I solved this problem by installing a simple cat-trap on my desk. Here is a pic - [Imgur: The magic of the Internet](https://imgur.com/Lj7Q7Su) ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-with-respect-to-social-media-outlets/819550/28 "2018-08-14T05:36:28Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Regional entities? While it made a modicum of sense to break up Ma Bell regionally, since it was a conglomeration of regional companies to start with, it makes NO sense wrt to an internet company. > > How would Facebook be broken up regionally? Illinois Facebook, Cincinnati Facebook, New York New England Facebook, Pacific Facebook, etc.? See my very recent post. But since we’re here… How would YOU propose to gut Facebook’s dominance, assuming that YOU believed it needed to be done? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-with-respect-to-social-media-outlets/819550/29 "2018-08-14T06:02:26Z")
If I understand the story correctly, Infowars was banned due to violation of the terms of the sites. And in fact continued violation. Now I’m sure I can think of some other online messaging site which can ban people for similar infractions. Give me time… ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-with-respect-to-social-media-outlets/819550/30 "2018-08-14T09:42:00Z")
Newspapers and broadcasters routinely decide what reports to publish and which not. If any social media outlet applies any sort of moderation or rules of conduct they are a publisher and no longer a neutral platform like a phone system, and are therefore entitled to apply their own editorial criteria for publishing and not publishing. There’s nothing that says any medium has to publish whatever anyone else wants to use them to publish. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you’re entitled to require someone else to give you a megaphone. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-with-respect-to-social-media-outlets/819550/31 "2018-08-14T10:30:07Z")
Alex Jones is a terrible starting point for this discussion, because for all intents and purposes, these websites can _trivially_ point out where he broke their rules in egregious ways. It’s like talking about free speech on the basis of a guy who led a lynch mob - there is, in fact, a line, and he’s definitely on the other side of it. If you’re worried about being censored like Alex Jones, here’s my advice: don’t run a 5-year-long harassment campaign centered on the parents of a grade school murder victim. Past a certain point, you cannot excuse speech as a political opinion. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-with-respect-to-social-media-outlets/819550/32 "2018-08-14T13:23:46Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Alex Jones is a terrible starting point for this discussion, because for all intents and purposes, these websites can _trivially_ point out where he broke their rules in egregious ways. It’s like talking about free speech on the basis of a guy who led a lynch mob - there is, in fact, a line, and he’s definitely on the other side of it. If you’re worried about being censored like Alex Jones, here’s my advice: don’t run a 5-year-long harassment campaign centered on the parents of a grade school murder victim. Past a certain point, you cannot excuse speech as a political opinion. Perhaps re-read the OP. It’s not about Infowars OR Alex Jones. It was merely an example to get the discussion going. However, several posters have mentioned that the reason Infowars was banned was for rules violations. Now THAT would put this into a whole other category. I wasn’t aware that this was the reason given, though I recall that one of the social media sites, Twitter IIRC didn’t follow suit and ban Infowars, saying that he hadn’t violated any of their rules. If this is just a one off, where the companies in question are basically just enforcing the rules that are or were on their books, then I’d say that wrt Infowars they don’t have a leg to stand on. But the broader question is more interesting, which is why I deliberately said this wasn’t about Infowars. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-with-respect-to-social-media-outlets/819550/33 "2018-08-14T13:29:52Z")
Yeah, I’ll have something to say on that when I’m off my phone. I think seeing sites like facebook as public utilities isn’t crazy, put it that way. I just don’t have a good outline of what that would actually look like. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-with-respect-to-social-media-outlets/819550/34 "2018-08-14T13:44:48Z")
> [@DavidwithanR](#): > > See my very recent post. But since we’re here… How would YOU propose to gut Facebook’s dominance, assuming that YOU believed it needed to be done? I don’t believe it needs to be done. No one NEEDS to use Facebook. Hardly anyone in my family does. Two of my cousins’ wives use it to share pictures of the kids/nieces/nephews because they live more than 1,000 miles apart, but that’s about it. ---
**Author:** ![Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_Call_Me.Tim)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-with-respect-to-social-media-outlets/819550/35 "2018-08-14T13:59:04Z")
I’m having a bit of trouble with the OP’s premise. Why would someone who is an actual conservative be in favor of the government intervening to force a privately held company to provide services to someone? The question here could be paraphrased, “Should we, as a society allow corporations to control how they sell their own products, and if so, where will that end?” Proposing a governmental takeover of large corporations (or doing so in all but name via micromanagement of such through draconian regulation) is antithetical to what I would consider to be conservative political viewpoint. Someone who is tribal and considers Jones to be part of their tribe I could see proposing this. Someone who thinks that government should take an active role in reining in corporations more generally could make such an argument. But an actual conservative? This seems more like a CINO. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-with-respect-to-social-media-outlets/819550/36 "2018-08-14T14:10:01Z")
> [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](#): > > I’m having a bit of trouble with the OP’s premise. Why would someone who is an actual conservative be in favor of the government intervening to force a privately held company to provide services to someone? The question here could be paraphrased, “Should we, as a society allow corporations to control how they sell their own products, and if so, where will that end?” > > Proposing a governmental takeover of large corporations (or doing so in all but name via micromanagement of such through draconian regulation) is antithetical to what I would consider to be conservative political viewpoint. > > Someone who is tribal and considers Jones to be part of their tribe I could see proposing this. Someone who thinks that government should take an active role in reining in corporations more generally could make such an argument. But an actual conservative? This seems more like a CINO. Well, a couple of things. First off, I’m not a conservative…I’m just perceived to be one on this board. I consider myself a moderate, swinging left on some issues and right on others. I don’t consider Alex Jones OR Infowars as ‘part of my tribe’ either. 😛 I also didn’t propose the government do anything…I ASKED what 'dopers thought. As for the question of the government taking over, it would depend on if this is, indeed a 1st Amendment question (which in my OP I said I don’t really see). Lastly, I don’t have a real issue with the government taking an active role in regulating corporations…happens all the time. Devil and details and all that, but in principle I don’t have an issue. From a conservatives viewpoint (a REAL conservatives) I would be a CINO, as a lot of the really hot button issues for conservatives these days seem to revolve around abortion and gay marriage…and I’m definitely not a conservatives on any of that dippy social conservative stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-with-respect-to-social-media-outlets/819550/37 "2018-08-14T14:16:40Z")
> [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](#): > > I’m having a bit of trouble with the OP’s premise. Why would someone who is an actual conservative be in favor of the government intervening to force a privately held company to provide services to someone? Because these companies seem to be doing things that conservatives don’t like. ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-with-respect-to-social-media-outlets/819550/38 "2018-08-14T15:40:52Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Because these companies seem to be doing things that conservatives don’t like. Bingo. Facebook banning Infowars was a business decision, not a cultural one. They simply decided that whatever financial benefit they were gaining from carrying Infowars’ content wasn’t worth the potential revenue losses from the negative blowback. Conservatives love to talk about keeping government out of business until a business does something they don’t like. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-with-respect-to-social-media-outlets/819550/39 "2018-08-14T16:27:27Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > It is a First Amendment issue, and exactly the same principles apply to Facebook as to Masterpiece Cakes. Both get to decide what messages they’ll allow on their platform, and for the government to take away that decision would be an infringement of free speech. Neither is allowed to discriminate against protected classes, for reasons that arise from other parts of the Constitution. I am not sure I see the link between these two. I do not think the couple wanting the cake asked for any message to be written on the cake. They just wanted a cake. To me that is a product and not speech. For example it would be akin to going to RayBan sunglasses website and designing a custom pair of sunglasses and RayBan saying they do not sell to gay people…sorry but feel free to buy a pair already made (assuming they somehow knew the person buying it was gay). ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-with-respect-to-social-media-outlets/819550/40 "2018-08-14T17:16:40Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > Bingo. > > Facebook banning Infowars was a business decision, not a cultural one. They simply decided that whatever financial benefit they were gaining from carrying Infowars’ content wasn’t worth the potential revenue losses from the negative blowback. > > Conservatives love to talk about keeping government out of business until a business does something they don’t like. Which is based on culture. The culture of boycotting and protesting companies that don’t meet an ideological purity test. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-with-respect-to-social-media-outlets/819550.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speech-with-respect-to-social-media-outlets/819550.md?page=3)