Twitter bans Trump permanently.

[LurkerNoMore]

Imagine being such a dumb whore that you think because someone gets a free account on a shitty social media site that means some stinking illegal immigrant is entitled to a $100,000 + operation for free

So you got turned for both?

[LurkerNoMore]

Parler's gone.  Sooooo.... now what?

[LurkerNoMore]

.

[MAXX]

strong flashlights  will also get banned becaus people will use to communicate by binary signals and possibly send out offensive ideas and opinions.

[BIG ACH]

I'm a bit behind on this thread and have not read everything, but Ron, Facebook does not own Twitter? They're both publicly traded companies.  I'm a bit confused by that comment.

[SOMEPARTS]

This should help you folks saying "it's a private company".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System

Context matters.

[gcb]

Trump was inciting violence - of course you would ban him. You people are ludicrous.

[Al Doggity]

This should help you folks saying "it's a private company".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System

Context matters.

Twitter is not a monopoly. It's not even the biggest social media network. There are dozens of others and trump spent a significant portion of his presidency attempting to shut one of their competitors out of the US.  Most of their users are on at least one other network. It's a free service and he was banned for violating their tos. Anything you can do on twitter, you can do on some other service and for the same price. There's no  real comparison to the telephone monopoly.

[Bindare_Dundat]

Twitter is not a monopoly. It's not even the biggest social media network. There are dozens of others and trump spent a significant portion of his presidency attempting to shut one of their competitors out of the US.  Most of their users are on at least one other network. It's a free service and he was banned for violating their tos. Anything you can do on twitter, you can do on some other service and for the same price. There's no  real comparison to the telephone monopoly.

Lol, wtf?

[Ron]

Twitter is not a monopoly. It's not even the biggest social media network. There are dozens of others and trump spent a significant portion of his presidency attempting to shut one of their competitors out of the US.  Most of their users are on at least one other network. It's a free service and he was banned for violating their tos. Anything you can do on twitter, you can do on some other service and for the same price. There's no  real comparison to the telephone monopoly.

Ummm..... Facebook and Twitter and Instagram and WhatsApp are owned by the same group, among other social media outlets.   Facebook is ranked #6 of all of the sites in thw world.  Twitter #45.  Instagram #24.  WhatsApp #64.    I guess that really is not a monopoly at all...... right....

 

[BIG ACH]

Ummm..... Facebook and Twitter and Instagram and WhatsApp are owned by the same group, among other social media outlets.   Facebook is ranked #6 of all of the sites in thw world.  Twitter #45.  Instagram #24.  WhatsApp #64.    I guess that really is not a monopoly at all...... right....

Facebook owns what'sapp and Instagram outright.

It does not own Twitter

[Al Doggity]

Ummm..... Facebook and Twitter and Instagram and WhatsApp are owned by the same group, among other social media outlets.   Facebook is ranked #6 of all of the sites in thw world.  Twitter #45.  Instagram #24.  WhatsApp #64.    I guess that really is not a monopoly at all...... right....

As already stated, no, twitter is not owned by facebook. And it's ridiculous to simultaneously argue that this entity is so omnipresent and influential that it qualifies as a monopoly, but it should also operate without any community standards or guidelines. 

[SOMEPARTS]

There's no  real comparison to the telephone monopoly.

True, because Bell never limited speech or had a political ideology to inflict on its customers. It's much more serious than just competition.

[SOMEPARTS]

I could easily go a step further and say these platforms should have to adhere to equal time standards if their entire site is leftist programming.

Those rules apply to FREE terrestrial radio and TV....hmm I quite like this idea.

[Al Doggity]

True, because Bell never limited speech or had a political ideology to inflict on its customers. It's much more serious than just competition.

Blatant strawman argument- the first comparison was bs, so throw some from a different angle?

There have always been regulations to use public utilities. There are regulations to get FCC licenses. Private entities have always been stricter about their user guidelines. You know what they say, if you're not paying for a product, you are the product. It's always been true that ad supported platforms twist themselves into knots trying to be palatable to advertisers.  Freedom of speech is not a guarantee to access to a platform just because it is sizable.

[El Diablo Blanco]

Facebook owns what'sapp and Instagram outright.

It does not own Twitter

ACH, you can't use facts when discussing anything Trump related.  Must make shit up and post links to non existent web sites to back up your claim.

[titusisback]

I've seen trump supporters use terms such as "discrimination" and "freedom of speech". Such terms may appear in federal law, but a private corporation can make their own rules. Trump agreed to the rules when signing up for the free service that he greatly benefitted from. If he gets banned for not following the rules - just like tons of average Joes have been - it's called EQUAL TREATMENT in fact, not discrimination.

Regarding freedom of speech, again the private platform gets to choose and moderate the content as they wish. If I create a discussion group where the topic is dwarf ponies, and someone wants to chat about what anal lube Vince and Vissy liked the most instead, hell yeah I'm going to moderate and remove the content.

[Al Doggity]

I could easily go a step further and say these platforms should have to adhere to equal time standards if their entire site is leftist programming.

Those rules apply to FREE terrestrial radio and TV....hmm I quite like this idea.

There is no limit on internet space. The theory behind equal time rules was that there is a limit on airwave frequencies (which is no longer even true.) The point is moot anyway since almost every form of programming is officially exempted from it.

[Grape Ape]

Regarding freedom of speech, again the private platform gets to choose and moderate the content as they wish.

Then it doesn't get Section 230 protection.

That's the whole point of the Congressional hearings.

Can't have it both ways.

[titusisback]

I'm thinking the future of push communication may get built on Torrent / Blockchain type of system where there is no central server hosting any content and no one can be held liable. Decryption would happen on user's own device and that person would be solely responsible for any content. Not a corporation or an individual.

[Thin Lizzy]

Then it doesn't get Section 230 protection.

That's the whole point of the Congressional hearings.

Can't have it both ways.

This. It’s not a free speech issue. It’s a Fraud issue. They’re claiming to be a one thing, a billboard, but  conducting themselves as something else, a publisher.

[SOMEPARTS]

There is no limit on internet space.

Tell that to Parler.

[SOMEPARTS]

I'm thinking the future of push communication may get built on Torrent / Blockchain type of system where there is no central server hosting any content and no one can be held liable. Decryption would happen on user's own device and that person would be solely responsible for any content. Not a corporation or an individual.

History of humans the world = people living under tyranny.

We had a couple hundred years of freedom in the USA and a neutral internet for 30 years but that was an aberration and it's over.

I have been saying for a while now that technology has a centralizing effect and things are about to change very, very quickly.

[Thin Lizzy]

I'm thinking the future of push communication may get built on Torrent / Blockchain type of system where there is no central server hosting any content and no one can be held liable. Decryption would happen on user's own device and that person would be solely responsible for any content. Not a corporation or an individual.

Great post. What people don’t understand when they go on and on about monopolies is that monopolies rarely last very long unless there’s heavy government involvement. Especially in the technology age. It’s not like Facebook was a monopoly forever. It wasn’t too long ago when my space was the biggest social networking site  and Blackberry was the dominant phone. In 10 years it could be something else.

[Al Doggity]

Then it doesn't get Section 230 protection.

That's the whole point of the Congressional hearings.

Can't have it both ways.

That is not at all what that regulation is about because it provides protection to traditional media organizations, too. Not only that, but the law specifically states that interactive services SHOULD make good faith efforts to monitor inappropriate speech. 

The text of section 230:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230