Trump Massive Rally in Washington DC (Nov. 14th) (Tens of Thousands Gather)

[ThinkingSapien]

Facebook and Twitter have literally become the town squares of the nation

Courts have said they literally have not.

PragerU v YouTube was the most recent attempt to use the town square argument. See the dismissal to see the court’s response to this argument. This is not the only court opinion to look at the argument.
Judge McKeown:

Importantly, private property does not “lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes.” Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 569 (1972). YouTube may be a paradigmatic public square on the Internet, but it is “not transformed” into a state actor solely by “provid[ing] a forum for speech.” Halleck, 129 S. Ct. at 1930, 1934

Townsquares are generally public property. Laws about town squares are generally inapplicable to private property. There is an exception for “company-owned towns.” Prager tried to use an argument about company-owned towns in court too. The court was not persuaded by it.

One could easily make the case for election interference because of what they have done in keeping things that could negatively affect the Biden campaign from being discussed or disseminated by others.

The courts have also said that these services are not sufficiently necessary for free speech; someone can talk about and share information without them. These services do not have a duty (legal obligation) to distribute speech.

 

[HarryStotle]

Odilon:

Facebook and Twitter have literally become the town squares of the nation

Courts have said they literally have not.

The courts are wrong.

And the courts are doing nothing about the fakery in the news media either.

While true that the Internet is still a somewhat open forum it is difficult for startups to compete with the massive ubiquity of the big players in social media, who got there under the false pretenses that they would always uphold for their users the freedoms of expression enshrined in the Constitution.

CNN and others are now attempting to wrongly depict Parler, Rumble, Locals, etc., as hotbeds of white supremacy and racism. It seems the hotbed of fakery and progressive purity is beside itself that honesty and freedom are permitted somewhere in the media.

 

[Odilon]

Courts have said they literally have not.

If so, the courts are wrong. We all know what the reality is here.

The courts have also said that these services are not sufficiently necessary for free speech; someone can talk about and share information without them. These services do not have a duty (legal obligation) to distribute speech.

They only derive this power because of the exemption the government is giving them.

 

[PickyPicky]

I have nothing whatsoever to do with Twitter or Facebook, yet my speech is as free as anybody’s.

 

[Odilon]

Exactly. Look for the de-platforming of these new social media sites in the future where they will be denied space on the internet. The big tech giants do not want to lose any of their influence with the dumbed down masses at this point. After the 2016 election, big tech acknowledged their failure to control the messaging of conservatives and they vowed to not let it happen again - and as we now see they didn’t.

This is why the left is the worst - from Mao to Stalin to Hitler - all information must be controlled and even here in America they want to do the same. Free speech? Hah! A quaint idea given to us by those reprehensible old white men who owned slaves.

 

[Odilon]

Go join one of them and see how free your speech is if you take a conservative stand on the issues of the day. I am not on either one of them either, but millions upon millions of people are and they have indeed become the town square of America today.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The courts are wrong.

If so, the courts are wrong. We all know what the reality is here.

That’s a strong claim.

A town square, aka public square, is public property. The social media companies are private properties. Perhaps you are both using “town square” in a different manner than it is used in the courts.

They only derive this power because of the exemption the government is giving them.

That’s not a power. It is possible to express one’s views without the aid of these companies.

While true that the Internet is still a somewhat open forum

…I’ve got no significant disagreement here…

it is difficult for startups to compete with the massive ubiquity of the big players in social media

Sure. It is even difficult for some of them to compete with each other. Anyone remember Google’s G+? Or Microsoft’s attempt at a social network? Difficult, but not impossible.

they would always uphold for their users the freedoms of expression enshrined in the Constitution.

The constitution puts constraints on interference from the state, not private corporations. At best, what you are referencing would be a civil matter, not a constitutional one. PragerU also tried a civil argument in court. But there is something in the terms that they agreed to that states that one’s account and content can be removed for any reason, including no reason.

CNN and others are now attempting to wrongly depict Parler, Rumble, Locals, etc., as hotbeds of white supremacy and racism.

Parler and Gab have certainly been sites where such content is tolerated. That’s not a statement about all people on those networks.

YouTube was accused of supporting extremist views after a reporter noted that terrorist and extreme content was also earning advertisement revenue. After an advertisement botcott over that, they changed their tune. Because of this and other incidents, I get the impression that a site’s revenue sources influence their content policy decisions.

Gab ran into a content-based problem. They had some anti-Semitic posts while they were hosted in Microsoft’s Azure. That is against the ToS. They were asked to either remove it, or go elsewhere. Ultimately, there were enough complaints made to Microsoft such that Microsoft dropped them. As did some banks and domain registrars.

Twitter previously had very little moderation. It wasn’t until harassment was recognized as a problem that they shifted from their stated position of “The Free Speech Wing of the Free Speech Party.”

 

[pnewton]

The courts are wrong.

If so, the courts are wrong.

Good. So can we certify the results already!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Look for the de-platforming of these new social media sites in the future where they will be denied space on the internet.

Facebook et al isn’t “The Internet.”

That’s not to say that one cannot be denied Internet service. The simplest way is for it not to be available, or for only degraded service to be available. There are some pushes to recognize Internet access as a need and invest more in making it available to the underprivileged and to the rural USA.

Someone could also be denied Internet service for the same reason one might be denied home phone service; if one is using the service to misbehave, their service could be canceled. For ISPs, this could be in the form of someone distributing pirated or other illegal material.

 

[CTBcin]

CNN and others are now attempting to wrongly depict Parler, Rumble, Locals, etc., as hotbeds of white supremacy and racism.

Parler itself may not be racist or extremist, but it is certainly a hotbed for extreme ideologies.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

In court, as part of the (failed) establishment of the argument that these companies are town squares, there was an attempt to argue that they are like a government. The court’s response was that the argument gets them to presenting these companies as a metaphor for a government. And a metaphor for a government is still not a government.

 

[PickyPicky]

Go join one of them and see how free your speech is if you take a conservative stand on the issues of the day

Really? Have they banned President Trump from Twitter now?

He claims Facebook to be a “platform”, but in reality it is acting as a “publisher” what with all his censoring. Time to remove the Section 230 protections and make the place operate like the big publishing business it really is.

Actually I agree with that.

 

[HarryStotle]

I have nothing whatsoever to do with Twitter or Facebook, yet my speech is as free as anybody’s.

But is the basis upon that which you ground your understanding free to receive information if it is governed by factors and forces of influence that you have no control over?

I sometimes view the so-called big media channels and marvel at how a completely different narrative is being told there than can be gotten from a more open sourced one.

The threats to the two Republican members of the Wayne County board apparently involved threats to their children. The media only reports it as the board changed its mind.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1329107595550978050

Are you truly free to speak or think when deprived of full knowledge by others controlling what goes out to mass distribution?

Who and what influences your speech that makes it free and, even better, fully informed?

Does that matter or are we content with just what we happen to believe because it suits us, is comfortable, or less disturbing to ourselves and those around us?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

CNN and others are now attempting to wrongly depict Parler, Rumble, Locals, etc., as hotbeds of white supremacy and racism.

Parler itself may not be racist or extremist, but it is certainly a hotbed for extreme ideologies.

Are you on Parler? How do you know to make that judgement?

What precisely are those “extreme ideologies”?

Ten years ago a person choosing their gender would have been considered extreme. Today someone who doesn’t go along with giving puberty blockers to children is considered extreme. Traditional Christian values are today lumped into being racist, sexist or homophobic.

Extreme is a concept taken over by progressives for the purpose of coercing everyone to adopt their ideology.

Not buying it.

Then there is this…

“All Speech Is Not Equal”: Biden Taps Anti-Free Speech Figure For Transition Lead On Media Agency – JONATHAN TURLEY

 

[HarryStotle]

Sure. It is even difficult for some of them to compete with each other. Anyone remember Google’s G+? Or Microsoft’s attempt at a social network? Difficult, but not impossible.

They didn’t collude with other large companies to control the entire landscape.

As I recall Microsoft was forced by antitrust law to permit other browsers beside Explorer on Windows machines, so they wouldn’t have unfair advantage in internet access.

So legal remedies also have been imposed, as they should here if big tech is colluding to control social media. And they are.

Parler …have certainly been sites where such content is tolerated.

Evidence…?

Or merely propaganda from Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and CNN all colluding to press that narrative and reduce access?

Antitrust at work using malicious methods.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

They didn’t collude with other large companies to control the entire landscape.

There hasn’t been evidence that any significant social media effort has had such.

As I recall Microsoft was forced by antitrust law to permit other browsers beside Explorer on Windows machines, so they wouldn’t have unfair advantage in internet access.

You are referring to the Consent Decree, effective 2001. It was more than that. Other browsers could already be installed on a machine (I was using FireFox then). What was at issue was that Microsoft gave away functionality for free and incentivized companies preinstalling their products to the exclusion of competitors. This gets into that “restraint of trade” part of the Sherman Anti-Trust act. Incentivizing a company to preinstall Windows is fine. Getting them to agree to not ever install Linux was a no-no.

As part of the agreement, there was a range of functionality that Microsoft stopped including with Windows. Ex: Windows lost support for playing MP3 files out of the box. Having that functionality in there denied the customers the opportunity to consider an MP3 codec from another company. It could be added for $20. Microsoft’s plans to include Virus protection in windows were scrapped. That denied the consumer the opportunity to consider other virus protection. As far as browsers go, Microsoft had to produce a build of Windows that had an interface that would show browsers in random order and let the user select one the first time they used the machine.

Evidence…?

I think the better option here is for me to acquiesce to not being believed. Referring to the evidence directly here could get me a moderation strike.

Or merely propaganda from Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and CNN all colluding to press that narrative and reduce access?

Having been on the sites myself, my own assessment agrees with theirs.

 

[HarryStotle]

Having been on the sites myself, my own assessment agrees with theirs.

Based upon what, precisely?

Oh, right. Aspersions.

I think the better option here is for me to acquiesce to not being believed. Referring to the evidence directly here could get me a moderation strike.

 

[HarryStotle]

So the allegations are without evidence?

Yet, you want to believe Parler is a hotbed for extremism, but you won’t believe the election is potentially a hotbed for fraud with roughly the same “hidden from view” status.

Hmmm. Something doesn’t appear consistent in your reasoning.

 

[HarryStotle]

Actually, that isn’t true. The presence of virtually all of those on Parler remain on other social media sites so you are at liberty to check them out. They indicate that presence by a Parler icon.

 

[HarryStotle]

You mean like Facebook?

Very nefarious move there Parler, requiring membership.

Patreon, we are looking at you, too!

YouTube Join! Oh, my!