Big Tech is going to come for you Mr. President

Keep Government out of free enterprise. Let the market place decide what the American citizen wants to read, buy, watch or participate in. Is that Fundamental enough for you?

a reply to: olaru12

How is the American citizen supposed to decide what to read, watch, when the enterprise is banning and erasing the content from the American citizen.

Come on. this issue is not black and white, absolute here, they is grey area.

can we view this issue in a idfferent perspective then an archiac republican way?

My brick and mortar retail store was destroyed by the "lock down" and there are plenty of twitter like social media sites.

a reply to: olaru12

Brick and mortar was in trouble before the lockdown

a reply to: EartOccupant

So would the EO turn social media into a public forum?? (which in my opinion is what it is now.)

AG Bar is right "these companies grew because they pretended to be public forums"

Wrong thread

I think we all know that as soon as he is not President he will be banned from all socials and arrested for a made up crime. They been trying for years.

The left is saying don't worry this isn't censorship... You can go somewhere else. Lol. They want "social media" to be segregated based on your political leanings. Like it is not enough of an echo chamber already.. I left Facebook years ago for exactly this reason. So I just have no contact with my family through social media now.. They would all have to leave Facebook as well.

Joe Biden tweets Trump is telling people to inject bleach and they don't fact check that. That is all you need to know.

a reply to: American-philosopher

I am saying we need to FUNDAMENTALLY (And I know there's irony there with the word fundamentally) We need to fundamentally change how social media is legislated arbutrated. If it takes an Excutive order to FUNDAMENTALLY change how social media is banning people. I am all for it.

So because you don't like how a private citizen chooses to run their business you want to give the government power to force that business to run things the way you want.

And you don't see how that could be used against you and every other business owner to take your rights away?
You do not own twitter.

I am fighting for your right as a business owner to run your propriety the way you choose.

Communism: a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned

Your trying to control another mans business because you don't like how he runs it.
When no one is forcing you to use the service that it provides.
You are not guaranteed a right to use twitter.

Just curious, how many members who are on trumps side are business owners?

Ats mods I have a question for you.
Is this eo going to effect every social media site including ats?
How do the mods feel about being labial for what ats members post?

i think it is more like the Feds are going to come after Big Tech.....Trump is being told what to do.

originally posted by: HalWesten
Problem is, none of these are first amendment issues. Those are all non-government companies and they can do what they want. You don't have to use them, there are alternatives to Facebook that aren't doing the same thing. Before you say "but they don't have any users!", neither did FB or Twitter when they first started.

It's not hard to just not use them. If you're addicted to those social media sites, maybe you should re-evaluate your priorities.

I get you point, these companies are a private platform and as such have the same liberty as any other business to restrict whatever content they wish from appearing on said platform.

That said I wonder, do you ever worry that things could be hidden or even out right "deleted" from history? Keep in mind that most people get their "news" from a few select sites/newspapers/news programs/etc. Along with that, most people don't bother to research the story beyond the angle presented. It's not hard to influence how people think, when you can control what they see, hear, and most importantly learn each day. And since most people spend hours a day on social media, maybe you can understand why others might be wary of allowing them complete control, even if they are a private company.

a reply to: looneylupinsrevenge

No as a PLATFORM they should allow anything to be posted because sec 230 protects them then. As long as it does not have extremist,illegal post then they can remove said post under said protection.

Twitter is making a mistake by acting like a PUBLISHER,which is not protected under sec 230.

So because you don't like how a private citizen chooses to run their business you want to give the government power to force that business to run things the way you want.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

No I am not trying to tell a private citizen how to run their bussiness. I am trying to advocate for people who have been silenced on public forums.

Curious to know if you would stil support this private citizen and thier bussiness if they are found to be aidding a terrorist organization?

a reply to: American-philosopher

No I am not trying to tell a private citizen how to run their bussiness. I am trying to advocate for people who have been silenced on public forums.

By getting the government more power over us all.

Curious to know if you would stil support this private citizen and thier bussiness if they are found to be aidding a terrorist organization?

If they were I wouldn't wont the government making new laws over everyone. There are already laws regarding terrorists and laws about monopoly's.
We don't need more laws.

So this may be posted other places, but this is like a continuing saga for me

UPDATE!

Snap chat stops promoting Donald Trump

But yeah the list keeeps growing of how many big tech companies are going to silence,block, ban people.

As snapchat tries to block Prsident Trump