“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
– Inigo Montoya
Barack Obama: Do corporations like Facebook have any inalienable rights?
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’.
Speaking of that website, from Alex Jones’s TOS,
AJ reserves the right to do to everyone else exactly what YouTube (et al.) did to him.
CMC fnord!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
i wouldn’t have any philosophical objections to Facebook and Twitter banning criticism of Russia, Trump, or the Pope. It wouldn’t (in my opinion) be a smart business move, but that’s their call, not mine.
They let Trump post on Twitter, which is enough to keep me away. If they banned the real Obama I would be offended, but I wouldn’t think they should be forced to let him tweet.
The lawyers get involved in arguing over whether a company that chooses to engage in censorship ceases to be just a “provider” and starts to become a first-party “content provider” subject to various liabilities.
ETA: IANAL either, but my understanding is that this section of federal code is at the heart of many of the debates over “censorship” by online service providers.
There are plenty of businesses that do just fine without FB or Twitter. That some businesses made themselves reliant on those services was their choice and their hard luck. No one forced them to do that. You can’t have it both ways. Remember, the person who kills his parents can’t ask for mercy because he’s an orphan.
What’s an inevitability? That Facebook becomes a monopoly? They’re losing customers, not gaining them. The writing is on the wall. Facebook is in decline.
There is no social media company anywhere in sniffing distance of a monopolistic position, and you can’t even explain what the Pandora’s box is, because social media companies are doing nothing other kinds of companies don’t do. I can throw Alex Jones out of my restaurant for being belligerent to the other customers. I can throw his ass out of a department store for being belligerent to the pother customers. He can be thrown out of a Boston Red Sox game for being belligerent to the other customers. In no way is any social media company that exists today any different.
I think Tencent (and WeChat) is pretty much the definition of a monopoly and they are doing exactly what the OP seems to want. Perhaps the OP should take a look at what China is doing wrt their social credit system and government controls and see if that’s really what he wants our system to be like. Maybe it open up a new world for the OP and he can move to China.
Didn’t FOSTA remove that immunity in most cases?
I feel like there is a case to be made along the lines of the OP (I won’t defend it on my phone, sorry). I also think the OP completely kneecaps himself by using Alex “I make a living lying about tragedies” Jones as an example. Alex Jones should absolutely be banned from any service with a ToS this side of 4chan’s.
The minute a social media platform interposes some form of editorial management on the content posted on it (which in my book means all those algorithms to steer particular sorts of content towards some users rather than others), they become publishers, rather than just a platform: and that gives them the right, indeed duty, like publishers and editors of newspapers or broadcast media, to pick and choose what content they will publish.
No social media platform is so indispensable as to become a universal carrier - and that isn’t their business model, since that would mean they shouldn’t be managing what content the end user receives.
Freedom of speech is not the issue here: it’s not an entitlement to expect anyone and everyone to provide you with a megaphone. Don’t like how Facebook treats your messages? Build your own website and get your own advertisers.
No, you don’t. There are some inalienable rights, but doing whatever you are capable of is not one of them. With a gun, you could murders someone, but you have no right to do that
Your rights are always balanced with the rights of others. I have a right not to be killed, so you do not have a right to kill me. Only the agreed upon exceptions (e.g. self defense, capital punishment) give you a right to kill.
Facebook has the right to freedom of speech. You are attempting to remove that by forcing the government to control what Facebook can and cannot say.
They do not have that right because they are able to speak, but because we have agreed that freedom of speech applies to companies.
If Facebook were or becomes a monopoly, then the proper legal remedy is to break up that monopoly, not to abridge their freedom of speech.