Dem Rep. Schakowsky: ‘We’re Going to Regulate’ Tech Companies, and There Must Be ‘Limitations’ on User Content

Breitbart ^ | 03/25/2021 | Ian Hanchett

[ChicagoConservative27]

On Thursday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “All In,” House Consumer Protection and Commerce Subcommittee Chairwoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) discussed the subcommittee’s hearing with the CEOs of Facebook, Google, and Twitter and said that the hearing’s purpose was to send the message to tech companies “That we’re going to regulate. We’re going to legislate.” And that there “have to be some limitations, not just on advertising

[ChicagoConservative27]

A lady I used to work with, Schakowsky is her aunt. Two peas in a pod.

[T-Bird45]

Always amazes me how people can swear an oath to uphold something they don’t even understand - the US Constitution.

[nonliberal]

The problem I have here is that “conservatives” want to ensure free speech on SOMEONE ELSE’S PLATFORM. Make your own or get off social media.

[bert]

There must be scrutiny of the Freedom of such Ameritrash to walk around in our society.

A person such as her must be restricted

[joshua c]

Congress shall make no law...

[budj]

Well, a Chicago Demonrat’s gonna regulate the tech companies so that everything’s fair.

Yeah, that’ll work out real good.

[I want the USA back]

This will result in the remaining small amount of free speech being totally suppressed and criminalized.

[AppyPappy]

Liberals: You don’t have the right to question our leaders on social media. If you don’t like it, start your own platform
Conservatives: (Starts a new platform)
Liberals: (hounds the provider until it shuts down the platform)

[semimojo]

Great news! You might be getting that government regulation you’ve been wanting.

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

Interesting....

The article is about attempts by leftists to control speech and social media content but you ignore that and want to turn it into a discussion about bad ol’ conservatives wanting to allow free speech on what are arguably Tech Monopolies that almost exist as public communication utilities.

Do you not have a problem with what radical Rep Schakowsky is doing? (And note the silencing of Conservatives by the left who deny them a voice when they do exactly what you say they should do. (Parler...))

[fuzzylogic]

Sorry but this argument of “they’re a private company” completely misses the point. They’re a global funnel of mass communication for people everywhere and competition is near zero because you must attain critical mass to be relevant, otherwise nobody joins.

What we now have is a layer of society, one that is above our government, dictating what speech is allowed. It is the new fascism that doesn’t answer to our Constitution. You may be fine with that, I’m not. We’ve evolved beyond worrying about the tyranny of just our government. The world hasn’t seen anything like this before and it isn’t limited to free speech. How about your bank accounts being shut down? Want to start a small business but can’t compete with Amazon? ...then join them - but if they don’t like your opinions they’ll shut you down. Great - now our economy runs through Amazon.

This is all way too dangerous, it is tyranny of the big tech and it must be broken up.

[ctdonath2]

I agree, much to the dismay of some on the right. I guess we’re even farther right.

Freedom of the press does not include the freedom to use someone else’s press without their consent.

Yes, big social media are central to society as privately owned town squares - only because enough people choose to go there. Popularity does not impact rights.

That said, under current regulations Facebook/Twitter/etc are acting as publishers by not following “common carrier” principles, instead aggressively editing allied narratives - thus making themselves liable for other punishable content.

I’ve seen many juggernaut social platforms come and go. If you don’t like the current ones, don’t use them - when enough don’t, they’ll die off.

[a fool in paradise]

bake the damn cake

[a fool in paradise]

Despotism (Encyclopedia Britannica film, circa 1946)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaWSqboZr1w
“A community is low on a ‘Respect’ scale if common courtesy is withheld from large groups of people on account of their political attitudes.”

“...in a downright despotism opposition is dangerous whether the despotism is official or whether it is unofficial...”

“A community rates low on the ‘Information’ scale when the press, radio, and other channels of communication are controlled by only a few people and when citizens have to accept what they are told.”

“See how a community trains its teachers”
“...these students are being taught to accept uncritically whatever they are told. Questions are not encouraged.”

“And if books and newspapers and the radio [and facebook and youtube and...] are officially controlled the people will read and accept exactly what the few in control want them to. Government censorship is one form of control. The newspaper that breaks the government censorship rule can be suspended. It is also possible for newspapers and other lines of communication to be controlled by private interests...”

Democracy (Encyclopedia Britannica film, circa 1946)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx25aMPvbJo

“The newspapers of a real democracy meet these tests...”

Newspaper checks.
1. Balance of coverage
2. Disclosure of source
3. Competence of staff

[fremont_steve]

The problem with this point of view is that it if ignores the huge advantages that the existing players have. They are essentially monopolies! That means they should be treated as such! Why not classify facebook and twitter as common carriers under the law? That would remove their power to stifle any narrative.

[liberalh8ter]

Always amazes me how people can swear an oath to uphold something they don't even understand - the US Constitution.

Funny, I just asked that very question of Jim Jordan last night. I didn't get an answer (nor do I expect to get one).

[kaktuskid]

They are more like a cartel than a monopoly

[kaktuskid]

They are more like a cartel than a monopoly

[Sirius Lee]

Freedom of the press does not include the freedom to use someone else’s press without their consent.

Thank you for recognizing FB, YT, twitter et al. as "press" i.e. publishers. It follows then that they should not enjoy lawsuit protection for being mere platforms.

[ctdonath2]

They’ve abused Rule whateveritis “good faith” to be publishers protected by common carrier principles.

Their “fact check” excuse is downright fraudulent.

Underlying point: they don’t have to host anyone. If they don’t like some group, best to vacate and use another’s press.