Complaint Thread

[Shortbus311]

Twitter and all other social media platforms are private entities and first amendment rights do not apply—just as you have no first amendment right as an employee with a private company or can be asked to leave a private business for your speech or actions. The Macks are free to ban you or myself for our speech or actions on this board and that in no way infringes on our right to freedom of speech.

I agree that that is how it is now. I am saying that is not how it should be. When we have advances in technology we need to update our laws to reflect that.

Social media companies call themselves platforms so that they are not liable for posts made by users of their services. All traditional media companies are publishers and can be held liable for their content because they control what content they publish. As soon as social media companies start controlling their content via deleting posts or locking accounts that have done nothing to warrant a lock other than post something they disagree with as a company, now they have become publishers because they are controlling the content.

If they wish to keep enjoying the freedoms of being a platform then they should not limit users posts based on content or viewpoint. If they do keep limiting posts then they should be held to the standards of a publisher and be liable for all posts. That is the law I am saying should be passed.

[$20 on joe vs dan]

24 minutes ago, Shortbus311 said:

 

 

the "common good" part applies only to the right to peaceably assemble and consult. It does not apply to the previous rights of freedom of speech or freedom of press.

The Supreme Court has long upheld that content or viewpoint restrictions of speech are unconstitutional, see Legal Services Corp v Velasquez (2001) or Snyder v Phelps (2011). And these are rulings handed down from liberal majority courts.

It is unconstitutional to limit someone's speech based on their views or content just because you disagree with what they are saying. If you allow limiting a racist viewpoint then why not the viewpoint of someone who just has different political views?

 

so practically speaking; Freedom of Speech for most people is limited to what they can literally say from their own lips since any other medium/media/outlet is corporately owned...once they go "online", on their phones, or pretty much any device they give up their rights under the "use agreement" 

[TANV]

My wife was at Yale when Zuckerberg started facebook and she was highly skeptical about it, despite what her friends telling her to get on. She politely declined but confided in me that it was too much of a privacy risk. She didn't want some creepy Harvard drop-out to have her info. Since then, she keeps primarily professional networks liked LinkedIn or Academia due to work but has no Twitter, Instagram, TiKTok or FB.

Frankly, FB's business model runs on garnering the most clicks and views so of course you're going to get more reaction with outrage than with actual information.

[fuzzy_bricks]

18 minutes ago, NIevo said:

I agree for the most part.  Just look at the latest "stimulus" checks.  Individuals who are hurting are getting hundreds of dollars, yet the politicians, foreign governments and various worthless organizations are getting millions if not billions.  They get away with it because most people who just watch MSM don't realize what's actually in the bills because it doesn't fit the feel good agenda and all they care about is free money which really isn't free.  Not sure if it was in the bill that passed or not but one of them had a $50k+ pay raise for Congress in it🤬

The people that pass the bills don't know what is them.

[NIevo]

Problem with any social media platforms is to many people take what they see and read on there for the truth.  Then when you have the platforms start censoring or banning certain people or groups they just don't agree with you have people take that as that group being "bad" or "dishonest" and it is a dangerous path.

When you have people out there doxxing others just because they don't like them it becomes a serious issue.  Social media by itself might not be the downfall of the country or society, but it sure is helping. 

1 minute ago, fuzzy_bricks said:

The people that pass the bills don't know what is them.

True, but they know it isn't anything that's going to hurt them and they really don't care about us for the most part.  How could they know?  The last bill was 5000 pages and they had to vote in less then 24hrs.

[Shortbus311]

so practically speaking; Freedom of Speech for most people is limited to what they can literally say from their own lips since any other medium/media/outlet is corporately owned...once they go "online", on their phones, or pretty much any device they give up their rights under the "use agreement" 

Just because someone agrees to a user agreement, it doesn't make that user agreement constitutional.

You made my exact point for me earlier actually when you brought up the 2nd amendment. When it was written I am sure that the right to keep and bear arms was meant to be literal. But our founding fathers had no way of predicting the advancements of firearms to the point of Tomahawk missiles and nuclear weapons. So it's definition has been updated to keep pace with the times and restrictions have been put in place making it illegal for a private citizen to own a nuclear weapon for instance.

I am saying that our right to freedom of speech needs to be updated with the times to include speech on social media because, legally, social media companies define themselves as platforms and not as a publisher.

[Alpinemaps]

My kid is two, I don't have to worry about him on social media. I do have to help him steer his Mario Kart so the 5 laps don't take 40 minutes

LifeProTip: Hand the two year old a controller, and then find a YouTube play through that has no voice over. You’re welcome.

[NIevo]

1 minute ago, Shortbus311 said:

Just because someone agrees to a user agreement, it doesn't make that user agreement constitutional.

You made my exact point for me earlier actually when you brought up the 2nd amendment. When it was written I am sure that the right to keep and bear arms was meant to be literal. But our founding fathers had no way of predicting the advancements of firearms to the point of Tomahawk missiles and nuclear weapons. So it's definition has been updated to keep pace with the times and restrictions have been put in place making it illegal for a private citizen to own a nuclear weapon for instance.

I am saying that our right to freedom of speech needs to be updated with the times to include speech on social media because, legally, social media companies define themselves as platforms and not as a publisher.

 

Hey, I'm good with a rocket launcher😁

[redghostx]

LifeProTip: Hand the two year old a controller, and then find a YouTube play through that has no voice over. You’re welcome.

That's a great idea. I sometime let him use th second controller while I'm playing, especially snes games or rock band since he can have the same guitar or microphone.

[Shortbus311]

Twitter and all other social media platforms are private entities and first amendment rights do not apply—just as you have no first amendment right as an employee with a private company or can be asked to leave a private business for your speech or actions. The Macks are free to ban you or myself for our speech or actions on this board and that in no way infringes on our right to freedom of speech.

Social media hides behind section 230 of the communications decency act saying that they are platforms instead of publishers. That way they cannot be held liable.

Traditional publishers such as The New York Times, CNN or Fox are held liable for the content in their media because they control what is published and what isn't.

Phone companies such as Verizon or AT&T are considered platforms under section 230 and are not held liable for anything said over their phone lines. They also don't end your phone call if you say something that they as a company disagree with or spread misinformation over their phone network.

Social media companies are claiming that they are just like the phone companies and should enjoy the same legal protections from being sued for slanderous comments on their services. But unlike phone companies and more like traditional media companies they control the content of their services by deleting posts, locking accounts based off of user's posted content or by using algorithms to "hide" searchable content making it almost impossible to find. To me, these actions make them more like publishers of traditional media than platforms like your phone company.

[Mark Twain]

Social media hides behind section 230 of the communications decency act saying that they are platforms instead of publishers. That way they cannot be held liable.

Traditional publishers such as The New York Times, CNN or Fox are held liable for the content in their media because they control what is published and what isn't.

Phone companies such as Verizon or AT&T are considered platforms under section 230 and are not held liable for anything said over their phone lines. They also don't end your phone call if you say something that they as a company disagree with or spread misinformation over their phone network.

Social media companies are claiming that they are just like the phone companies and should enjoy the same legal protections from being sued for slanderous comments on their services. But unlike phone companies and more like traditional media companies they control the content of their services by deleting posts, locking accounts based off of user's posted content or by using algorithms to "hide" searchable content making it almost impossible to find. To me, these actions make them more like publishers of traditional media than platforms like your phone company.

What you are advocating for would tear apart one of the foundational principles of the internet. Wikipedia, Reddit, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and forums that we are on now would cease to exist as we know it. A private company has a fundamental right to limit or ban service, especially if they do not want their brand or service associated with their acts or speech. Forcing them to host content they think is damaging violates their constitutional right to run their private, for profit enterprise as they see fit.

Your phone company and internet analogy is misleading as phone companies operating as platforms ban numbers and block Robo and spam calls to the tune of tens of millions each day, which they are allowed to do as a private, for profit platform, unchecked and unchallenged .

[Alpinemaps]

That's a great idea. I sometime let him use th second controller while I'm playing, especially snes games or rock band since he can have the same guitar or microphone.

I did that with my son at that age, when my daughter was playing Mario Kart all the time. He didn’t know better. But be warned - there will be a day where they will figure it out. Lol

[NIevo]

10 minutes ago, Mark Twain said:

What you are advocating for would tear apart one of the foundational principles of the internet. Wikipedia, Reddit, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and forums that we are on now would cease to exist as we know it. A private company has a fundamental right to limit or ban service, especially if they do not want their brand or service associated with their acts or speech. Forcing them to host content they think is damaging violates their constitutional right to run their private, for profit enterprise as they see fit.

Your phone company and internet analogy is misleading as phone companies operating as platforms ban numbers and block Robo and spam calls to the tune of tens of millions each day, which they are allowed to do as a private, for profit platform, unchecked and unchallenged .

 

Good, those platforms as we know them are the biggest spreaders of misinformation there are.  When you have private companies like that who are able to sway entire thought processes of a populace because of what they decide they want to allow or not allow based on their personal beliefs is what got us in most of the mess we are in now. 

[$20 on joe vs dan]

6 minutes ago, Mark Twain said:

What you are advocating for would tear apart one of the foundational principles of the internet. Wikipedia, Reddit, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and forums that we are on now would cease to exist as we know it. A private company has a fundamental right to limit or ban service, especially if they do not want their brand or service associated with their acts or speech. Forcing them to host content they think is damaging violates their constitutional right to run their private, for profit enterprise as they see fit.

Your phone company and internet analogy is misleading as phone companies operating as platforms ban numbers and block Robo and spam calls to the tune of tens of millions each day, which they are allowed to do as a private, for profit platform, unchecked and unchallenged .

I think of it like TV networks and censorship. There is a sense of decency that is the fabric of society. Any service that reaches all ages and peoples need to operate within the social norms of the times. There are no absolutes like "freedom of speech" outside the context of social norms.

W/ all that said, suspension of Trump's Twitter is a big deal and unprecedented and will test the bounds of social media.  I think a more reasonable type of regulation is to force all your followers to re-opt following an act that goes against policies. Clean slate and loss of previous content w/ every infringement of rules. Eventually people get tired of re-opting and that in itself will self-regulate individual twitter accounts   

[NIevo]

Just now, $20 on joe vs dan said:

I think of it like TV networks and censorship. There is a sense of decency that is the fabric of society. Any service that reaches all ages and peoples need to operate within the social norms of the times. There are no absolutes like "freedom of speech" outside the context of social norms.

W/ all that said, suspension of Trump's Twitter is a big deal and unprecedented and will test the bounds of social media.  I think a more reasonable type of regulation is to force all your followers to re-opt following an act that goes against policies. Clean slate and loss of previous content w/ every infringement of rules. Eventually people get tired of re-opting and that in itself will self-regulate individual twitter accounts   

To go one further, you now have Apple and Google removing Parler app from their sites and threatening to stop hosting it's servers simply because it is a right leaning platforms that decides not to sensor posts on either side of the spectrum but the big tech can't have that.  That right there show's you how biased the companies are.

[$20 on joe vs dan]

6 minutes ago, NIevo said:

To go one further, you now have Apple and Google removing Parler app from their sites and threatening to stop hosting it's servers simply because it is a right leaning platforms that decides not to sensor posts on either side of the spectrum but the big tech can't have that.  That right there show's you how biased the companies are.

IDK..."unbiased" is often times the PC word for hate speech

 

[Shortbus311]

What you are advocating for would tear apart one of the foundational principles of the internet. Wikipedia, Reddit, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and forums that we are on now would cease to exist as we know it. A private company has a fundamental right to limit or ban service, especially if they do not want their brand or service associated with their acts or speech. Forcing them to host content they think is damaging violates their constitutional right to run their private, for profit enterprise as they see fit.

Your phone company and internet analogy is misleading as phone companies operating as platforms ban numbers and block Robo and spam calls to the tune of tens of millions each day, which they are allowed to do as a private, for profit platform, unchecked and unchallenged .

I am proposing that companies would have to declare whether or not they are a platform or if they are a publisher. If they declare to be a platform then they must allow people to post what they wish regardless of content or viewpoint. This would not "tear apart one of the foundational principles of the internet". Companies can choose what they wish to be. I would assume that most forum sites such as Reddit would easily chose to be a platform. Wikipedia already screens every update to every page and they would therefore be a publisher. It's the other media giants that need to be worried.

The TRACED Act which was signed into law at the end of 2019 requires phone companies to attempt to stop robo and spam calls. They were not doing it voluntarily before this law required them to. So my analogy is spot on. Social media companies would still be required to follow federal law and ban and report posts that contained child pornography, for example.

Obviously there is room for legal debate. The people who run Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and the other social media giants currently have unchecked power to sway the viewpoints of the masses to their beliefs by deleting opposition views or by "fact checking" their users videos/posts. YouTube posts "fact check" disclaimers on any video that says there may have been any election irregularities or fraud, basically saying that the poster of the video is lying. Yet videos that speak about Trump and Russian collusion, which has already been investigated and proven false receive no such "fact check" disclaimers. I believe that the power of these social media companies to sway the ideas and thoughts of their users needs to be put in check.

[NIevo]

16 minutes ago, $20 on joe vs dan said:

IDK..."unbiased" is often times the PC word for hate speech

 

Gonna have to disagree with you there.  How do you figure?

[redghostx]

I did that with my son at that age, when my daughter was playing Mario Kart all the time. He didn’t know better. But be warned - there will be a day where they will figure it out. Lol

He already knows; he's gifted which is both good and bad.

[keymomachine]

49 minutes ago, NIevo said:

Good, those platforms as we know them are the biggest spreaders of misinformation there are.

And you're mad that they are allowed to delete and fact-check the misinformation? I don't get what you're after here.

[keymomachine]

58 minutes ago, Alpinemaps said:

I did that with my son at that age, when my daughter was playing Mario Kart all the time. He didn’t know better. But be warned - there will be a day where they will figure it out. Lol

I basically only play Lego games (very on brand) and my daughter enjoys watching and sometimes I can get her to actually play with me but then she stops moving and on the old Wii ones you have to drop her out so you can get on with the game - but she's never offended, because she likes watching other people play videogames anyways!

[Darth_Raichu]

5 hours ago, $20 on joe vs dan said:

I think the opposite may happen....party lines lose power w/ less division...for example..let's say it's a mixed group of Xbox and Playstation fanboys...if they were to take a vote on something then their allegiance to consoles will essentially dictate their vote...but if it was all Xbox then then individual opinions matter again...this may be a terrible example but it's the best I got... The dems think they will have "control" but in reality I think it will lead to more splintering (which is a good thing, imo)

Partisan politics is a reality but the magnitude can vary.  when individuals or small groups simply cannot win, then they need to ally themselves among party lines...but if DEM have the majority maybe individuals will have a voice again and votes are cast due to merit and not authorship.

any way you look at it; the mega-bill system with everyone's pet project in it needs to go!

If the Dems cannot work together with members of their own party, there is very little chance they could ally themselves with members of other party whose views are so widely different.  

Also, there is no need to create 1 mega bill if you can split them up to several smaller "super bills" that they can pass without much resistance.  All they need to do is spread out those pet projects among various smaller "super bills".  

[redghostx]

Everyone and each company is biased; Some more explicitly than others. It is still possible to have a polite, respectful discourse, and a fair exchange of ideas without censorship. Intelligent people have the ability to parse through this and reach a more or less informed decision. This site is generally proof of that.

The problem is that some democrats and some Republicans, in particular POTUS are incapable of this (or choose not to) and that is where the problems start. I personally object to the extreme left and right wing views, but I still respect that those people are entitled to their opinion and to share them with like minded people. I take issue when speeches get cancelled because one side (usually the left) vehemently objects. Generally, censorship is not good for society and neither is marginalizing these views and IMO, this has greatly led to many of the escalating conflicts. There are exceptions to this of course and some views are so despicable that they should never be allowed to be raised or promoted.

I appreciated how generally polite today's discussion has been, but perhaps it is time to move on and complain about Lego, deaths, bad music, hotcakes, makeup sales, etc.


Now, a complaint:
The US needs a federal election system, instead of a 50 state system. Yeah, it probably won't happen in my lifetime because I think it needs a constitutional amendment and states/parties lose power, but here's hoping.

[Darth_Raichu]

1 hour ago, $20 on joe vs dan said:

I think of it like TV networks and censorship. There is a sense of decency that is the fabric of society. Any service that reaches all ages and peoples need to operate within the social norms of the times. There are no absolutes like "freedom of speech" outside the context of social norms.

W/ all that said, suspension of Trump's Twitter is a big deal and unprecedented and will test the bounds of social media.  I think a more reasonable type of regulation is to force all your followers to re-opt following an act that goes against policies. Clean slate and loss of previous content w/ every infringement of rules. Eventually people get tired of re-opting and that in itself will self-regulate individual twitter accounts   

I would argue that people like Susan B Anthony, Martin Luther King Jr, and RBG would disagree with that.  Had they lived within the social norms of their time without exercising their freedom of speech, some of the rights that you enjoy and support would not have existed today.

[Phil B]

I would argue that people like Susan B Anthony, Martin Luther King Jr, and RBG would disagree with that.  Had they lived within the social norms of their time without exercising their freedom of speech, some of the rights that you enjoy and support would not have existed today.

Freedom of speech should not be confused with condoning the spread of hatred, racism, bigotry or inciting violence.

There is a big difference between being allowed to say that the US needs less taxation and Federal oversight or stating your belief that God created the earth 3000 years ago (neither of these are my opinion but I am totally fine with people saying this as part of their Freedom of Speech) and making derogatory comments towards entire groups of people, or calling people to arms to enact "justice" outside of the established judicial system.