Social Media Anti-Censorship Act (SMACA): Would you support it?

[136or142]

I think an argument can be made that especially Facebook and Youtube are essentially monopolies that needs to be treated as monopolies under the Federal Trade Commission and subject to regulation.  However, if the Republicans want to go there with these two businesses, there will be many other calls to regulate other businesses that are essentially monopolies or monopsonies.  

How does the original poster feel about regulations that severely limit the use of non-compete clauses?

[Dabeav]

Fully support. Twitter, Facebook, et al. are public platforms, partially funded in-part by US taxpayers.  Freedom of speech and equal treatment are paramount.

[Dabeav]

Why do communist totalitarian Republicans hate the free market?

Where is the competition? Twitter was the vehicle for the Arab Spring and the last election. Influencing that is influencing the next political movement.  They shouldn't have that power, period.

[Dabeav]

Yeah but...
social media companies such as twitter are not monopolies.

What’s twitter’s main competition? What successful website provides nearly the same service?

Lots of people in this thread are making the assumption that if these companies are not pure monopolies by definition, that they are perfectly competitive markets. Not true at all.

Fine, I’ll use a different word. “Oligopoly”. Insane barriers to entry. You happy?

It’s like saying “Go make your own airline” when being denied to go on a commercial flight.

Exactly or if the oil industry refused to sell their product to liberals.  You don't have another choice, unlike with "baking the cake" which the left seems to want to force in direct opposition to this.  

In summary from the left-side:

Small business that has religious beliefs refusing to serve customers for their own religious beliefs: bad.  

Large companies that (should) have no beliefs and a monopoly on the market denying customers: good.

I want to make some hats: "Make Thinking Great Again" or "Make The Left Think Again"

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Fully support. Twitter, Facebook, et al. are public platforms, partially funded in-part by US taxpayers.  Freedom of speech and equal treatment are paramount.

Then cut off funding, like the right has tried to do with Planned Parenthood.

Where is the competition? Twitter was the vehicle for the Arab Spring and the last election. Influencing that is influencing the next political movement.  They shouldn't have that power, period.

There's plenty of competition, and unlike the airlines, you're free to depart whenever you wish to wherever you want to go.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I want to make some hats: "Make Thinking Great Again" or "Make The Left Think Again"

Make certain to stock up on plenty of aluminum foil, tho it would have been better if you'd done that before the tariffs went in place.

Incidentally, unlike you with your yellow avatar, I've been consistently libertarian in my beliefs in this area, supporting the rights of businesses small and large to choose which speech they wish to be associated with.

[IceSpear]

Why do communist totalitarian Republicans hate the free market?

Where is the competition? Twitter was the vehicle for the Arab Spring and the last election. Influencing that is influencing the next political movement.  They shouldn't have that power, period.

So let me get this straight. Libertarians think business owners should be able to have a "no blacks allowed" sign on their window on "principle", yet are suddenly all about government regulation on corporate power when corporations ban right wing conspiracy theorists. How telling.

[136or142]

Yeah but...
social media companies such as twitter are not monopolies.

What’s twitter’s main competition? What successful website provides nearly the same service?

Lots of people in this thread are making the assumption that if these companies are not pure monopolies by definition, that they are perfectly competitive markets. Not true at all.

Fine, I’ll use a different word. “Oligopoly”. Insane barriers to entry. You happy?

It’s like saying “Go make your own airline” when being denied to go on a commercial flight.

Well then, answer my questions: should governments also be mandated to seriously restrict the use of non-compete clauses signed by employees?

Should the government break up the Koch Brothers vertically integrated companies?

Should the government bring back the Fairness Doctrine?

[Dabeav]

Why do communist totalitarian Republicans hate the free market?

Where is the competition? Twitter was the vehicle for the Arab Spring and the last election. Influencing that is influencing the next political movement.  They shouldn't have that power, period.

So let me get this straight. Libertarians think business owners should be able to have a "no blacks allowed" sign on their window on "principle", yet are suddenly all about government regulation on corporate power when corporations ban right wing conspiracy theorists. How telling.

I'm not 'every libertarian' so stop that please.  Because you have a choice where to go and there are social and economic consequences being a small/medium business and leaving out a section of the population.  I'd serve anyone in my own business, personally, because hey I'm getting paid for it (and I don't give a F what you do in your personal life).

Also I would support this is if the situation was reserved and these were all leftists (e.g. Cenk Uygur) getting banned only, or whatever group (e.g. Antifa).   

More the principle of this is the double standard, if you ban both "sides" you have less of a problem but it's better for ideas to be exposed so they can be countered by evidence and logic.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

[...] it's better for ideas to be exposed so they can be countered by evidence and logic.

I wasn't aware of any social media company that provides instant rebuttals of hate speech, nor can I think of any way they could, nor for that matter it's doubtful the target audience would believe the rebuttals.

When a source has repeatedly spewed fake incitements to hate and shows no sign of remorse, let alone ceasing their conduct, I have no problem with social media companies deciding to sever their relationship with those seeking to profit from deliberate falsehood.

[Lexii]

This is an awfully stupid bill

Can some mod move this to Individual Politics ?as this seems to be based on nothing more than some nobody's pie in the sky that was retweeted by Dankula

[Progressive Pessimist]

So businesses should be forced to give Alex Jones a platform but it’s totally ok to discriminate against gay couples cause freedom?

That's conservatism for you.

[Cory]

What’s twitter’s main competition? What successful website provides nearly the same service?

Lots of people in this thread are making the assumption that if these companies are not pure monopolies by definition, that they are perfectly competitive markets. Not true at all.

Fine, I’ll use a different word. “Oligopoly”. Insane barriers to entry. You happy?

It’s like saying “Go make your own airline” when being denied to go on a commercial flight.

This is the part people are willfully ignoring.

[HomestarSB9]

Absolutely.


I believe every American should have the ability to say whatever they please, no matter how unpopular  said statement is. There is a fine line against stating one's beliefs and what Alex Jones is doing. Social media companies have the power to delete whatever content violates their terms of service or the law.

[Trump v. Wong Kim Ark]

Why do communist totalitarian Republicans hate the free market?

[Izzyeviel]

Freedom of speech is there to stop you being thrown in jail because you said something negative about the God Emperor.

It is not there to allow you to be openly racist and threatening to strangers in public without retribution.

[136or142]

What’s twitter’s main competition? What successful website provides nearly the same service?

Lots of people in this thread are making the assumption that if these companies are not pure monopolies by definition, that they are perfectly competitive markets. Not true at all.

Fine, I’ll use a different word. “Oligopoly”. Insane barriers to entry. You happy?

It’s like saying “Go make your own airline” when being denied to go on a commercial flight.

This is the part people are willfully ignoring.

I don't know about that.  If Breitbart or all the major right wing websites got together (whatever the other major right wing websites are these days - I lost interest in going to them with townhall and redstate) and started their own Facebook, Youtube and/or Twitter, I'm not sure they wouldn't be successful.  

I don't necessarily see why not.  They certainly have the membership, capital and the clout to promote these things.

[Wrong about 2024 Ghost]

What’s twitter’s main competition? What successful website provides nearly the same service?

Lots of people in this thread are making the assumption that if these companies are not pure monopolies by definition, that they are perfectly competitive markets. Not true at all.

Fine, I’ll use a different word. “Oligopoly”. Insane barriers to entry. You happy?

It’s like saying “Go make your own airline” when being denied to go on a commercial flight.

This is the part people are willfully ignoring.

What's being ignored is that a public utility won't - and shouldn't - to let you shout fire in crowded theater either. And that sort of "speech" is what the American Right wants to force on the public.

Information distribution infrastructure has changed many times in the last century. Many of those changes have acted to increase our freedom to share information, which is a good and just thing. But in all that time, there have been mechanisms to filter deliberately deceitful, or dangerous information.  Preferring truth to falsehood, even if discernment is not perfect, is not a flaw.

Over the last 30 years, we've seen an incredible explosion of information availability. And at the same time, we've seen the elimination of many safeguards on the quality of that information. (I notice that those demanding platforms to spread their toxic garbage don't ever mention reinstating Fairness Doctrine, limiting Sinclair's propaganda network, or anything along those lines.)   The Republican Party has been using this combination of unfiltered media and enhanced distribution to build what amounts to a cult - or a fascist movement, if you prefer.

With Trump at the helm, the Republican network (which I don't think is any sort of conspiracy, just a lot of people with similar or related interests acting to their own benefit) has been struggling to keep up with his incompetence and insanity. And it's becoming increasingly obvious how dangerous it is to anyone who isn't part of the Republican mix of fanaticism and rabid capitalism.

This is just one more shot in the latest round of the Republicans trying to abuse the values they want to destroy.

[136or142]

This is a very good nuanced article on the whole social media 'censorship' question.  (Of course it's good it was retweeted by Tim Harford.)

Tim Harford's twitter account: https://twitter.com/TimHarford

https://boingboing.net/2018/08/08/size-matters.html

Inside the triumphant Alex Jones banned everywhere story is a worrying nuance about free speech and platform dominance

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

Both sides of this "debate" have lost sight of the big picture for short-term partisan consideration. It's definitely hilarious to see Republicans champion unfettered free speech imposed on private entities, but it's downright sickening to see Democrats essentially argue that tech behemoths like Facebook have the absolute right to police everything that's said on their site. The obvious answer is that we need public regulations that protect free speech while cracking down on its blatant abuses.

[Dabeav]

Freedom of speech is there to stop you being thrown in jail because you said something negative about the God Emperor.

It is not there to allow you to be openly racist and threatening to strangers in public without retribution.

Alex Jones and Tommy Robinson will just be the test cases for further silencing of people in our countries.

[ElectionsGuy]

So government punishes businesses for their speech (actions, decisions, etc.) to protect free speech of users who agreed to the rules of that business? Yeah that's a contradiction and a half. I don't support Facebook and co's decision to remove Alex Jones but they have every right to do so.

[Dabeav]

So government punishes businesses for their speech (actions, decisions, etc.) to protect free speech of users who agreed to the rules of that business? Yeah that's a contradiction and a half. I don't support Facebook and co's decision to remove Alex Jones but they have every right to do so.

Riddle me this Batman: What are the "public commons" in this day and age?

Edit: it dumbfounds me that left-leaning people will now DEFEND CORPORATE "RIGHTS" to oppress freedom of speech simply because it's people they don't like.  It's going to rubber band in your face so hard and we'll all be f'ed.

[Beet]

What’s twitter’s main competition? What successful website provides nearly the same service?

Lots of people in this thread are making the assumption that if these companies are not pure monopolies by definition, that they are perfectly competitive markets. Not true at all.

Fine, I’ll use a different word. “Oligopoly”. Insane barriers to entry. You happy?

It’s like saying “Go make your own airline” when being denied to go on a commercial flight.

This is the part people are willfully ignoring.

Precisely. While there are different websites and different social media platforms, they all provide very different types of services. Twitter is qualitatively different from Facebook is qualitatively different from Instagram. They are used for different purposes. In economics terms, they are not substitute goods -- if I get banned from American Airlines, I can easily fly Delta and get mostly the same service. But if I am banned from Facebook, I cannot just switch over to Instagram and have the same experience. (Heck, I am probably already on Instagram, because being on Facebook does not satisfy by desire to be on Instagram.) Since they are not substitutes, they are not similar goods and are not in direct competition. Uber and Lyft offer similar goods. But Amazon and Ebay do not -- even though I can just click to a different site.

None of these behemoths have direct competitors offering similar goods (substitutes) because the nature of social networks is that the size of the network justifies itself. No one wants to join a new social network with no members when there is another one offering substantially the same product already existing-- even if the new one is better in some respects. Hence, the barriers to entry, while seemingly nonexistent, are actually insurmountable. It is for these reasons that these entities become the public square and should be subject to fair, independent freedom of speech regulation.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So government punishes businesses for their speech (actions, decisions, etc.) to protect free speech of users who agreed to the rules of that business? Yeah that's a contradiction and a half. I don't support Facebook and co's decision to remove Alex Jones but they have every right to do so.

Riddle me this Batman: What are the "public commons" in this day and age?

It's the web, not individual websites.  Now if Alex Jones were having difficulty getting his own internet domain or if ISP's started filtering out his feldercarb, he peobably would have an actual free speech case, but if FaceBook decides its advertisers would get skittish if they were associated with Mr. Jones and therefore decide to not give him their imprimatur, that's not free speech, that's a business model.