Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The whole purpose of the free amendment is to keep the government from telling people what they can and can't say.The whole purpose of the 1st amendment is free exchange of ideas, without limits by government.
Social media is a new concept, a new commons that must be regulated as such.
TV, Newspapers, radio, were never truly interactive.
Yes, because they're common carriers.Yet the power lines and transformers and generating facilities are their property, and they are being made to use their property to supply someone they might not like.
Social media platforms that declare themselves free exchange platforms should be considered common carriers.
Or they can admit they are partisan, and make their contracts read a such. And also own anything published on their sites as their own, with all the liability it entails.
The whole purpose of the free amendment is to keep the government from telling people what they can and can't say.
You have decided that the government should be able to tell people that they have to promote speech they don't want because it's important to your particular candidate.
Yes, because they're common carriers.
Social media platforms aren't common carriers and no one who has any idea what they're talking about would consider it so. They are in the business of generating, maintaining and promoting speech. They're not passively delivering speech.
But you want government to mandate that they promote Trump's speech, so yeah, they would be.Government isn't telling twitter what they can or cannot say, because they admit the content on the site isn't their speech.
They can't be. Not by any definition of common carrier in any statute known to man. Common carriage has never applied to the generation of speech.They can be.
They can generate, maintain and promote their OWN speech, but the speech on their platforms, by their admission ISN'T THEIRS, nor do they endorse anything said on the platform without explicitly saying so. Even a blue check isn't an endorsement of content, merely confirmation the person is verifed.
Allowing Trump access is not promoting him any more then anyone else that uses twitter you lying hackBut you want government to mandate that they promote Trump's speech, so yeah, they would be.
But you want government to mandate that they promote Trump's speech, so yeah, they would be.
They can't be. Not by any definition of common carrier in any statute known to man. Common carriage has never applied to the generation of speech.
For someone who pisses and moans about the difference between social media and websites (and still hasn't explained the difference), you are pretending that electric companies are the same as social media.
Do you not know how the Twitter algorithms work? Delivery of content and promoting content is central to what social media platforms do.Allowing Trump access is not promoting him any more then anyone else that uses twitter you lying hack
LOL sure thing.Do you not know how the Twitter algorithms work? Delivery of content and promoting content is central to what social media platforms do.
If they didn't promote Trump on Twitter, that would be called shadow-banning and has likewise generated the ire of conservatives and is specifically outlawed by Florida's particularly unconstitutional attempt at regulating social media.
Of course it's generating the speech. They're publishing it on their website. They're formatting it, storing it, and delivering it to others.Twitter isn't generating speech unless it posts as itself. It is displaying speech, speech by their own admission IS NOT THEIRS.
Promote, distribute, disseminate, publish. Whatever verb you want to use, it's engaging in speech. You'd be requiring someone to engage in speech they don't want to engage in.Not promote, allow. Do these sites "promote" every single post made on them?
Do you not know how the Twitter algorithms work? Delivery of content and promoting content is central to what social media platforms do.
If they didn't promote Trump on Twitter, that would be called shadow-banning and has likewise generated the ire of conservatives and is specifically outlawed by Florida's particularly unconstitutional attempt at regulating social media.
Of course it's generating the speech. They're publishing it on their website. They're formatting it, storing it, and delivering it to others.
That's very much engaging in speech. Whether they have civil liability for the speech is irrelevant. You can protect anyone from civil liability for defamation since that's merely a statutory exclusion. That doesn't and cannot override the first amendment.
Promote, distribute, disseminate, publish. Whatever verb you want to use, it's engaging in speech. You'd be requiring someone to engage in speech they don't want to engage in.
They’re not treated as a publisher in terms of civil liability.The explicitly say they are not a publisher, because that would entail liability for what was published.
The first amendment isn't an issue because what we are talking about isn't, by their own admittance, their own speech.
They’re not treated as a publisher in terms of civil liability.
That doesn’t mean they’re not a publisher. The law can’t change what they are.
It’s no different than requiring a newspaper to publish an editorial from a political candidate.Promote and publish are not the same as the others, especially publish, which implies certain legal issues, which most social media gets around by saying they are not publishers.
Of course they are. They’re the ones preparing and maintaining the content and distributing it to others.Um, that sure as hell means they are not a publisher.
you can't separate words from the law, and then at the same time fall back on Constitutional (i.e. legal) arguments.
It’s no different than requiring a newspaper to publish an editorial from a political candidate.
