Trump vows to strip radical left of total control over social media

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Interesting observations. Your analysis is a bit one-sided, however.

Trump-lovers have poured into the thread to praise another Trump gaffe and jump through semantic hoops to try to make it make sense.

If you have a valid argument to make about "anti-trust" in regard to Google, et. al. why not make that rather than regurgitating BS?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The government does not have the right to dictate business policies so long as they are within the boundaries of the Constitution and applicable laws.

A business does have the right to determine how their services will be delivered, in this specific case, that regards how and what content is delivered.

In order for Trump et. al. to "end censorship" the government would have to specify what content was acceptable for these social media companies to publish.

Any of you who want to give the government that power need to reconsider your life.

DIGITAL FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.

Source?

I meant we need One of them is what i was saying.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The government does not have the right to dictate business policies so long as they are within the boundaries of the Constitution and applicable laws.

A business does have the right to determine how their services will be delivered, in this specific case, that regards how and what content is delivered.

In order for Trump et. al. to "end censorship" the government would have to specify what content was acceptable for these social media companies to publish.

Any of you who want to give the government that power need to reconsider your life.

DIGITAL FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.

Source?

I meant we need One of them is what i was saying.

Ah.

Government needs to stay out of regulating freedom.

originally posted by: Breakthestreak

originally posted by: olaru12
Can you imagine the absolute outrage if a democrat considered meddling in private enterprise with even a hint of censorship. Obama would have been lynched.

“The Christian baker HAS TO bake a cake for a gay wedding”

Literally EVERY single dEmocrat and leftist on earth

Most moronic statement of the year goes to you! No different than saying every right winger on Earth is a racist who fancies Hitler and shoots black people for sport.

I'm a lefty, shops have the right to refuse service and only a complete dick would force one to make it (especially for a wedding) when they could just go to another cake bakers that's happy to make one for them and support their business. Or just make their own.

Just because someone is gay or straight doesn't mean they're not a self entitled asshole.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
This is purely about reducing censorship by preventing illegal monopolistic activity.

So how many choices do you have for an ISP right now?
Exactly. Dont pretend like anyone gives a damned about monopolies when ISPs have been doing it forever.

Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon.... non of those companies have lobbied to have legislation passed to prevent you or anyone else from building competition (the same cant be said for ISPs though).

Millions of conservatives manage to use all of the above on a daily basis with absolutely zero issues.

Its really simple: follow the damned rules.

Actually, provide me just ONE example of someone being "censored" without violated the terms of use that they agreed to before using any arbitrary "leftist" service.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Ah.

Government needs to stay out of regulating freedom.

+1

More gov't regs held over free speech will just cause backlash and a shove the other way. Especially if Trump loses the election.

I say don't pour fuel on the fire. A shove one way invites a harder shove back.

originally posted by: okrian
Should I now expect those on the right to come out and defend private enterprise against government overreach like they used to?

'You can't tell me to back a cake!... but you can tell me what to say!!'

Say it altogether now... "We want regulation! We demand censorship!"

We are living in the upside down.

I see your point here. And yes, I’d be a hypocritical not to speak in defense of the companies. If you’re anti regulation and taxation - knowing that being pro either one of those things leads to more mission creep - then You have to be against this too.

Now, the lines get a little blurred for me given just how closet they Feds work with these companies - which is real close. Beyond that, it has been made clear that social media is a weaponized tool of the left in particular and at scale. “Conservative” or “alternate” opinions are flames, shamed and banned. Regularly. That’s an issue and discriminatory - which has its own set of protections.

That said, nothing will come of this in any case. I’ve said for years FB is just a publicly traded Federal agency. Every few years, the Feds take Zuck in front of congress to shake him down for a few billion to make things look legit and then it’s back to business as usual.

So, for all the debate on either side, nothing will actually happen here IMO.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The government does not have the right to dictate business policies so long as they are within the boundaries of the Constitution and applicable laws.

A business does have the right to determine how their services will be delivered, in this specific case, that regards how and what content is delivered.

In order for Trump et. al. to "end censorship" the government would have to specify what content was acceptable for these social media companies to publish.

Any of you who want to give the government that power need to reconsider your life.

DIGITAL FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.

Source?

I meant we need One of them is what i was saying.

Ah.

Government needs to stay out of regulating freedom.

Guranteeing a persons right to speak is not regulating freedom.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: trollz

What are we going to do about it? Nationalize private companies and steal private property and capital from successful businesses? Over a bunch of videos shared by people too dumb to realize what they are watching is from 2009?

Free-dumb!

Wow.... wasn't it only recently that the former POTUS led the charge to strip Comcast and other telecoms of their power to "throttle" bandwidth and charge people extra money to have normal bandwidth? You know...… net neutrality?
So Trump and suddenly its a bad thing.... you just cannot make this stuff up. Oh yes, and I remember a few short years ago, the Progressives were whining about how the Right controlled talk radio so they wanted to strip the "right" of their control. Yah cant make this stuff up.
Oh yah and I remember when the government took on Microsoft to stop their monopolistic tendencies. Now Gates is monopolizing the health industry. No Vitamin C and zinc for us, only his vaccines!!!!!

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: Breakthestreak

originally posted by: olaru12
Can you imagine the absolute outrage if a democrat considered meddling in private enterprise with even a hint of censorship. Obama would have been lynched.

“The Christian baker HAS TO bake a cake for a gay wedding”

Literally EVERY single dEmocrat and leftist on earth

Most moronic statement of the year goes to you! No different than saying every right winger on Earth is a racist who fancies Hitler and shoots black people for sport.

I'm a lefty, shops have the right to refuse service and only a complete dick would force one to make it (especially for a wedding) when they could just go to another cake bakers that's happy to make one for them and support their business. Or just make their own.

Just because someone is gay or straight doesn't mean they're not a self entitled asshole.

Do you really not remember the case of the Christian wedding cake baker being taken to task for refusal???? Or are you saying it wasn't a precedent in a court of law?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The government does not have the right to dictate business policies so long as they are within the boundaries of the Constitution and applicable laws.

A business does have the right to determine how their services will be delivered, in this specific case, that regards how and what content is delivered.

In order for Trump et. al. to "end censorship" the government would have to specify what content was acceptable for these social media companies to publish.

Any of you who want to give the government that power need to reconsider your life.

www.wired.com...

What? Suddenly the propnents of net neutrality want to preserve the sanctity of private industry? Hogwash
Net neutrality and Microsoft antitrust en.wikipedia.org...

Trump vows to strip radical left of total control over social media

From the Orange guys mouth to Gods ears.

Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google

SInce they've become synonmous with broadcast news.

By all rights the FCC should be regulating them.

Many of these silicon valley tech companies need to be public entities, too much one sided political agenda in such a powerful business.

Physically able to manipulate what people see online, remove content that doesn't align with your agenda.

My friend working has to pretend to be liberal and tells of stories about plans to surpress a lot of certain groups

a reply to: Bloodworth

It's suprising to see right-leaning people in favor of the trump administration possibly taking control or heavily regulating a private company.

Trump gets praised for capatalism then now praised for a seemingly communist approach.

Talk about a powerful cult of personality trump has!

a reply to: neo96

Seems like a slippery slope to let the government regulate giant tech companies. Giving the government a lot of power over the free market.

a reply to: blueman12

Are you effing kidding me?

Seems like a slippery slope to let the government regulate giant tech companies. Giving the government a lot of power over the free market

Why doesn't that snip apply to firearms?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Ah.

Government needs to stay out of regulating freedom.

It is true this is all a new situation where you have private companies that have created public platforms that have become the common use by the masses for communication. I do not have an answer to this other than maybe they should not regulate anyone's fourth, but then they are private companies...

So where do we go? Will this open the doors for other companies to allow freedom of speech for all and that slowly drives these companies downward who decide to limit what they think is right or wrong? Should the government step in ands tell them not to limit freedom of speech being a private company? Should the Goverment label companies based on their political directions in what they allow or not?

As I said I do not have a good answer for this, but we all can see how companies like Google, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and so on could drive a narrative of one sided support and extremely limit anything else, and that is not good either.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Ah.

Government needs to stay out of regulating freedom.

It is true this is all a new situation where you have private companies that have created public platforms that have become the common use by the masses for communication. I do not have an answer to this other than maybe they should not regulate anyone's fourth, but then they are private companies...

So where do we go? Will this open the doors for other companies to allow freedom of speech for all and that slowly drives these companies downward who decide to limit what they think is right or wrong? Should the government step in ands tell them not to limit freedom of speech being a private company? Should the Goverment label companies based on their political directions in what they allow or not?

As I said I do not have a good answer for this, but we all can see how companies like Google, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and so on could drive a narrative of one sided support and extremely limit anything else, and that is not good either.

Let's use ATS as the model. You're free to speak almost anything you want here but the rightwing ideology is prominent and can stifle the opposition with ridicule and name calling. Why should any other private forum be any different? You are free to join in or leave...freedom of choice, lead, follow or GTFO!!

Government censorship has no place on ATS. Let the marketplace decide what people want to listen to; or would you prefer the communistic model of complete government control, limited access to the www. and censorship.

Save your money, rent time on a server and be the change you seek and let other companies run their business the way they think will be most profitable. That's the American way....

Or whine like a crybaby if you want to. You're in the right place....

a reply to: trollz

If only as many people here cared about the first amendment as much as they do about the second.