Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 1,657 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 937,830
Pageviews Today: 1,678,906Threads Today: 637Posts Today: 12,691
07:41 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

This is for people who think Twitter et al are "private companies" and therefore get to censor and sway elections

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 73848670
Canada
11/06/2020 09:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
This is for people who think Twitter et al are "private companies" and therefore get to censor and sway elections
And the irony? Greenwald is as liberal as it gets. And he is horrified by his own people right now. charlie

Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line Far More Dangerous Than What They Censor
[link to theintercept.com (secure)]

Here's an excerpt from the article...

It has been astonishing to watch Democrats over the last twenty-four hours justify this censorship on the grounds that private corporations are entitled to do whatever they want. Not even radical free-market libertarians espouse such a pro-corporate view. Even the most ardent capitalist recognizes that companies that wield monopoly or quasi-monopoly power have an obligation to act in the public interest, and are answerable to the public regarding whether they are doing so.

That is why in both the EU and increasingly the U.S., there are calls from across the political spectrum to either break up Facebook on antitrust and monopoly grounds or regulate it as a public utility, the way electric and water companies and AT&T have been. Almost nobody in the democratic world believes that Facebook is just some ordinary company that should be permitted to exercise unfettered power and act without constraints of any kind. Indeed, Facebook’s monumental political and economic power — greater than most if not all the governments of nation-states — is the major impediment to such reforms.

Beyond that, both Facebook and Twitter receive substantial, unique legal benefits from federal law, further negating the claim that they are free to do whatever they want as private companies. Just as is true of Major League Baseball — which is subject to regulation by Congress as a result of the antitrust exemption they enjoy under the law — these social media companies receive a very valuable and particularized legal benefit in the form of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields them from any liability for content published on their platforms, including defamatory material or other legally proscribed communications.

No company can claim such massive, unique legal exemptions from the federal law and then simultaneously claim they owe no duties to the public interest and are not answerable to anyone. To advocate that is a form of authoritarian corporatism: simultaneously allowing tech giants to claim legally conferred privileges and exemptions while insisting that they can act without constraints of any kind.


adminpower
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 73848670
Canada
11/06/2020 09:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is for people who think Twitter et al are "private companies" and therefore get to censor and sway elections
authoritarian corporatism
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 73848670


The neo-liberal platform in a nutshell. whatever
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 78618262
Canada
11/06/2020 09:28 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is for people who think Twitter et al are "private companies" and therefore get to censor and sway elections
if you don't like Twitter censoring your posts, then don't fucking use it.

PERIOD! end of story.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 73848670
Canada
11/06/2020 09:54 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is for people who think Twitter et al are "private companies" and therefore get to censor and sway elections
if you don't like Twitter censoring your posts, then don't fucking use it.

PERIOD! end of story.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 78618262


eyeroll2 You have zero reading comprehension.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 79447958
United States
11/06/2020 12:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is for people who think Twitter et al are "private companies" and therefore get to censor and sway elections
Corporations themselves are not a valid function of government. We finally got the LP to slightly change the wording of their platform to reflect this.

Republicans and Democrats love corporations. They'll never move to end them.

Psychopathic, amoral entities. Watch the CBC documentary "The Corporation"...
Plants Constant

User ID: 12266679
United States
11/06/2020 12:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is for people who think Twitter et al are "private companies" and therefore get to censor and sway elections
They also received billions in start up funding from InQtel a CIA front company that funded "useful technology.

So no they are not private entities
MyForcedScreenName

User ID: 76550302
United States
11/12/2020 09:33 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is for people who think Twitter et al are "private companies" and therefore get to censor and sway elections
And the irony? Greenwald is as liberal as it gets. And he is horrified by his own people right now. charlie

Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line Far More Dangerous Than What They Censor
[link to theintercept.com (secure)]

Here's an excerpt from the article...

It has been astonishing to watch Democrats over the last twenty-four hours justify this censorship on the grounds that private corporations are entitled to do whatever they want. Not even radical free-market libertarians espouse such a pro-corporate view. Even the most ardent capitalist recognizes that companies that wield monopoly or quasi-monopoly power have an obligation to act in the public interest, and are answerable to the public regarding whether they are doing so.

That is why in both the EU and increasingly the U.S., there are calls from across the political spectrum to either break up Facebook on antitrust and monopoly grounds or regulate it as a public utility, the way electric and water companies and AT&T have been. Almost nobody in the democratic world believes that Facebook is just some ordinary company that should be permitted to exercise unfettered power and act without constraints of any kind. Indeed, Facebook’s monumental political and economic power — greater than most if not all the governments of nation-states — is the major impediment to such reforms.

Beyond that, both Facebook and Twitter receive substantial, unique legal benefits from federal law, further negating the claim that they are free to do whatever they want as private companies. Just as is true of Major League Baseball — which is subject to regulation by Congress as a result of the antitrust exemption they enjoy under the law — these social media companies receive a very valuable and particularized legal benefit in the form of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields them from any liability for content published on their platforms, including defamatory material or other legally proscribed communications.

No company can claim such massive, unique legal exemptions from the federal law and then simultaneously claim they owe no duties to the public interest and are not answerable to anyone. To advocate that is a form of authoritarian corporatism: simultaneously allowing tech giants to claim legally conferred privileges and exemptions while insisting that they can act without constraints of any kind.


adminpower
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 73848670


I've heard your argument many times.

How exactly does Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act deny "them" the right to censor user generated material?

And "unique legal benefits from federal law" is rather vague.

Can you talk about specifics regulations here and detail how these legally prohibited "them" from censoring?
MyForcedScreenName

User ID: 76550302
United States
11/12/2020 09:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is for people who think Twitter et al are "private companies" and therefore get to censor and sway elections
They also received billions in start up funding from InQtel a CIA front company that funded "useful technology.

So no they are not private entities
 Quoting: Plants Constant


Is it fun and all to toss these types of platitudes out there with no regard to their validity?

I've heard this tossed around as a valid argument for at least a decade, yet it's never been anything really more than empty proclamations on message boards and social media.





GLP