Ted Cruz, Lawyer, Doesn't Understand The First Amendment

[IrishGirl]

Private platforms have no obligation to allow you to speak you mind. That is capitalism.

Again, I'm not arguing that for all private platforms.  But Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, they have moved beyond a private platform to a public forum.

More people get their news from those three places than anywhere else today.  Especially for my generation.

They are privately owned, but they have culturally moved beyond a simple website.  they aren't just another platform anymore.  They have become the forum for the world...and the forum is controlled by groups that COULD and in some cases DO push a side in the debate.  And they use that ownership to push a cause.

When your private platform evolves into a global public forum...different rules need apply

[Katiebee]

Sorry, but the current administration will not do that. And past that, they are being held accountable for things that are on there.

[IrishGirl]

Sorry, but the current administration will not do that. And past that, they are being held accountable for things that are on there.

The current administration is the side that is being shadow banned.  But you're right, they still won't do it.  Neither will any other administration.  Control over the forum is a very powerful thing, especially when that forum is global.

[Katiebee]

You really are speaking without knowledge. They aren’t being restricted. The few who have had their accounts suspended have been in violation of the user agreements. What about this is so hard to understand? It is NOT a left-wing liberal conspiracy. It is free market forces.

[_priapism]

We should have retired that Jewel avatar when Melissa left.  I just got triggered.

[IrishGirl]

You really are speaking without knowledge. They aren’t being restricted. The few who have had their accounts suspended have been in violation of the user agreements. What about this is so hard to understand? It is NOT a left-wing liberal conspiracy. It is free market forces.

Well no, even people like Tim Pool, who came to journalistic fame for live streaming Occupy Wall Street were shadow banned, suspended, then reinstated only to get shadowed banned again depending on what they were covering, in his case violence related to Antifa.

And I would never claim that it's a conspiracy of any kind.  But what I would say is that they are being pressured by a vocal minority that is proud of doxing among other things, as well as inflating accusations.

And I am speaking from experience as someone that was in college before and after the Clinton/Trump election.  There has been a mental breakdown that has gotten to the point where "center" is associated with "Nazi"

[psiberzerker]

Okay, since you use the term a lot.  Would you mind explicitely defining what you mean by "Shadow Banned?"  I'm having a lot of trouble following your conspiracy theory without that understanding.

[Athos_131]

This is stupid.

Facebook is a private company.

Facebook is not the government.  They can run their business how they see fit. 

#Resist

[IrishGirl]

This is stupid.

Facebook is a private company.

Facebook is not the government.  They can run their business how they see fit. 

#Resist

Again, I am not saying that they can't.  I am just saying that when you evolve from a website to the public forum...and by forum I am talking in the Greco-Roman sense...a moral responsibility should come with that evolution.

[Athos_131]

Cite an example using a credible, verifible source.

#Resist

[IrishGirl]

Cite an example using a credible, verifible source.

#Resist

I love this, are you asking me to cite sources on my opinion that anything that becomes a public forum should allow for free speech?

Is that what you're asking, or is there something specific that you are looking for...

Because, if you are looking for me to cite why I believe that they are the new public forum than...

https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/282087/number-of-monthly-active-twitter-users/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/805656/number-youtube-viewers-worldwide/

But if you are looking for something specific you really should be more direct.

[Katiebee]

Fuck. You are simply advocating nationalizing all communications platforms.

[IrishGirl]

Fuck. You are simply advocating nationalizing all communications platforms.

Absolutely not.  If a Nation controls it, the nation controls political thought and the free exchange of ideas.  

Currently corporations control it...its just as dangerous having a nation control that as it is a corporation.

I am advocating for an open and free platform on what is the new forum.  

Facebook, Twitter, and youtube are platforms that, by BILLIONS around the world, ideas are freely distributed.  Starting at the Arab Spring, right down to protests today they have been used to organize and coordinate protests.

Censoring that is controlling political thought.  And I understand that it's a popular concept today...but controlling political thought, the distribution of ideas, it's like burning a book.

I honestly have no idea where you are drawing these conclusions from.

[Lois]

There is a precedent for the government stepping in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

Personally I wish the fairness doctrine was still in place.

Also, the internet might be declared a public utility and regulated in other ways.

[IrishGirl]

There is a precedent for the government stepping in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

Personally I wish the fairness doctrine was still in place.

Also, the internet might be declared a public utility and regulated in other ways.

I agree with the fairness doctrine.

But the regulated I have issues with. 

[Katiebee]

Damned if you do, damned if you din’t.

[IrishGirl]

But Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, they have become so much more than just social media sites, the are the new forum even more so than television.  Because of that they should be morally obligated to obey a more Millian look at speech.

It is an interesting idea. Social media has completely overshadowed traditional media as a source of current affairs and discussion, but unlike traditional media, social media is not limited by print space, air time, etc. In theory, there is a strong argument in favour of total free expression.

However, there is one thing to be considered, I think. While your comparison with physical public forums is mostly sound, there is the issue of online anonymity. In a physical public forum you can express whatever opinion you want, but once expressed there may be immediate or long term consequences that can't be ignored. What you express will become part of your identity, for better or worse. This is also true for much of social media, but, crucially, is not necessarily true. The option to use an alias, or multiple accounts, or an army of bots, etc, is always there. The forum is similar but not the same and therefore the same rules cannot be applied.

At the moment, expressing views in physical public forums can get your head caved in with a bike lock, among other things, if your view doesn't totally conform to a populace mob.  The internet offers anonymity in a world where the "consequences" of nonconformity to a view is violence.

When there are groups with slogans like "punch a Nazi" and the definition of "Nazi" can be anyone that doesn't conform a public forum with anonymity means the freedom of speech...because the "consequence" can be physical suppression.

And that should not be a "consequence" to speech.  When punching someone is considered a "consequence" to rhetoric it means you're unable to meet idea with idea and opt for violent repression

[IrishGirl]

At the moment, expressing views in physical public forums can get your head caved in with a bike lock, among other things, if your view doesn't totally conform to a populace mob.  The internet offers anonymity in a world where the "consequences" of nonconformity to a view is violence.

When there are groups with slogans like "punch a Nazi" and the definition of "Nazi" can be anyone that doesn't conform a public forum with anonymity means the freedom of speech...because the "consequence" can be physical suppression.

Its growing though.  That is what Antifa does at their counter-protests and the far right has even tried to bring armed groups to stand between the two groups.

Bomb threats, fire alarms, and riots occur on college campuses to prevent speakers.  Trump is saying people are threatening violence if he is impeached and antifa is threatening more violence if he isn't.

It's a growing situation that is only going to get worse unless people object to it.

That is alarmist, bordering on hysterical. People have been physically attacked for expressing their views, recently and throughout history, but not to a significant rate.

[IrishGirl]

Its growing though.  That is what Antifa does at their counter-protests and the far right has even tried to bring armed groups to stand between the two groups.

Bomb threats, fire alarms, and riots occur on college campuses to prevent speakers.  Trump is saying people are threatening violence if he is impeached and antifa is threatening more violence if he isn't.

It's a growing situation that is only going to get worse unless people object to it.

Eh, maybe. It's a problem, but there have been more imminent threats of widespread violence in the past that have amounted to nothing. In any case, that is a separate issue to free speech on the Internet and trying to treat one problem by creating another is counter-productive.

I do agree that it is largely a separate issue, but it is another reason why the internet is becoming the new forum.

Ultimately thought, Facebook and twitter have followers in the BILLIONS, and the amount of shares from political pundits ranks in the millions.  that is where thoughts are being exchanged and the conversation is happening.

[Lois]

Bad as Antifa may be, they do not have a body count.  The same cannot be said about right-wing nationalist white supremicists.