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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
I've said before that I think maybe we need to consider regulation of search engines and social media sites as utilities like telephone companies are. I'm open to discussion on it though.
So can you imagine having <your> home, work, or cellphone disconnected because someone else didn't like <your> conversation or text?
Why do <you> think that social media and search engines should be treated differently?
Three reasons that social media and search engines should be treated differently.
1. They are a purely optional recreational items.
2. There are more than 150 search engines, that I know of and likely 10 times that many. When I had a home phone I was lucky to have 3 choices.
3. The most important distinction is that we do not hold phone companies responsible for what people say over their phone lines, but social media sites are held responsible for what is posted on their sites and search engines are held responsible for their results. When phone companies are held to these same standards then we can talk about this more.
1. A home phone is "optional" these days but they're still regulated. And frankly no one can really utilize the internet without a search engine so that one doesn't even qualify as "optional." Frankly, the argument that its "optional" or "recreational" is IMO a cop-out and quite frankly is irrelevant.
Like, do you think that cable TV isn't "recreational"? Yet, it's regulated - Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 - Wikipedia (And I'll note it's almost exactly the same "principle" issue with social media and search engines - see my bolded)
"In order to balance power between cable television operators and the government, the act established regulations regarding franchise standards and proceeds that would attempt to strengthen the development of cable systems. The act gave municipalities, governing bodies of cities and towns, principal authority to grant and renew franchise licenses for cable operations. By establishing an orderly process for franchise renewal, the act protected cable operators from unfair denials of renewal. However, in order to be granted a franchise renewal, the act specified that cable operators' past performances and future proposals had to meet the federal standards in the new title. The act was meant to reduce an unnecessary regulation that could have potentially brought about an excessive economic burden on cable systems.[2]
In return for establishing franchise standards and procedures, the act specified that cable operators were expected to be receptive to their local communities' needs and interests. Congress recognized the vital role of cable television in encouraging and providing a place for free expression. This provision assured that cable communications provide the general public with "the widest possible diversity of information sources and services." Through this statute, Congress attempted to uphold the First Amendment interest of cable audiences to receive diversified information as specified in the Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission court case of 1969.[3]"
Also: Public utilities (that are regulated) are organizations that maintain an infrastructure for a public service; this includes things like electricity, natural gas, water, sewage, telephone, transportation, and broadband services [cable service and ISPs] as well (aka Net Neutrality via FCC - Mobile data service for smartphones and tablets, in addition to wired lines, is being placed under the new rules. The order also includes provisions to protect consumer privacy and to ensure that Internet service is available to people with disabilities and in remote areas. See also: Title II - index.html )
2. There are a crap ton of phone companies too son. See List of United States telephone companies - Wikipedia and cellphones [wireless providers] here: List of United States wireless communications service providers - Wikipedia
3. Uhm no... You're dead wrong. The argument (largely being made by the left) is that they /should/ be treated that way, held liable for the content they allow to be published, but they are /not/ presently.
"Companies such as Twitter and Facebook are keen to describe their sites as enabling communications, rather than publishing content – a crucial distinction which means that they are not liable for trolling or abuse. But for anyone on the receiving end of violent abuse and threats of rape or murder, the sheer size and profitability of their operations must mean that this distinction is becoming increasingly untenable.
Both companies insist though that legally they are communications companies – just conduits for information who cannot be held liable for that content – in the same way BT cannot be sued over obscene phone calls. However, both also operate teams to investigate "flagged" content and remove it where they feel it is justified.
Being a communications company rather than a publisher means significantly less responsibility and expense, because it can claim to be a platform for discussion, rather than a publisher of opinion which could be held to be libellous or threatening." - Publishers or platforms? Media giants may be forced to choose
See also: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which states that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” - There's a decent write up about 230 issues for websites here (also some 513 issues) This particular article is WELL worth the read if you're serious about this discussion - Understanding the Legal Issues for Social Networking Sites and Their Users - FindLaw
To the larger issue, I'm keen on the kind of "Cable TV" type regulation.
Cable TV can have porn on it, it's on the consumer/user to not watch those channels if they're offended by/object to porn, right?
Twitter, FB, YouTube, and Google should follow the same model - if you're offended by conservative/religious/alt-right/nazi/socialist/racist/whatever bullshit, then block those folks/don't view their content.
Platforms can still refuse to allow personal threats of violence and death, but they do have to respect freedom of speech.
I've said before that I think maybe we need to consider regulation of search engines and social media sites as utilities like telephone companies are. I'm open to discussion on it though.
So can you imagine having <your> home, work, or cellphone disconnected because someone else didn't like <your> conversation or text?
Why do <you> think that social media and search engines should be treated differently?
Three reasons that social media and search engines should be treated differently.
1. They are a purely optional recreational items.
2. There are more than 150 search engines, that I know of and likely 10 times that many. When I had a home phone I was lucky to have 3 choices.
3. The most important distinction is that we do not hold phone companies responsible for what people say over their phone lines, but social media sites are held responsible for what is posted on their sites and search engines are held responsible for their results. When phone companies are held to these same standards then we can talk about this more.
1. A home phone is "optional" these days but they're still regulated. And frankly no one can really utilize the internet without a search engine so that one doesn't even qualify as "optional." Frankly, the argument that its "optional" or "recreational" is IMO a cop-out and quite frankly is irrelevant.
Like, do you think that cable TV isn't "recreational"? Yet, it's regulated - Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 - Wikipedia (And I'll note it's almost exactly the same "principle" issue with social media and search engines - see my bolded)
"In order to balance power between cable television operators and the government, the act established regulations regarding franchise standards and proceeds that would attempt to strengthen the development of cable systems. The act gave municipalities, governing bodies of cities and towns, principal authority to grant and renew franchise licenses for cable operations. By establishing an orderly process for franchise renewal, the act protected cable operators from unfair denials of renewal. However, in order to be granted a franchise renewal, the act specified that cable operators' past performances and future proposals had to meet the federal standards in the new title. The act was meant to reduce an unnecessary regulation that could have potentially brought about an excessive economic burden on cable systems.[2]
In return for establishing franchise standards and procedures, the act specified that cable operators were expected to be receptive to their local communities' needs and interests. Congress recognized the vital role of cable television in encouraging and providing a place for free expression. This provision assured that cable communications provide the general public with "the widest possible diversity of information sources and services." Through this statute, Congress attempted to uphold the First Amendment interest of cable audiences to receive diversified information as specified in the Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission court case of 1969.[3]"
Also: Public utilities (that are regulated) are organizations that maintain an infrastructure for a public service; this includes things like electricity, natural gas, water, sewage, telephone, transportation, and broadband services [cable service and ISPs] as well (aka Net Neutrality via FCC - Mobile data service for smartphones and tablets, in addition to wired lines, is being placed under the new rules. The order also includes provisions to protect consumer privacy and to ensure that Internet service is available to people with disabilities and in remote areas. See also: Title II - index.html )
2. There are a crap ton of phone companies too son. See List of United States telephone companies - Wikipedia and cellphones [wireless providers] here: List of United States wireless communications service providers - Wikipedia
3. Uhm no... You're dead wrong. The argument (largely being made by the left) is that they /should/ be treated that way, held liable for the content they allow to be published, but they are /not/ presently.
"Companies such as Twitter and Facebook are keen to describe their sites as enabling communications, rather than publishing content – a crucial distinction which means that they are not liable for trolling or abuse. But for anyone on the receiving end of violent abuse and threats of rape or murder, the sheer size and profitability of their operations must mean that this distinction is becoming increasingly untenable.
Both companies insist though that legally they are communications companies – just conduits for information who cannot be held liable for that content – in the same way BT cannot be sued over obscene phone calls. However, both also operate teams to investigate "flagged" content and remove it where they feel it is justified.
Being a communications company rather than a publisher means significantly less responsibility and expense, because it can claim to be a platform for discussion, rather than a publisher of opinion which could be held to be libellous or threatening." - Publishers or platforms? Media giants may be forced to choose
See also: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which states that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” - There's a decent write up about 230 issues for websites here (also some 513 issues) This particular article is WELL worth the read if you're serious about this discussion - Understanding the Legal Issues for Social Networking Sites and Their Users - FindLaw
Perhaps you are correct, we should treat social networks and phone companies the same. Thus phone companies should be allowed to listen to and record every call made on their lines/network. And then transcripts of these calls should be made public the same manner that my FB are.
Once we do that, then we can regulate them the same way.
Let me know once that kicks in.
I've said before that I think maybe we need to consider regulation of search engines and social media sites as utilities like telephone companies are. I'm open to discussion on it though.
So can you imagine having <your> home, work, or cellphone disconnected because someone else didn't like <your> conversation or text?
Why do <you> think that social media and search engines should be treated differently?
Three reasons that social media and search engines should be treated differently.
1. They are a purely optional recreational items.
2. There are more than 150 search engines, that I know of and likely 10 times that many. When I had a home phone I was lucky to have 3 choices.
3. The most important distinction is that we do not hold phone companies responsible for what people say over their phone lines, but social media sites are held responsible for what is posted on their sites and search engines are held responsible for their results. When phone companies are held to these same standards then we can talk about this more.
1. A home phone is "optional" these days but they're still regulated. And frankly no one can really utilize the internet without a search engine so that one doesn't even qualify as "optional." Frankly, the argument that its "optional" or "recreational" is IMO a cop-out and quite frankly is irrelevant.
Like, do you think that cable TV isn't "recreational"? Yet, it's regulated - Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 - Wikipedia (And I'll note it's almost exactly the same "principle" issue with social media and search engines - see my bolded)
"In order to balance power between cable television operators and the government, the act established regulations regarding franchise standards and proceeds that would attempt to strengthen the development of cable systems. The act gave municipalities, governing bodies of cities and towns, principal authority to grant and renew franchise licenses for cable operations. By establishing an orderly process for franchise renewal, the act protected cable operators from unfair denials of renewal. However, in order to be granted a franchise renewal, the act specified that cable operators' past performances and future proposals had to meet the federal standards in the new title. The act was meant to reduce an unnecessary regulation that could have potentially brought about an excessive economic burden on cable systems.[2]
In return for establishing franchise standards and procedures, the act specified that cable operators were expected to be receptive to their local communities' needs and interests. Congress recognized the vital role of cable television in encouraging and providing a place for free expression. This provision assured that cable communications provide the general public with "the widest possible diversity of information sources and services." Through this statute, Congress attempted to uphold the First Amendment interest of cable audiences to receive diversified information as specified in the Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission court case of 1969.[3]"
Also: Public utilities (that are regulated) are organizations that maintain an infrastructure for a public service; this includes things like electricity, natural gas, water, sewage, telephone, transportation, and broadband services [cable service and ISPs] as well (aka Net Neutrality via FCC - Mobile data service for smartphones and tablets, in addition to wired lines, is being placed under the new rules. The order also includes provisions to protect consumer privacy and to ensure that Internet service is available to people with disabilities and in remote areas. See also: Title II - index.html )
2. There are a crap ton of phone companies too son. See List of United States telephone companies - Wikipedia and cellphones [wireless providers] here: List of United States wireless communications service providers - Wikipedia
3. Uhm no... You're dead wrong. The argument (largely being made by the left) is that they /should/ be treated that way, held liable for the content they allow to be published, but they are /not/ presently.
"Companies such as Twitter and Facebook are keen to describe their sites as enabling communications, rather than publishing content – a crucial distinction which means that they are not liable for trolling or abuse. But for anyone on the receiving end of violent abuse and threats of rape or murder, the sheer size and profitability of their operations must mean that this distinction is becoming increasingly untenable.
Both companies insist though that legally they are communications companies – just conduits for information who cannot be held liable for that content – in the same way BT cannot be sued over obscene phone calls. However, both also operate teams to investigate "flagged" content and remove it where they feel it is justified.
Being a communications company rather than a publisher means significantly less responsibility and expense, because it can claim to be a platform for discussion, rather than a publisher of opinion which could be held to be libellous or threatening." - Publishers or platforms? Media giants may be forced to choose
See also: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which states that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” - There's a decent write up about 230 issues for websites here (also some 513 issues) This particular article is WELL worth the read if you're serious about this discussion - Understanding the Legal Issues for Social Networking Sites and Their Users - FindLaw
Perhaps you are correct, we should treat social networks and phone companies the same. Thus phone companies should be allowed to listen to and record every call made on their lines/network. And then transcripts of these calls should be made public the same manner that my FB are.
Once we do that, then we can regulate them the same way.
Let me know once that kicks in.
Ugh, I'm a bit tired, do we really need to talk about the Patriot Act?
To the larger issue, I'm keen on the kind of "Cable TV" type regulation.
Cable TV can have porn on it, it's on the consumer/user to not watch those channels if they're offended by/object to porn, right?
Twitter, FB, YouTube, and Google should follow the same model - if you're offended by conservative/religious/alt-right/nazi/socialist/racist/whatever bullshit, then block those folks/don't view their content.
Platforms can still refuse to allow personal threats of violence and death, but they do have to respect freedom of speech.
Why should any private company be forced to respect the freedom of speech?
Should FoxNews be forced to respect the freedom of speech and provide an outlet for every voice that wants to be heard?
Should CNN be forced to respect the freedom of speech and provide an outlet for every voice that wants to be heard?
The Constitution states that the GOVERNMENT cannot prohibit nor abridge the freedom of speech. Nothing in there about private companies.
Is there any "problem" that you do not think the government is the solution to?
I've said before that I think maybe we need to consider regulation of search engines and social media sites as utilities like telephone companies are. I'm open to discussion on it though.
So can you imagine having <your> home, work, or cellphone disconnected because someone else didn't like <your> conversation or text?
Why do <you> think that social media and search engines should be treated differently?
Three reasons that social media and search engines should be treated differently.
1. They are a purely optional recreational items.
2. There are more than 150 search engines, that I know of and likely 10 times that many. When I had a home phone I was lucky to have 3 choices.
3. The most important distinction is that we do not hold phone companies responsible for what people say over their phone lines, but social media sites are held responsible for what is posted on their sites and search engines are held responsible for their results. When phone companies are held to these same standards then we can talk about this more.
1. A home phone is "optional" these days but they're still regulated. And frankly no one can really utilize the internet without a search engine so that one doesn't even qualify as "optional." Frankly, the argument that its "optional" or "recreational" is IMO a cop-out and quite frankly is irrelevant.
Like, do you think that cable TV isn't "recreational"? Yet, it's regulated - Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 - Wikipedia (And I'll note it's almost exactly the same "principle" issue with social media and search engines - see my bolded)
"In order to balance power between cable television operators and the government, the act established regulations regarding franchise standards and proceeds that would attempt to strengthen the development of cable systems. The act gave municipalities, governing bodies of cities and towns, principal authority to grant and renew franchise licenses for cable operations. By establishing an orderly process for franchise renewal, the act protected cable operators from unfair denials of renewal. However, in order to be granted a franchise renewal, the act specified that cable operators' past performances and future proposals had to meet the federal standards in the new title. The act was meant to reduce an unnecessary regulation that could have potentially brought about an excessive economic burden on cable systems.[2]
In return for establishing franchise standards and procedures, the act specified that cable operators were expected to be receptive to their local communities' needs and interests. Congress recognized the vital role of cable television in encouraging and providing a place for free expression. This provision assured that cable communications provide the general public with "the widest possible diversity of information sources and services." Through this statute, Congress attempted to uphold the First Amendment interest of cable audiences to receive diversified information as specified in the Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission court case of 1969.[3]"
Also: Public utilities (that are regulated) are organizations that maintain an infrastructure for a public service; this includes things like electricity, natural gas, water, sewage, telephone, transportation, and broadband services [cable service and ISPs] as well (aka Net Neutrality via FCC - Mobile data service for smartphones and tablets, in addition to wired lines, is being placed under the new rules. The order also includes provisions to protect consumer privacy and to ensure that Internet service is available to people with disabilities and in remote areas. See also: Title II - index.html )
2. There are a crap ton of phone companies too son. See List of United States telephone companies - Wikipedia and cellphones [wireless providers] here: List of United States wireless communications service providers - Wikipedia
3. Uhm no... You're dead wrong. The argument (largely being made by the left) is that they /should/ be treated that way, held liable for the content they allow to be published, but they are /not/ presently.
"Companies such as Twitter and Facebook are keen to describe their sites as enabling communications, rather than publishing content – a crucial distinction which means that they are not liable for trolling or abuse. But for anyone on the receiving end of violent abuse and threats of rape or murder, the sheer size and profitability of their operations must mean that this distinction is becoming increasingly untenable.
Both companies insist though that legally they are communications companies – just conduits for information who cannot be held liable for that content – in the same way BT cannot be sued over obscene phone calls. However, both also operate teams to investigate "flagged" content and remove it where they feel it is justified.
Being a communications company rather than a publisher means significantly less responsibility and expense, because it can claim to be a platform for discussion, rather than a publisher of opinion which could be held to be libellous or threatening." - Publishers or platforms? Media giants may be forced to choose
See also: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which states that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” - There's a decent write up about 230 issues for websites here (also some 513 issues) This particular article is WELL worth the read if you're serious about this discussion - Understanding the Legal Issues for Social Networking Sites and Their Users - FindLaw
Perhaps you are correct, we should treat social networks and phone companies the same. Thus phone companies should be allowed to listen to and record every call made on their lines/network. And then transcripts of these calls should be made public the same manner that my FB are.
Once we do that, then we can regulate them the same way.
Let me know once that kicks in.
Ugh, I'm a bit tired, do we really need to talk about the Patriot Act?
I love talking about the Patriot Act, the single largest removal of rights and freedoms in the history of the country.
While it is accurate the government is doing those things, I am talking about the companies themselves. Since what is said over a phone line is private and what is posted on FB or twitter is public, to treat them the same we need to make it all public...do you not agree?
Well those are press agencies that have their own specific regulations and rights. I mean we could argue that they actually fall under television and cable TV rules, who are indeed forced to provide a platform for both political news shows.
Regulated utilities, private and public, are indeed required to follow the first - they are also required to not discriminate against minorities (ethnic races, sexuality, etc.) Do you think that's a bad thing?
No I personally think the government fucks up pretty much everything it touches, but I also realize that at times unfortunately government regulation is necessary in order to maintain the rights of individuals.
We can pull in PA laws if you'd like. I mean it's sooo terrible to have one business in a hundred that discriminates against gays, so why should we allow any business that discriminates against freedom of speech or political affiliation or religious beliefs?
Three reasons that social media and search engines should be treated differently.
1. They are a purely optional recreational items.
2. There are more than 150 search engines, that I know of and likely 10 times that many. When I had a home phone I was lucky to have 3 choices.
3. The most important distinction is that we do not hold phone companies responsible for what people say over their phone lines, but social media sites are held responsible for what is posted on their sites and search engines are held responsible for their results. When phone companies are held to these same standards then we can talk about this more.
1. A home phone is "optional" these days but they're still regulated. And frankly no one can really utilize the internet without a search engine so that one doesn't even qualify as "optional." Frankly, the argument that its "optional" or "recreational" is IMO a cop-out and quite frankly is irrelevant.
Like, do you think that cable TV isn't "recreational"? Yet, it's regulated - Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 - Wikipedia (And I'll note it's almost exactly the same "principle" issue with social media and search engines - see my bolded)
"In order to balance power between cable television operators and the government, the act established regulations regarding franchise standards and proceeds that would attempt to strengthen the development of cable systems. The act gave municipalities, governing bodies of cities and towns, principal authority to grant and renew franchise licenses for cable operations. By establishing an orderly process for franchise renewal, the act protected cable operators from unfair denials of renewal. However, in order to be granted a franchise renewal, the act specified that cable operators' past performances and future proposals had to meet the federal standards in the new title. The act was meant to reduce an unnecessary regulation that could have potentially brought about an excessive economic burden on cable systems.[2]
In return for establishing franchise standards and procedures, the act specified that cable operators were expected to be receptive to their local communities' needs and interests. Congress recognized the vital role of cable television in encouraging and providing a place for free expression. This provision assured that cable communications provide the general public with "the widest possible diversity of information sources and services." Through this statute, Congress attempted to uphold the First Amendment interest of cable audiences to receive diversified information as specified in the Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission court case of 1969.[3]"
Also: Public utilities (that are regulated) are organizations that maintain an infrastructure for a public service; this includes things like electricity, natural gas, water, sewage, telephone, transportation, and broadband services [cable service and ISPs] as well (aka Net Neutrality via FCC - Mobile data service for smartphones and tablets, in addition to wired lines, is being placed under the new rules. The order also includes provisions to protect consumer privacy and to ensure that Internet service is available to people with disabilities and in remote areas. See also: Title II - index.html )
2. There are a crap ton of phone companies too son. See List of United States telephone companies - Wikipedia and cellphones [wireless providers] here: List of United States wireless communications service providers - Wikipedia
3. Uhm no... You're dead wrong. The argument (largely being made by the left) is that they /should/ be treated that way, held liable for the content they allow to be published, but they are /not/ presently.
"Companies such as Twitter and Facebook are keen to describe their sites as enabling communications, rather than publishing content – a crucial distinction which means that they are not liable for trolling or abuse. But for anyone on the receiving end of violent abuse and threats of rape or murder, the sheer size and profitability of their operations must mean that this distinction is becoming increasingly untenable.
Both companies insist though that legally they are communications companies – just conduits for information who cannot be held liable for that content – in the same way BT cannot be sued over obscene phone calls. However, both also operate teams to investigate "flagged" content and remove it where they feel it is justified.
Being a communications company rather than a publisher means significantly less responsibility and expense, because it can claim to be a platform for discussion, rather than a publisher of opinion which could be held to be libellous or threatening." - Publishers or platforms? Media giants may be forced to choose
See also: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which states that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” - There's a decent write up about 230 issues for websites here (also some 513 issues) This particular article is WELL worth the read if you're serious about this discussion - Understanding the Legal Issues for Social Networking Sites and Their Users - FindLaw
Perhaps you are correct, we should treat social networks and phone companies the same. Thus phone companies should be allowed to listen to and record every call made on their lines/network. And then transcripts of these calls should be made public the same manner that my FB are.
Once we do that, then we can regulate them the same way.
Let me know once that kicks in.
Ugh, I'm a bit tired, do we really need to talk about the Patriot Act?
I love talking about the Patriot Act, the single largest removal of rights and freedoms in the history of the country.
While it is accurate the government is doing those things, I am talking about the companies themselves. Since what is said over a phone line is private and what is posted on FB or twitter is public, to treat them the same we need to make it all public...do you not agree?
I'm not keen on the Patriot act myself, untwist your britches. The fact remains, it exists and it was found to be legal and "necessary."
In any event, I'll disagree that what's on FB is "public" - no one but my friends can read anything I post on FB because I have the option to make it private.
No one can see what I explore on search engines without hacking my computer.
No one can see what I watch on YouTube unless I put it on a list or intentionally share that information.
(Don't have a twitter account so I'm not sure if they have privacy settings like FB does)
Well those are press agencies that have their own specific regulations and rights. I mean we could argue that they actually fall under television and cable TV rules, who are indeed forced to provide a platform for both political news shows.
Why stop at both? Why should the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution party not be given the same air time as the big two? If we are going to rely on the government to make everything equal for everyone, then we need to not do it halfway.
Regulated utilities, private and public, are indeed required to follow the first - they are also required to not discriminate against minorities (ethnic races, sexuality, etc.) Do you think that's a bad thing?
Utilities such as electricity and water and such are essential for living and for the common good. A specific search engine or social media platform are not.
As a rule I think that all anti-discrimination laws applied to anyone but the government are unconstitutional and that "protected classes" violates the Equal Protection clause.
No I personally think the government fucks up pretty much everything it touches, but I also realize that at times unfortunately government regulation is necessary in order to maintain the rights of individuals.
There is no right to having a FB page or for Google to give you search results that make you happy.
We can pull in PA laws if you'd like. I mean it's sooo terrible to have one business in a hundred that discriminates against gays, so why should we allow any business that discriminates against freedom of speech or political affiliation or religious beliefs?
I am 100% behind removing all PA laws. They are unconstitutional as they force rules meant solely for the government onto private business. There is nothing in the constitution that states I, as a private citizen, cannot discriminate if I choose to do so.
Free-market solution:Well those are press agencies that have their own specific regulations and rights. I mean we could argue that they actually fall under television and cable TV rules, who are indeed forced to provide a platform for both political news shows.
Why stop at both? Why should the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution party not be given the same air time as the big two? If we are going to rely on the government to make everything equal for everyone, then we need to not do it halfway.
Regulated utilities, private and public, are indeed required to follow the first - they are also required to not discriminate against minorities (ethnic races, sexuality, etc.) Do you think that's a bad thing?
Utilities such as electricity and water and such are essential for living and for the common good. A specific search engine or social media platform are not.
As a rule I think that all anti-discrimination laws applied to anyone but the government are unconstitutional and that "protected classes" violates the Equal Protection clause.
No I personally think the government fucks up pretty much everything it touches, but I also realize that at times unfortunately government regulation is necessary in order to maintain the rights of individuals.
There is no right to having a FB page or for Google to give you search results that make you happy.
We can pull in PA laws if you'd like. I mean it's sooo terrible to have one business in a hundred that discriminates against gays, so why should we allow any business that discriminates against freedom of speech or political affiliation or religious beliefs?
I am 100% behind removing all PA laws. They are unconstitutional as they force rules meant solely for the government onto private business. There is nothing in the constitution that states I, as a private citizen, cannot discriminate if I choose to do so.
Gonna compact the two back and forth's we've got going here kido, needs more whitespace.
So I actually agree, R's and D's have twisted the rules to completely shut out other parties - from signatures and fees all the way to the media dismissing them and not giving them air time. I personally would like to see that rectified because most of the folks I am keen to vote on are basically disbarred from the competition - Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Veteran's Party, and Independents.
Point two; Again, cable TV is not essential for living yet it is regulated to ensure freedom of speech - under that second bit actually "common good" - social media, search engines, youtube, and the internet as a whole could be regulated under the same principle "common good" because it is /not/ at all good for the nation to have alternative opinions of any flavor silenced.
In general I agree, PA is shitty and interferes with private business, however, there is a difference. The baker in town who doesn't want to bake a SSM wedding cake really doesn't have the political/social clout to do more than lose himself a few customers. On the other hand, social media, search engines, youtube, have the power to completely silence 65,000,000 people from expressing their views. They can almost completely wipe R's off the board as a party. That is too much fucking power to have being run willy nilly with bias and zero respect for the constitution and rights of free people.
Point three, please don't get all partisan fucktard on me, I really don't have the patience for it when I'm tired... So uhm, what exactly is it that you think "makes me happy" as far as search results? I'm a bisexual, SSM supporting, pro-choice, capitalist classical liberal... I want to see every-fucking-thing and I'll sort through the shit myself thanks - like I said, I can choose not to watch porn on cable TV if it offended me...
Point four, so you say this, then you say it's okay for social media platforms (2.2B on FB, 700M a month on Twitter), search engines (Google has 540M a month), and youtube (1B a month) to specifically dictate to you what you're allowed to see. You don't see any difference between your typical private business and these companies?? Really?
WHY do we regulate telephone, broadband, electricity, and natural gas? Why do we regulate banking? Why do we regulate trade with other nations (like can't buy Cuban cigars for example)? Why do we regulate anything? -- Public good. It is absolutely not in the public good to have people silenced, ever IMO. I don't care if they're flaming socialists (thats the only group I /truly/ dislike) - they have a right to speak to anyone who wants to listen IMO.
You can't ducktape a mans mouth for talking about anything on a public street. I simply think that social media, search engines, and youtube should have to respect the common rules of being the "public square" they have always billed themselves as. Can't yell fire in the theater, but you sure as fuck can talk about capitalism and religious beliefs (including disliking abortion, homosexuality, etc...)
Point five (from other back and forth): "Well then, lets make all your phonecons open to all your friends? / Also, whatever you post on FB is public because any of your "friends" could share it or forward it or copy and paste it for the whole world to see."
You mean just like one of my "friends" could record a phone call and share it with the public? How many two party consent states are there? -- California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Everywhere else, you can be recorded without permission and said info can be publicized. Oh and I forgot, there's an exemption that employers can record all calls on phones they provide. Oh and if you have a beep at regular intervals the FCC says you've gotten/given two party consent by their book... (oh and the Patriot Act of course)
Free-market solution:Well those are press agencies that have their own specific regulations and rights. I mean we could argue that they actually fall under television and cable TV rules, who are indeed forced to provide a platform for both political news shows.
Why stop at both? Why should the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution party not be given the same air time as the big two? If we are going to rely on the government to make everything equal for everyone, then we need to not do it halfway.
Regulated utilities, private and public, are indeed required to follow the first - they are also required to not discriminate against minorities (ethnic races, sexuality, etc.) Do you think that's a bad thing?
Utilities such as electricity and water and such are essential for living and for the common good. A specific search engine or social media platform are not.
As a rule I think that all anti-discrimination laws applied to anyone but the government are unconstitutional and that "protected classes" violates the Equal Protection clause.
No I personally think the government fucks up pretty much everything it touches, but I also realize that at times unfortunately government regulation is necessary in order to maintain the rights of individuals.
There is no right to having a FB page or for Google to give you search results that make you happy.
We can pull in PA laws if you'd like. I mean it's sooo terrible to have one business in a hundred that discriminates against gays, so why should we allow any business that discriminates against freedom of speech or political affiliation or religious beliefs?
I am 100% behind removing all PA laws. They are unconstitutional as they force rules meant solely for the government onto private business. There is nothing in the constitution that states I, as a private citizen, cannot discriminate if I choose to do so.
Gonna compact the two back and forth's we've got going here kido, needs more whitespace.
So I actually agree, R's and D's have twisted the rules to completely shut out other parties - from signatures and fees all the way to the media dismissing them and not giving them air time. I personally would like to see that rectified because most of the folks I am keen to vote on are basically disbarred from the competition - Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Veteran's Party, and Independents.
Point two; Again, cable TV is not essential for living yet it is regulated to ensure freedom of speech - under that second bit actually "common good" - social media, search engines, youtube, and the internet as a whole could be regulated under the same principle "common good" because it is /not/ at all good for the nation to have alternative opinions of any flavor silenced.
In general I agree, PA is shitty and interferes with private business, however, there is a difference. The baker in town who doesn't want to bake a SSM wedding cake really doesn't have the political/social clout to do more than lose himself a few customers. On the other hand, social media, search engines, youtube, have the power to completely silence 65,000,000 people from expressing their views. They can almost completely wipe R's off the board as a party. That is too much fucking power to have being run willy nilly with bias and zero respect for the constitution and rights of free people.
Point three, please don't get all partisan fucktard on me, I really don't have the patience for it when I'm tired... So uhm, what exactly is it that you think "makes me happy" as far as search results? I'm a bisexual, SSM supporting, pro-choice, capitalist classical liberal... I want to see every-fucking-thing and I'll sort through the shit myself thanks - like I said, I can choose not to watch porn on cable TV if it offended me...
Point four, so you say this, then you say it's okay for social media platforms (2.2B on FB, 700M a month on Twitter), search engines (Google has 540M a month), and youtube (1B a month) to specifically dictate to you what you're allowed to see. You don't see any difference between your typical private business and these companies?? Really?
WHY do we regulate telephone, broadband, electricity, and natural gas? Why do we regulate banking? Why do we regulate trade with other nations (like can't buy Cuban cigars for example)? Why do we regulate anything? -- Public good. It is absolutely not in the public good to have people silenced, ever IMO. I don't care if they're flaming socialists (thats the only group I /truly/ dislike) - they have a right to speak to anyone who wants to listen IMO.
You can't ducktape a mans mouth for talking about anything on a public street. I simply think that social media, search engines, and youtube should have to respect the common rules of being the "public square" they have always billed themselves as. Can't yell fire in the theater, but you sure as fuck can talk about capitalism and religious beliefs (including disliking abortion, homosexuality, etc...)
Point five (from other back and forth): "Well then, lets make all your phonecons open to all your friends? / Also, whatever you post on FB is public because any of your "friends" could share it or forward it or copy and paste it for the whole world to see."
You mean just like one of my "friends" could record a phone call and share it with the public? How many two party consent states are there? -- California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Everywhere else, you can be recorded without permission and said info can be publicized. Oh and I forgot, there's an exemption that employers can record all calls on phones they provide. Oh and if you have a beep at regular intervals the FCC says you've gotten/given two party consent by their book... (oh and the Patriot Act of course)
Never use google, facebook, youtube, or the like.
Somebody with the know-how and like-minded views should develop alternatives and compete with these tech clowns. That's the better solution. That's the right solution.
Gonna compact the two back and forth's we've got going here kido, needs more whitespace.
So I actually agree, R's and D's have twisted the rules to completely shut out other parties - from signatures and fees all the way to the media dismissing them and not giving them air time. I personally would like to see that rectified because most of the folks I am keen to vote on are basically disbarred from the competition - Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Veteran's Party, and Independents.
Point two; Again, cable TV is not essential for living yet it is regulated to ensure freedom of speech - under that second bit actually "common good" - social media, search engines, youtube, and the internet as a whole could be regulated under the same principle "common good" because it is /not/ at all good for the nation to have alternative opinions of any flavor silenced.
In general I agree, PA is shitty and interferes with private business, however, there is a difference. The baker in town who doesn't want to bake a SSM wedding cake really doesn't have the political/social clout to do more than lose himself a few customers. On the other hand, social media, search engines, youtube, have the power to completely silence 65,000,000 people from expressing their views. They can almost completely wipe R's off the board as a party. That is too much fucking power to have being run willy nilly with bias and zero respect for the constitution and rights of free people.
Point three, please don't get all partisan fucktard on me, I really don't have the patience for it when I'm tired... So uhm, what exactly is it that you think "makes me happy" as far as search results? I'm a bisexual, SSM supporting, pro-choice, capitalist classical liberal... I want to see every-fucking-thing and I'll sort through the shit myself thanks - like I said, I can choose not to watch porn on cable TV if it offended me...
Point four, so you say this, then you say it's okay for social media platforms (2.2B on FB, 700M a month on Twitter), search engines (Google has 540M a month), and youtube (1B a month) to specifically dictate to you what you're allowed to see. You don't see any difference between your typical private business and these companies?? Really?
WHY do we regulate telephone, broadband, electricity, and natural gas? Why do we regulate banking? Why do we regulate trade with other nations (like can't buy Cuban cigars for example)? Why do we regulate anything? -- Public good. It is absolutely not in the public good to have people silenced, ever IMO. I don't care if they're flaming socialists (thats the only group I /truly/ dislike) - they have a right to speak to anyone who wants to listen IMO.
You can't ducktape a mans mouth for talking about anything on a public street. I simply think that social media, search engines, and youtube should have to respect the common rules of being the "public square" they have always billed themselves as. Can't yell fire in the theater, but you sure as fuck can talk about capitalism and religious beliefs (including disliking abortion, homosexuality, etc...)
Point five (from other back and forth): "Well then, lets make all your phonecons open to all your friends? / Also, whatever you post on FB is public because any of your "friends" could share it or forward it or copy and paste it for the whole world to see."
You mean just like one of my "friends" could record a phone call and share it with the public? How many two party consent states are there? -- California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Everywhere else, you can be recorded without permission and said info can be publicized. Oh and I forgot, there's an exemption that employers can record all calls on phones they provide. Oh and if you have a beep at regular intervals the FCC says you've gotten/given two party consent by their book... (oh and the Patriot Act of course)
Allow me to expand a bit on why we regulate utilities to answer this. Electric, natural gas, water, sewer, telephone and cable are all considered to be psudo public use because they have a "natural monopolies" (the grid, the lines, the air waves, etc) and it's not financially viable, nor desirable, to duplicate that infrastructure.
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and search engines are in a similar position. They've gained "natural monopolies" very much like MS did, people like their products, it's the "standard" it's what nearly everyone uses to get shit done.
We do not argue, that simply because someone "could" install a solar panel on their house, the electric company can refuse to service their house because they don't agree with the home owners political or social viewpoints. We do not argue, that simply because someone could install a private well and septic, the water/wastewater utility can decide not to serve them if they're Hispanic. We also do not argue, that simply because someone could chose a different telephone company, so AT&T can choose not to allow Democrats to use their phone lines.
Quite frankly, I don't need some social justice twat sifting through my fucking friends to decide whom I can keep in contact with. We would never fucking accept this from a cellphone provider, why the hell should we for social media?
Google/Twitter/Youtube/Microsoft have the internets locked down and they need to be chopped down.A libertarian-minded organization needs to compete with Google. Anti-trust is the commie bullshit way to go about it.
But, maybe fucking with Google and Facebook will be the final nail in the coffin of anti-capitalis....er....I mean, anti-trust laws.
...and FUCK ANTI-TRUST LAWS.
Also, fuck Google and Facebook.
Google/Twitter/Youtube/Microsoft have the internets locked down and they need to be chopped down.A libertarian-minded organization needs to compete with Google. Anti-trust is the commie bullshit way to go about it.
But, maybe fucking with Google and Facebook will be the final nail in the coffin of anti-capitalis....er....I mean, anti-trust laws.
...and FUCK ANTI-TRUST LAWS.
Also, fuck Google and Facebook.
Bust them into ten thousand million pieces.
DOJ Invites 24 State AGs to Jeff Sessions Meeting About Breaking Up Google, Facebook
The White House is reportedly planning to order an antitrust probe of tech companies
White House reportedly prepares order directing antitrust probe of tech companies amid accusations of political bias
The White House is reportedly working on a memorandum for President Donald Trump to sign that would direct government agencies to "thoroughly investigate" big tech companies like Google and Facebook, Bloomberg News reported on Saturday, who have fended off accusations of political bias against conservatives.
- The White House is reportedly working on a memorandum for President Donald Trump to sign that would direct government agencies to "thoroughly investigate" whether social media companies such as Google or Facebook have violated U.S. antitrust laws, Bloomberg reported Saturday.
- Social media company leaders, including Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter chief Jack Dorsey have denied that their platforms are politically biased.
A draft of that executive order, seen by Bloomberg, is in its preliminary stages and hasn't yet been run past other government agencies, a White House official told the publication. It also does not mention any specific companies.
However, its current language would o direct federal agencies to give recommendations ways to "protect competition among online platforms and address online platform bias" within a month after being signed, according to the report.
Republican lawmakers and right-wing groups have long questioned whether social media giants like Twitter, Facebook and Google are guilty of an anti-conservative bias, and promoting Democratic or progressive political views.
Trump himself has levied those accusations repeatedly, which reached a crescendo when Twitter was hit by accusations of "shadow banning" right-leaning voices on its platform...
I'm glad to see Trump finally going after these companies. We need an internet bill of rights that extends free speech to the internet. I'd also like to see the creation of a private cause of action where anyone wrongfully censored by these companies can bring a lawsuit directly against these companies.
Maybe we should then bring the fairness doctrine back. Conservatives dominate talk radio and discriminate against liberal viewers. The fact is there is no right of free speech on the internet. Private companies have a right to conduct their business as they see fit. This is so typical of the fascist right. The fact is that there are no barriers to competing. All you need is a internet connection. You need to replace the American flag with the Nazi flag. That would be more appropriate.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
Talk Radio is driven by the Free Market and there is wide open competition,
libtards are unsuccessful here because they are full of Shit, thus they aren’t
entertaining to listen to…
facebook is basically a monopoly, they ban views they don’t agree with….
twitter is and does pretty much the same as facebook….
google guides your searches and twists the truth to fit their liberal agenda….
They are not a monopoly. No one forces you to use their search engine. Banning views has nothing to do with a monopoly. The fact is that all one needs to compete is a internet connection. One that is easily available.
Your reading skills are lacking....
I didn't say google was a monopoly...……….
Google/Twitter/Youtube/Microsoft have the internets locked down and they need to be chopped down.A libertarian-minded organization needs to compete with Google. Anti-trust is the commie bullshit way to go about it.
But, maybe fucking with Google and Facebook will be the final nail in the coffin of anti-capitalis....er....I mean, anti-trust laws.
...and FUCK ANTI-TRUST LAWS.
Also, fuck Google and Facebook.
Bust them into ten thousand million pieces.
DOJ Invites 24 State AGs to Jeff Sessions Meeting About Breaking Up Google, Facebook
The White House is reportedly planning to order an antitrust probe of tech companies
White House reportedly prepares order directing antitrust probe of tech companies amid accusations of political bias
The White House is reportedly working on a memorandum for President Donald Trump to sign that would direct government agencies to "thoroughly investigate" big tech companies like Google and Facebook, Bloomberg News reported on Saturday, who have fended off accusations of political bias against conservatives.
- The White House is reportedly working on a memorandum for President Donald Trump to sign that would direct government agencies to "thoroughly investigate" whether social media companies such as Google or Facebook have violated U.S. antitrust laws, Bloomberg reported Saturday.
- Social media company leaders, including Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter chief Jack Dorsey have denied that their platforms are politically biased.
A draft of that executive order, seen by Bloomberg, is in its preliminary stages and hasn't yet been run past other government agencies, a White House official told the publication. It also does not mention any specific companies.
However, its current language would o direct federal agencies to give recommendations ways to "protect competition among online platforms and address online platform bias" within a month after being signed, according to the report.
Republican lawmakers and right-wing groups have long questioned whether social media giants like Twitter, Facebook and Google are guilty of an anti-conservative bias, and promoting Democratic or progressive political views.
Trump himself has levied those accusations repeatedly, which reached a crescendo when Twitter was hit by accusations of "shadow banning" right-leaning voices on its platform...
I'm glad to see Trump finally going after these companies. We need an internet bill of rights that extends free speech to the internet. I'd also like to see the creation of a private cause of action where anyone wrongfully censored by these companies can bring a lawsuit directly against these companies.
Maybe we should then bring the fairness doctrine back. Conservatives dominate talk radio and discriminate against liberal viewers. The fact is there is no right of free speech on the internet. Private companies have a right to conduct their business as they see fit. This is so typical of the fascist right. The fact is that there are no barriers to competing. All you need is a internet connection. You need to replace the American flag with the Nazi flag. That would be more appropriate.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
Talk Radio is driven by the Free Market and there is wide open competition,
libtards are unsuccessful here because they are full of Shit, thus they aren’t
entertaining to listen to…
facebook is basically a monopoly, they ban views they don’t agree with….
twitter is and does pretty much the same as facebook….
google guides your searches and twists the truth to fit their liberal agenda….
They are not a monopoly. No one forces you to use their search engine. Banning views has nothing to do with a monopoly. The fact is that all one needs to compete is a internet connection. One that is easily available.
Your reading skills are lacking....
I didn't say google was a monopoly...……….
Anti-trust laws are used against monopolies. Regulations are used against monopolies. You have just undercut your argument.
