Fighting back against big tech censorship

[RDKirk]

What Constitutional amendment protects a publisher from being sued?

None. The Constitution doesn't protect either from being sued in the same way. It doesn't support either to be sued, the same way. Both are the same under the law.

 

[RDKirk]

They don’t like what trump did but big tech shouldn’t necessarily blanket ban accounts. Especially not inconsistently. There is room to improve. It gives some ideas. Doesn’t think blocking or ignoring the disgruntled is good. That’s from memory.

If "big tech" could truly control the Internet so as to actually choke free speech, that would be an argument.

But in reality, we're looking at the a still far better than what media offered prior to the Internet and cable television. You had three national network television networks and a handful of national newspapers. The average person--for that matter, even the President--only had the access that the owners of those stations and newspapers permitted.

Joe Sixpack could write a letter to the editor, and the editor would publish that letter only if he agreed with it or had a way to make it look stupid...the editor always won.

If Joe Sixpack wanted his voice heard by the nation, he had to buy a printing press, buy ink, buy paper, buy a distribution system...or find a national publisher who found his writing agreeable and entertaining and get a regular column in that newspaper.

Today's Internet is still much better than that situation for Joe Sixpack. I can still buy a server and set up my own blog saying anything I want unless the government itself steps in to find me and silence me. And even that's not absolutely possible...as the Pirate Bay website, which has been hunted by governments around the world proves.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

If "big tech" could truly control the Internet so as to actually choke free speech, that would be an argument.

But in reality, we're looking at the a still far better than what media offered prior to the Internet and cable television. You had three national network television networks and a handful of national newspapers. The average person--for that matter, even the President--only had the access that the owners of those stations and newspapers permitted.

Joe Sixpack could write a letter to the editor, and the editor would publish that letter only if he agreed with it or had a way to make it look stupid...the editor always won.

If Joe Sixpack wanted his voice heard by the nation, he had to buy a printing press, buy ink, buy paper, buy a distribution system...or find a national publisher who found his writing agreeable and entertaining and get a regular column in that newspaper.

Today's Internet is still much better than that situation for Joe Sixpack. I can still buy a server and set up my own blog saying anything I want unless the government itself steps in to find me and silence me. And even that's not absolutely possible...as the Pirate Bay website, which has been hunted by governments around the world proves.

In summary - you’re not bothered if big tech shut off certain players or turn others on harder? basically ??

 

[ViaCrucis]

A business can refuse service to anyone...but only if it's a baker refusing to make a cake for a gay person; if it is fascist insurrectionists then that business has to let people use their service to plan a violent overthrowing of democracy.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RDKirk]

In summary - you’re not bothered if big tech shut off certain players or turn others on harder? basically ??

You mean like Walmart? Since when has American business been overly bothered by bigger businesses shut out or gobbling up smaller businesses?

It's easier for Ma and Pa to set up their own servers for their own social media platform than for them to set up a small business to compete with Walmart.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

You mean like Walmart? Since when has American business been overly bothered by bigger businesses shut out or gobbling up smaller businesses?

It's easier for Ma and Pa to set up their own servers for their own social media platform than for them to set up a small business to compete with Walmart.

No I get it. I was just understanding your position.

 

[dunricky]

I believe they censor, especially Twitter, conservative political voices. I deleted all social media accounts, and I’m glad I did.

 

[grasping the after wind]

None. The Constitution doesn't protect either from being sued in the same way. It doesn't support either to be sued, the same way. Both are the same under the law.

Here is my rationale. Both religion and speech are Constitutionally protected under the First Amendment. I do not find any Constitutionally necessary reason for providing immunity from lawsuits for an entity that is actively engaged in suppressing speech based upon political allegiance or upon the opinion of the censors in that entity about what constitutes misinformation. It seems to me that on many other matters it is assumed that government is acting when an entity subsidized by the government acts. By providing immunity from lawsuits the government is de facto subsidizing an entity. If an entity is being de facto subsidized by the government then it is de facto an arm or agent of that government. If that entity then acts in a way that is unlawful for government to act that entity is acting unlawfully as well for as long as it is subsidized by the government. Remove the subsidy and the entity is free to act as it pleases.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Leo Terrell says Big Tech straddles both sides of the aisle

Leo Terrell: Big Tech Is in Bed with Both Dems and Republicans