It's gonna be fun when we can sue Google, Twitter and other online groups for censorship

[Coyote]

Trump threatens to sue Facebook and Google and rails against big tech companies for being 'totally biased'

"We should be suing Google and Facebook and all that," Trump said during an interview on Fox Business. "Which, perhaps we will."

www.businessinsider.com

So are you in the class action or out?

Editing or moving a post makes the online site a publisher

So go right ahead and hide the post that embarrass Biden with the truth

CIAO

If they are a publisher,then they become responsible for the accuracy of what is published, like any newspaper for example. That means they knowingly publish conspiracy theories, lies etc with out at least identifying them as unfounded. That would probably apply to 90% of Trump & CO’s tweets.

You can’t sue them for censorship for refusing to publish false material.

 

[Coyote]

Sorry, but that is like Radio Free Europe to half the population. These big behemouths need to be broken up like the Bell Telephone Company was.

They do...but for some reason these days....anti-trust has gone out the window as more and more media is controlledby a very few large entities. There is no real competition for twitter.

 

[Coyote]

Censorship only involves the government, not private entities. Incidentally, Google is private, and others may set up their own, so there is no antitrust issue.

Agree with censorship, but I do think Google is skirting anti trust.

 

[pknopp]

Yes they can. Let’s say a company or place of business, like a store, has a community bulletin board, where the public can post fliers, ads, etc. That store is prohibited from picking and choosing what can be posted or taken down on that community board.

No they aren't. Are you going to argue that if the KKK posted a flyer on their board they must leave it up if they leave up vote for Candidate A flyers?

 

[colfax_m]

Illegal.

That's it.

Nope. Nope. Nope. That’s a stupid idea.

If I wanted to manage a forum for a hobbyist group, shouldn’t I be able to police it to keep trash out? People could post anti-Semitic memes. Pornography. Racist and bigoted attacks.

And you couldn’t do anything about it.

 

[colfax_m]

Nobody said it was. Nobody tells The NY Times what they should be. The NY Times puts out the stories they want to print, they choose which topics to cover, and which to not. They choose who their authors are and which op-Ed’s they’ll print. They’ll decide which story or article the public sees first, and which to move to the back of the line. Which is precisely what google does. If google wants to behave like The NY Times, they are free to do so. However, they will not be shielded from the liable laws, just like The NY Times aren’t.

On the flip side if google wants to behave like a platform, like a telephone company, they are free to do so. Everyone’s allowed to use our telephones if they wish, and everyone is allowed to say what they want. That’s none of our business to police what they should and shouldn’t say and why. Therefore telephone companies aren’t responsible for what their users say on their service.

Well when you start saying things like google "should" be something, it appears you're deciding what's best for a company that you don't have a part in managing.

The NY Times only publishes what they decide and is extremely limited. The phone companies don't publish anything since phone calls are from one person to another. Social media platforms don't fit nicely into this category. Attempting to shoehorn them into these two categories is nonsense and would force them either to publish only an extremely limited subset of people (like the NY Times) or publish nothing at all (like phone companies).

 

[sakinago]

No they aren't. Are you going to argue that if the KKK posted a flyer on their board they must leave it up if they leave up vote for Candidate A flyers?

Yes because that’s the law. The ACLU agrees with defending the free speech rights of the KKK. They’ve done so on a couple of occasions. Just because you believe even the KKK has a right to speech doesn’t mean you condone what they do or say.

The only speech that needs to be defended is the speech that the majority does not approve of. If that wasn’t the case then there’d be no need to codify the first amendment. If we can just silence what we don’t like, then we don’t really need the first amendment now do we? The only way to solve “bad” speech is through better speech. If you don’t like what someone is saying, tell them why.

ACLU-EM Defends KKK's Right to Free Speech | American Civil Liberties Union

www.aclu.org

 

[sakinago]

Well when you start saying things like google "should" be something, it appears you're deciding what's best for a company that you don't have a part in managing.

The NY Times only publishes what they decide and is extremely limited. The phone companies don't publish anything since phone calls are from one person to another. Social media platforms don't fit nicely into this category. Attempting to shoehorn them into these two categories is nonsense and would force them either to publish only an extremely limited subset of people (like the NY Times) or publish nothing at all (like phone companies).

No it’s not ridiculous at all. Google operated exactly like the way I described since their existence, pretty much up until the tail end of Obama’s presidency. You’re acting like google behaving like a platform that doesn’t police speech (the same way a phone company doesn’t) is completely unheard of. It’s what google was for most of its existence.

 

[Coyote]

Yes because that’s the law. The ACLU agrees with defending the free speech rights of the KKK. They’ve done so on a couple of occasions. Just because you believe even the KKK has a right to speech doesn’t mean you condone what they do or say.

The only speech that needs to be defended is the speech that the majority does not approve of. If that wasn’t the case then there’d be no need to codify the first amendment. If we can just silence what we don’t like, then we don’t really need the first amendment now do we? The only way to solve “bad” speech is through better speech. If you don’t like what someone is saying, tell them why.

ACLU-EM Defends KKK's Right to Free Speech | American Civil Liberties Union

www.aclu.org

That only applies to the government. Not private entities. A community board in a store is still a private entity.

 

[pknopp]

Yes because that’s the law. The ACLU agrees with defending the free speech rights of the KKK. They’ve done so on a couple of occasions. Just because you believe even the KKK has a right to speech doesn’t mean you condone what they do or say.

The only speech that needs to be defended is the speech that the majority does not approve of. If that wasn’t the case then there’d be no need to codify the first amendment. If we can just silence what we don’t like, then we don’t really need the first amendment now do we? The only way to solve “bad” speech is through better speech. If you don’t like what someone is saying, tell them why.

ACLU-EM Defends KKK's Right to Free Speech | American Civil Liberties Union

www.aclu.org

At this point I can't believe that it still needs explained to people the difference in what the government can do and what a private business can do.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Trump threatens to sue Facebook and Google and rails against big tech companies for being 'totally biased'

"We should be suing Google and Facebook and all that," Trump said during an interview on Fox Business. "Which, perhaps we will."

www.businessinsider.com

So are you in the class action or out?

Editing or moving a post makes the online site a publisher

So go right ahead and hide the post that embarrass Biden with the truth

CIAO

Time to treat them like they were a Christian owned bakery

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That only applies to the government. Not private entities. A community board in a store is still a private entity.

So is a Christian owned bakery

 

[Coyote]

So is a Christian owned bakery

Yup.

And like all, subject to US law.

 

[sakinago]

At this point I can't believe that it still needs explained to people the difference in what the government can do and what a private business can do.

I just explained the law 2 posts ago. If your business has some sort of community post board, they are prohibited from choosing what can and can’t be on it, because it’s a violation of free speech rights.

 

[pknopp]

I just explained the law 2 posts ago. If your business has some sort of community post board, they are prohibited from choosing what can and can’t be on it, because it’s a violation of free speech rights.

No it isn't. I'll note you didn't answer my question.

 

[Coyote]

I just explained the law 2 posts ago. If your business has some sort of community post board, they are prohibited from choosing what can and can’t be on it, because it’s a violation of free speech rights.

Can you provide any examples of tbe laws applying to such?

 

[sakinago]

That only applies to the government. Not private entities. A community board in a store is still a private entity.

Yet by law they are not allowed choose what can and can’t go on it. Which is why I used that ruling as an example. Why else would I be talking about community cork boards? Use your heads folks.

The other example, that I also cited, would be phone companies. The internet is just a communication network on steroids. Phone companies are not allowed to choose who speaks or what can be said. Same should be applied to the internet

 

[Coyote]

Yet by law they are not allowed choose what can and can’t go on it. Which is why I used that ruling as an example. Why else would I be talking about community cork boards? Use your heads folks.

The other example, that I also cited, would be phone companies. The internet is just a communication network on steroids. Phone companies are not allowed to choose who speaks or what can be said. Same should be applied to the internet

What laws?

 

[Andylusion]

Trump threatens to sue Facebook and Google and rails against big tech companies for being 'totally biased'

"We should be suing Google and Facebook and all that," Trump said during an interview on Fox Business. "Which, perhaps we will."

www.businessinsider.com

So are you in the class action or out?

Editing or moving a post makes the online site a publisher

So go right ahead and hide the post that embarrass Biden with the truth

CIAO

I think it's great. The moment they started playing games with it, they opened themselves to get smashed, and they should.

As long as they simply left it alone, I was fine with it. But they did this, so they are getting what they deserve.

 

[satrebil]

Big tech companies are allowed to be biased.

Then they can't be platforms. It's literally that simple.