America is burning and you are at fault.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Your scenario does not apply.

We're not talking single entities in pools of competition.

originally posted by: SeaWorthy

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

Not even close.


Let's look at what happened to say Parler agree with them or not.

Their app was removed by Apple and Google then servers cancelled by Amazon.

Picture getting clear yet?

Same thing will happen there.

Capitalism will take over and they will be hosted from other servers.

This will be competition in the market against Amazon and the rest. Same with platforms like Facebook and Twitter. It just takes time for markets to shift. It's happening already.

This is why they used to not allow monopolies. they also did not allow positions and political races to be owned by big business, the laws have changed. The protections are gone.

One everything was in position it was an end to the "competition" as we knew it.

What monopoly? There are multiple, independent publishers here. If all the stores decide not to sell my 'poop in a jar' cause I recently started throwing poop all over everyone, I don't get to scream "you all are in cahoots, i didn't do anything! it's your fault you won't sell my poop in a jar, waaaaaaah!".

It's a wild time to be a conservative isn't it. So many decades of previously held stances to explain away these days. Cause and effect, by way of capitalism, as conservatives have defended for decades... and we aren't even talking about the conservatives that defended true monopolies.

As much as we benefit from technology, it is definitely aiding the erosion of free speech. It's almost like there is "too much" speech.

What I have said for many years is that, IMO technology will be our demise.

a reply to: okrian

Imagine being one of the largest opponents of capitalism on the site and also defending the largest corporations the world has ever known.


Hypocrisy indeed.

a reply to: Helious

It may possibly be my fault.

But to boil it down to its essense, I am always going to side with more freedoms, rather than less.

I will always try to aregue in defense of the Constitution, never against.

originally posted by: Helious

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

Not even close.


Let's look at what happened to say Parler agree with them or not.

Their app was removed by Apple and Google then servers cancelled by Amazon.

Picture getting clear yet?

If I was waving around a sign outside of Walmart advertising an extremist ideology (doesn't matter who is targeted) and yelling incendiary comments at people as they walk by, then I can fully expect to be escorted from their property and prohibited from returning. It's called property laws and it applies to the internet as well. Frankly it's hilarious that everyone acts like they never realized social media is 100% privilege and that's why T&Cs (that stuff we skip and click agree) exist in the first place. It's a contract and it gives the property owner every right to deny you service if you piss them off. Play nice or take your toys somewhere else.

You make a great point and perhaps it would hit home a little more if Twitter and Facebook were not just as guilty or even more guilty of egregious speech, posts and rhetoric. It's not the idea that is a problem, it is the hypocrisy in how the idea is carried out that is a problem.

Then we should be addressing the hypocrisy instead of reacting in outrage that media platforms exercised their rights. Provide examples of user agreement being violated & get everyone banned equally. Problem solved.

America is burning and you are at fault

It sure is, and we sure are, but we're going to do the American thing. We're going to let it.

originally posted by: Hypntick
a reply to: mOjOm
The only semi-bright spot I've seen so far is Elon Musk is kinda giving these guys the finger, and coming out with his own infrastructure. Now there are dangers there, say he changes his mind one day and decides he agrees with all this, then there will be no infrastructure in order to operate on.

Well that sounds exciting. Echoing concern.

a reply to: TzarChasm

that's why T&Cs (that stuff we skip and click agree) exist in the first place. It's a contract

No it's not. Contracts don't allow one party to arbitrarily change the terms of the contract on a whim and leave the second party forced to agree. That is not how contracts work.

Terms of Services are an aberration of contracts and in many cases, those terms are not universally legally binding and stuffed with as much bull# as they can in the hopes none of it will ever make it to court.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

Not even close.


Let's look at what happened to say Parler agree with them or not.

Their app was removed by Apple and Google then servers cancelled by Amazon.

Picture getting clear yet?

And now they are up and running again elsewhere arent they?

I get it, many people feel like they have a right to use a thing because its popular.

You do not. You do not have the right to force apple to host your app (see Apple v. Epic). You do not have the right to demand twitter give you a platform to spread your speech. You do not have the right to demand AWS lease you infrastructure.

a reply to: Hypntick

Musk literally wan's to control the internet on a global scale. So does Bezo's. SpaceX and Blue origin are no joke, that's the next phase in tech monopoly what's happening right now is just a correction in the market, it was bound to happen.

originally posted by: Helious

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied
I'm shocked that so many intentionally conflate this as a free speech issue.

Its not.
In America you have the right to say whatever you'd like (bar certain words in some situations).
Nobody is obliged to give you a soapbox for your words.Nobody is obliged to lend you equipment for your words.

This isnt a free speech issue, never will be, it is the equivalent of claiming a publishing house that refuses to publish my novel has violated my right to free speech.

False.

I'm very sorry to disagree with you my friend but I'm sad to say you are fundamentally wrong in everything you just said. I hate to state something like that because I know you will automatically be offended and assume I'm attacking you in some way which I can assure you, I'm not. Let me explain.

The world and I specifically mean the world, not just America does not operate as it did 20 years ago. Very significant fundamental things have changed, the least of which is how we distribute and disseminate information. Seems like a positive thing on it's face but that is before you factor in groups of people with differing agendas.

When you allow for that, you start to understand in today's society how much information actually means and more than that how it shapes the country both domestically and even foreign policy.

Based on Constitutional values, our government should be transparent in what it does in certain respects, not least of which is the most important civic duty a civilian has which is voting. To allow a mandate of civic duty like that be non transparent and then much more importantly to actively engage in widespread deplatforming, harassment and suppression of meaningful speech is not only destructive to America, it is wholly unsustainable.

None of those companies are the government. If you feel your entitlement to use someone else stuff to spread your message is supported by the constitution then by all means back it up with supporting evidence.

a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

SCOTUS disagrees with you and well what SCOTUS says
Goes because they say so. It doesn’t matter how you interpret the law. In the ruling opinion The more corporations Open themselves up to the public the more they are circumscribed by the statuary and constitutional rights of those who use the corporations property.

I belive Parler is gonna make billons off the lawsuit against Facebook and everyone who got deplatformed are going to have a nice class action lawsuit including POTUS for violating their first amendment rights. Just because you own a corporation doesn’t provide you ultimate dominion.



Marsh Vs. Alabama 1946

www.law.cornell.edu...

“Can those people who live in or come to Chickasaw be denied freedom of press and religion simply because a single company has legal title to all the town? For it is the state's contention that the mere fact that all the property interests in the town are held by a single company is enough to give that company power, enforceable by a state statute, to abridge these freedoms.

4
We do not agree that the corporation's property interests settle the question.2 The State urges in effect that the corporation's right to control the inhabitants of Chickasaw is coextensive with the right of a homeowner to regulate the conduct of his guests. We can not accept that contention. Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it. Cf. Republic Aviation Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 793, 65 S.Ct. 982, 985, 987, note 8, 157 A.L.R. 1081. Thus, the owners of privately held bridges, ferries, turnpikes and railroads may not operate them as freely as a farmer does his farm. Since these facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public and since their operation is essentially a public function.”

a reply to: Brassmonkey

Intellectual property is not a public function.

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied
a reply to: Brassmonkey

Intellectual property is not a public function.

These companies advertise as a public commons and townsquare. Hundreds of millions of people communicate on these platforms. For millions social media is their primary means of communication.To say they are not serving the public is incorrect.

a reply to: JinMI

It would appear some people only see things when another side does it (which should basically be written in the conservative doctrine).

People call each other out all the time on here for hypocrisy despite their own stance. I'd say 'Welcome to ATS'... but you've been around a while. In case you missed it though... 'but Antifa' or 'but BLM' threads. That's a good, if not pertinent, start.

a reply to: okrian

a reply to: strongfp

I know that Musk isn't the answer long term, he's a stop-gap to something larger. However people need a platform, it looks like he's offering one, it's most likely a poisoned platform no doubt about that. That being said, most likely is not a certainty which is what we have with the current tech companies out there. Musk has so far done nothing that concerns me in the way that any of the other companies I mentioned have done, and it's not just the censorship aspect, it's the out-right monopoly building. He started the companies that are under his control, rather than going out and purchasing the competition, which is what the others have been doing for decades now.

a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

No sense being obtuse. This didn't happen in a vacuum nor is a single vector event.

Gotta love Twitter's latest tweet....the hypocrisy's on a whole new level...

a reply to: okrian

What monopoly? There are multiple, independent publishers here.

See what you will believe what you want.