Giant social media platforms should not have the right to ban people they don't like.

[Barack_Obama]

@Human_Action

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.

@PastTense

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.

[Barack_Obama]

@Slash1972

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?

[Telemark]

@Barack_Obama

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.

[Slash1972]

@Barack_Obama

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:

@Slash1972

Personally, I would think Democracy has failed if a government official was telling private companies what they can/can’t have on their sites.

[simster]

@Barack_Obama

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.

[BeepKillBeep]

@Barack_Obama

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?)

[Barack_Obama]

@Telemark

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.

[simster]

@Barack_Obama

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?

[Barack_Obama]

@BeepKillBeep

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.

[Barack_Obama]

@simster

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.

[XT]

@Slash1972

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.

[Procrustus]

@Barack_Obama

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.

[Barack_Obama]

@simster

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.

[Barack_Obama]

@XT

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…

[XT]

@Barack_Obama

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?

[Procrustus]

@Barack_Obama

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.

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.

[XT]

@Barack_Obama

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.

[DavidwithanR]

@Barack_Obama

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.

[Ravenman]

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.

[RickJay]

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.