I didn't realize that people assume that. I rarely access the internet on my phone. I've never liked laptops, and prefer sitting at my desk with my big curved monitor.
Posted on 05/03/2020 8:05:09 PM PDT by Notthemomma
funny how it is assumed everyone only uses their phones for everything internet, and don’t have computers
I know desktops are pretty much obsolete, but laptops many people have.
I have noticed the younger generations use their phones for everything, and only have a lap top or tablet if they are going to school/college etc.
Why would anyone need an app for say, facebook or twitter?
both work fine without getting their apps
when using twitter on my phone, I used to be asked to get their app
I never did, and twit worked just fine
then after a while, I noticed I DID have the twit app, even
though I never agreed to get it.
Bad analogy. AT&T was regulated in exchange for being granted anti-trust exemptions.
As for cell phones the FCC doesn't regulate business practices or terms of service.
To the extent the FCC does regulate them their authority comes from the cell companies' use of the publicly owned airwaves and radio spectrum.
Needless to say, internet based voice services like Skype, WhatsApp, FB Messanger, FaceTime, etc. aren't regulated at all.
They allow the majority of the public to upload communications, and they restrict it for anyone who expresses a position or opinion they think should be banned.
Only after the person doing the uploading agrees to their contract (TOS) which sets the terms for use of the service, including the terms under which the owner of the platform can refuse to post their content.
If the person doesn't like the terms they can go post elsewhere.
Communications systems utilized by the *PUBLIC* cannot be "private property".
Again, why is it only a subset of communications companies that are subject to this?
As Roberts said "No one can be allowed to own the law."
And he meant it literally. The law was created and paid for by the public so you can't restrict access.
YouTube wasn't.
So if a cell phone company started cutting off service to Homosexuals and other assorted Liberal perverts, you think the FCC would twiddle it's thumbs?
Only after the person doing the uploading agrees to their contract (TOS) which sets the terms for use of the service, including the terms under which the owner of the platform can refuse to post their content.
Terms of service which discriminate should be no more legally valid than "no blacks allowed" signs in restaurants.
So far as I"m concerned, all opinions should have equal rights on all communications systems.
If the person doesn't like the terms they can go post elsewhere.
Blacks can go find another restaurant that serves them.
Again, why is it only a subset of communications companies that are subject to this?
So far as i'm concerned, it should apply to *ALL* communications companies that serve the public. Everyone should have equal rights.
The law was created and paid for by the public so you can't restrict access.YouTube wasn't.
Uh yeah, it was. The internet was created by government funding. Meaning public funding. YouTube can't work without the internet, which requires interstate commerce and numerous other government agencies to make it happen, including the FCC.
It requires government approval and cooperation to keep it working. If Google wants to censor content, they need to be denied the internet, or any other government controlled communications infrastructure.
assume could be the wrong word to use there
From what I observe from the younger ppl, college down to 2 yr olds, most use their phones for everything
Even some I know of approaching middle age use their phones primarily.
Sitting around w/20-30 family members and friends it’s the phones.
I’m amazed at what they can do with their phones.
Heck I couldn’t even go on one of those zoom or whatever on Easter where I THINK many of my family members participated.
Petty soon the phones will be in eyeglasses and controlled by thought...heh
I transisted to mainly laptopo when my desk top crashed.
I got it fixed, but found it was to klunky.
It wasn’t easy to move to a laptop, but I have.
Stupid analogies are stupid.
Analogies people don't like they will often characterize as "stupid."
I think you need to look at the bigger picture. If only the voices of liberals may be heard, then they will use this power to marginalize conservatives. Conservatives will become second class citizens, and they will be marginalized.
The Jews are an example of this happening before in history, and everyone is familiar with it. Had there been other voices to oppose Hitler, he never would have acquired the power he acquired. Of course he took immediate steps to insure that no opposition opinion was ever allowed to reach the German people.
Most dictators do this.
Google is left wing. It is inherently socialist/fascist, and if we continue allowing it to get away with censoring public speech, our movement will continue losing power and influence until the point it is safe to attack us without repercussions.
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.