Posted on 08/16/2018 5:28:12 PM PDT by WWII_Historian
Recently, Apple, Spotify, Facebook, and YouTube (owned by Google's parent, Alphabet) almost simultaneously tried to erase Infowars from existence (so-called deplatforming). Libertarians and some Republican candidates for the U.S. Congress in the 2018 elections were similarly excommunicated soon after. In a week, numerous conservatives got permanently banned from Twitter.
Are these companies entitled to be able to shut up dissenters? Of course, they are. The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees protection from the state, but not from individuals and companies. Freedom of speech is freedom from persecution by the state and no more.
The fact is that these internet companies created a cartel to get rid of dissenters.
Exile from the virtual space does not mean the end of the world for the victims. Also, there was no "double standard" about dissenters from these companies. These sites from the very beginning were created as platforms for spreading exclusively leftist ideas, but for some time, they just closed their eyes to dissenters.
However, the defeat in the elections in 2016 led the leaders of these companies to the conclusion that without the organization of an anti-conservative cartel, the elections of 2018 will be lost, too.
Some results of the cartel are awe-inspiring. For example, Facebook's removal of links it doesn't agree with has resulted in a 93% decrease in web traffic from this social network to leading conservative sites since the 2016 elections. As a result of the action of the Facebook "algorithm," after a certain time, your feed loses most of the conservative posts.
We know that information on paper is destroyed when the temperature reaches 451 degrees Fahrenheit – i.e., the paper's ignition temperature.
We know that information from the internet has been destroyed when your browser issues an error 404 – "file not found."
(Excerpt) Read more at garygindler.com ...
Fahrenheit 404. I like it.
“Are these companies entitled to be able to shut up dissenters? Of course, they are. The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees protection from the state, but not from individuals and companies. Freedom of speech is freedom from persecution by the state and no more. “
They’re riding on an internet that was paid for by the tax payers. How about some royalties?
I think the rules change and you assume liability when you begin to control the content on your site.
They’re allowed to censor.
...and of course their section 320 exemption from being regulated like media companies can be pulled which would be an extreme headache for them.
....and the DOJ can bring anti-trust actions against them.
.... and courts can rule they are the equivalent of the “town square” and thus cannot ban or censor anybody like the 9th circuit ruled when the owners of a private shopping mall on private property were required to admit protestors onto their property.
I advocate all of the above be applied to Big Tech immediately.
This really is going to be an interesting debate.
Under public accommodation laws, you have to decorate a cake blessing gay marriage if you want to be open to the public, i.e., your religious views aren’t allowed. Facebook, Tumblr, et. al., are arguably open to the public. Are we now going to create another hair-splitter that its absolutely OK to refuse service based on political views, but not on anything else? Or is it political views, and Christian beliefs? Can I refuse to decorate the cake, and say it was because the customer was a democrat?
Maybe this is why Obama was so keen on handing over control of the internet . . .
And I hope it results in a 93% decrease in ad revenue FakeBook too!
Is that you, Algore? Nobody owns the internet.
They could pave the way to ban you from their electrical wires with logic like that.
Fahrenheit 404: file not found
good checklist.
how many of them do business with the govt? that also changes the rules on what they can and can’t do.
and then there’s the legislation used way back to break up the railroad monopoly - seems there are some similarities.
unfairly censored people should sue en masse, claiming financial and emotional damages for down-time, and unequal protection under TOS, remembering that most of these entities engage worldwide with no qualms towards cowtowing to various repressive regimes.
In some of these instances wouldn’t a few words expanding the definition of “public accommodation” in US code 42 make the tech companies just as liable as the people being sued for cakes and flowers?
“Is that you, Algore? Nobody owns the internet. “
We don’t own it but the taxpayers paid for the development.
That got my attention right away...GREAT title!
“Freedom of speech is freedom from persecution by the state and no more. “
On the other hand: “To secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed”
Which do not include the 'right' to use the servers of Apple, Spotify, Facebook, or YouTube.
Meaning discrimination,based on ideological views is allowed, refusing to provide service to promote what the owners find offensive, but such denial of service to promote what the owners find offensive is not allowed if the persons requesting service are of a protected gender, color, race or or country.
A baker, florist or photog, sign maker, etc. cannot refuse to provide service to homosexual wedding on the basis of not wanting to be a party to what they disapprove of, but the media can refuse to host ads for a conservative conference on the same basis.
The difference with banning InfoWars (won't miss them myself) etc. is that the denial is for a free service, even if money is made by allowing them to report what they will.
If a media company was forced to report news, or accommodate those who want free service (like as in fair speech laws), then Free Republic could be forced to allow liberal posters to do that he re.
Which doesn’t negate what I wrote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.