Regulation of social media moderation proposal.

[1bad65]

So you trust ********s to have this same power when they're in office? You know once you hand over power to Government it never cedes it back. That's conservatism 101 so I'm sure you guys know this

I've not advocated any new laws. I thought it was pretty clear I'm discussing this with an open mind, as opposed to taking a position (in this case new laws/powers) and arguing it.

You are correct about those who shortsightedly hand over more power to the Government because the team asks them too, then it inevitably turns around and bites them in the rear.

That's a primary reason I'm not on the side of new laws and Government powers, but instead discussing the issue.

[man down]

He's too busy trying to run up Gotcha! points to see the big picture.

Can you finally put him on ignore?

As usual, he's butting in and annoying the adults who are trying to talk.

Yeah was, telling him what he wants to hear just so he'll answer. It was a test because I KNEW he wouldnt answer. He always does drive by posts. He'll post a topic and not comment about it himself.

[aboutfkntime]

At least you're honest. And I forgot to answer your first question. This isn't legislation. This is an executive order.

aah ok

then, that's great... all for it

it is obviously badly needed, things are at a tipping point

[removed]

Pulling videos, pulling pics of Clinton and Epstein, Demonetized videos that they dont agree with. Spying on you and I, selling our info, the software is loaded on our phones and computers from the start. The average person doesnt know how to turn this off and its a PITA, its not a choice anymore. You're ok with all this?

It's impossible to go against them.

MCC will say that people should just start their own social media websites if they don't like FB/Twitter etc.

Ok that's fine, but how do you do that? First of all you create the website, great. How do people find it? Oh, on google, and if Google doesn't like your website, they'll unlist it so you can't find it via a google search.

Ok, so i'll create some apps for my website so people can access them on their phones. Oh, hang on, i can only use the Apple Store or Google Play store because everyone uses iOS or Android phones, and guess what, if Apple & Google don't like your app/website, they'll blacklist it and remove it from their stores.

Ok fine, i'll use social media to promote my website, but hang on, all the big social media websites are owned by big tech, and guess what, if they don't like my website, they'll blacklist it so you literally can't include a link to it in a DM.

It's all a big monopoly, break that **** up.

[Theodore]

Not saying I disagree, but by that logic all private businesses would have the right to refuse service to people as they wish.

I have always believed that private business should be allowed to do business and not do business with whoever they want. Freedom of association and choice.

Barry Goldwater, the ********** Presidential nominee in 1964, who ran against LBJ, only believed that the public sector should not discriminate, but that the private sectors should be able to associate and not associate with whoever they want.

About this topic, the political right, either the ************* or libertarians should have started their own companies. In fact I was hoping that Google, Twitter, Facebook just openly say out loud that they are a private company and if they want to, they should be able to discriminate against ************* or non-********. This would have galvanize the right to start their own companies.

[DreamerUSA]

True. And I'm not sure I like this.

I wish the social networks would just be honest. If they only want D superfans to be able to post team talking points on their sites, they should be upfront and put it on their sites for all to see.

I think if they did that, even if they openly admitted to censoring certain people and beliefs, I'd say the Federal government has no reason to intrude.

It's the doing it on the sly that's getting them in trouble, imo.

Regulating the Social Networks further isn't the answer. Actually enforcing the rules or making the rules well defined and treating them as the publishers many of them are, rather than a platform as they claim to be, would go a long ways to resolving the problems we face. They want the protections of both and sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it to. Either your'e a publisher or a platform.