@Ad_Quid_Orator no. Im anti government propped up business conservative. I wish they would force companies to either be a publisher OR a platform. Why should facebook have more legal protections than a newspaper? They are using the excessive protections to cause trouble so obviously its too much.
Ideally they will decide to be a platform in which case they do not ban anything except actionable criminal activity. (Not stuff that is fake criminal activity that wouldn't go to court) OR they will be a publisher and are liable for all the content on their site and should edit the content as they see fit. But if they have "bamesjond0069 is a felon" on facebook i should be able to sue them for defamation in court since they are responsible for editing.
Short of government making a common sense logic change to the law at the federal level, local governments and foreign governments should ban them from doing business in their jurisdictions if they dont like what they are doing.
@Ad_Quid_Orator if the government was involved less then they wouldn't have a special law that specially treats them differently than every other business?
Because then they couldn't platform as much content without fear of lawsuits but if there was no moderation trollers and spammers would discourage too many people from using the site.
@Ad_Quid_Orator and? How is that a concern of the government? If they don't have a sustainable business model they should work on making it better or they should just accept they will be a smaller more niche company.
Because exchange of information is the concern of society (and thus government). And before you say that's a justification for forced platforming; it's not. It's a justification to enact anti-trust laws.
@Ad_Quid_Orator social media as it exists today is not a right. If its not feasible to exist it shouldn't exist. No big deal. Somehow we still had freedom of speech before facebook.
@Ad_Quid_Orator ok but that is government intervention. I dont believe in artificially inflated businesses because im a conservative. So that means no fb or amazon or walmart etc. They need to fuction under the same rules taxes etc as joes corner store.
Without government involvement in the economy it's going to get a lot worse for pretty much everyone; lack of government involvement in the economy is why the third world looks the way that it does. Could the government do more to help the population as a whole than big corporations? Absolutely (although a better way to accomplish that end would be to support worker co-ops versus small businesses) but that's not to say that things wouldn't be way shittier with the government taking a hands off approach.
@Ad_Quid_Orator i mean to a minor degree yes but the government should not be picking winners. If facebook is not sustainable let it fail so others can try instead of protecting a shitty company doing shitty things.
Section 230 applies to all tech companies big and small. But the reason that the tech giants are as powerful as they are now is because the right prevented anti-trust laws from being used to curtail their hegemony. Now the American right reaps what they sowed.
@Ad_Quid_Orator i dont think the "right" wanted it. Like i said conservatives are not for special protections for big business out of principle. Its more centrist uniparty that want that shit. Those that are Republicans we call RINOs.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
45Opinion
Good for them. Id like to see countries and local governments make them illegal.
You're a pro censorship Libertarian?
@Ad_Quid_Orator no. Im anti government propped up business conservative. I wish they would force companies to either be a publisher OR a platform. Why should facebook have more legal protections than a newspaper? They are using the excessive protections to cause trouble so obviously its too much.
Ideally they will decide to be a platform in which case they do not ban anything except actionable criminal activity. (Not stuff that is fake criminal activity that wouldn't go to court) OR they will be a publisher and are liable for all the content on their site and should edit the content as they see fit. But if they have "bamesjond0069 is a felon" on facebook i should be able to sue them for defamation in court since they are responsible for editing.
Short of government making a common sense logic change to the law at the federal level, local governments and foreign governments should ban them from doing business in their jurisdictions if they dont like what they are doing.
"Why should facebook have more legal protections than a newspaper?"
Because trolls would be a serious problem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUWIi-Ppe5k&t=4s
And it's a lack of government involvement that conservatives pushed for that allowed these tech giants to have so much power:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZLXA_BuesY
@Ad_Quid_Orator well having excessive protections doesn't seem very "lack of government" to me. Republicans do not equal conservatives.
Protections from legal consequences imposed by the government is very in line with a lack of government.
@Ad_Quid_Orator how so? Seems opposite to me.
Why? It's the government involved less in social media?
@Ad_Quid_Orator if the government was involved less then they wouldn't have a special law that specially treats them differently than every other business?
Because then they couldn't platform as much content without fear of lawsuits but if there was no moderation trollers and spammers would discourage too many people from using the site.
@Ad_Quid_Orator and? How is that a concern of the government? If they don't have a sustainable business model they should work on making it better or they should just accept they will be a smaller more niche company.
Because exchange of information is the concern of society (and thus government). And before you say that's a justification for forced platforming; it's not. It's a justification to enact anti-trust laws.
@Ad_Quid_Orator social media as it exists today is not a right. If its not feasible to exist it shouldn't exist. No big deal. Somehow we still had freedom of speech before facebook.
We don't need it but the regulations make it more conducive to the free exchange of information.
@Ad_Quid_Orator ok but that is government intervention. I dont believe in artificially inflated businesses because im a conservative. So that means no fb or amazon or walmart etc. They need to fuction under the same rules taxes etc as joes corner store.
Without government involvement in the economy it's going to get a lot worse for pretty much everyone; lack of government involvement in the economy is why the third world looks the way that it does. Could the government do more to help the population as a whole than big corporations? Absolutely (although a better way to accomplish that end would be to support worker co-ops versus small businesses) but that's not to say that things wouldn't be way shittier with the government taking a hands off approach.
@Ad_Quid_Orator i mean to a minor degree yes but the government should not be picking winners. If facebook is not sustainable let it fail so others can try instead of protecting a shitty company doing shitty things.
Section 230 applies to all tech companies big and small. But the reason that the tech giants are as powerful as they are now is because the right prevented anti-trust laws from being used to curtail their hegemony. Now the American right reaps what they sowed.
@Ad_Quid_Orator i dont think the "right" wanted it. Like i said conservatives are not for special protections for big business out of principle. Its more centrist uniparty that want that shit. Those that are Republicans we call RINOs.
They didn't want it but it was a consequence of their actions. Sometimes you lose control of the monsters you create and they turn on you.
Good! Twitter is just a propaganda outlet for the global elites anyway.
I mean, is anyone surprised... by Uganda or Twitter?
good twitter sucks and jack dorsey is a piece of shit
I think they have the right to do whatever they want.
A fourth rate nation did what we could not. L. M. B. O.
Smart, since Twitter openly interferes with elections and democracy.
I'd ban it too to be honest.
Good. Fuck Twitter, I wish more countries did the same.
I don't like Twitter anyway.
I have a thought. Fuck Uganda, that's my thought.
Capitalism failed but supports.. a transnational corporation?
Say what?
Wakanda Forever.
Twitter is fucked up anyways.
Twitter should be shutdown all over.
another backwards country
Ummm... wtf? lol
Come we must become Ugandan freedom fighters together
Bet... lmao
When are we heading over there? XD
Tomorrow, the militia will meet us and give us our Kalashnikovs, they went a step too far this time, they have hell to pay
Good.
Will there be food, tho? :3
Yeah they're rationing Jollof rice, is it any good?
You rememberrrrrrrr :o
I also want chicken added to that. π
Jollof rice with a bit of chicken uwu I have never had jollof rice myself tho
Dw, doughnut. I will cook it for ya, one day.
*pat pat* π
I would like to eat your cooking
Aweeeee πππ
It's a totalitarian regime... what did you expect?
I support uganda in this action.
Doesn't matter to me.
Interesting 🤔
Meh...