Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23492
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sat Mar 06, 2021 4:03 pm

This is all to distract from the fact that Texans died, the power grid in Texas is a joke and Ted Cruz dropping off a case of water between returning from Cancun and rushing off to CPAC.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8921
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sat Mar 06, 2021 4:26 pm

bennett123 wrote:
So if someone posted things hostile to him, the SM would not be able to take it down?.


As a government official, no.

In a democracy, dissent against government is not hate speech. If it incites violence, it is a law enforcement issue, not an SM policy issue.

A handful of SM Platform policymakers with limited knowledge can never decide, what is a fact. They can pretend, but they never would.
All posts are just opinions.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2731
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sat Mar 06, 2021 4:36 pm

Aesma wrote:
In France they also clash in the other way, for years there has been complaints that they censor photos/pictures too much : first sign of a nipple or nudity and there is censorship or even bans, even when displaying famous works of art...

Seriously?
A quarter century back in France coffee advertisement was all about seduction, in Germany happy family. I was surprised about the difference that time.
Well, maybe the French didn't see enough tits in TV.

Reminds me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21sGKlv-K1E
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14147
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sat Mar 06, 2021 4:55 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
bennett123 wrote:
So if someone posted things hostile to him, the SM would not be able to take it down?.


As a government official, no.

In a democracy, dissent against government is not hate speech. If it incites violence, it is a law enforcement issue, not an SM policy issue.

A handful of SM Platform policymakers with limited knowledge can never decide, what is a fact. They can pretend, but they never would.


Sure, but that’s irrelevant because they own the IP and can do with it what they opine is best.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5310
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sat Mar 06, 2021 5:12 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
bennett123 wrote:
So if someone posted things hostile to him, the SM would not be able to take it down?.


As a government official, no.

In a democracy, dissent against government is not hate speech. If it incites violence, it is a law enforcement issue, not an SM policy issue.

A handful of SM Platform policymakers with limited knowledge can never decide, what is a fact. They can pretend, but they never would.


Sure, but that’s irrelevant because they own the IP and can do with it what they opine is best.

IP? Internet Protocol Address or Intellectual Property?
I don't think either are relevant here
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate. 求同存異. よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
A placeholder line
You are now at your youngest moment in your remaining life.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8921
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sat Mar 06, 2021 5:17 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
bennett123 wrote:
So if someone posted things hostile to him, the SM would not be able to take it down?.


As a government official, no.

In a democracy, dissent against government is not hate speech. If it incites violence, it is a law enforcement issue, not an SM policy issue.

A handful of SM Platform policymakers with limited knowledge can never decide, what is a fact. They can pretend, but they never would.


Sure, but that’s irrelevant because they own the IP and can do with it what they opine is best.


Private company internal policies are not above laws of the land and definitely cannot be applied selectively.
All posts are just opinions.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14147
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sat Mar 06, 2021 5:17 pm

c933103 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:

As a government official, no.

In a democracy, dissent against government is not hate speech. If it incites violence, it is a law enforcement issue, not an SM policy issue.

A handful of SM Platform policymakers with limited knowledge can never decide, what is a fact. They can pretend, but they never would.


Sure, but that’s irrelevant because they own the IP and can do with it what they opine is best.

IP? Internet Protocol Address or Intellectual Property?
I don't think either are relevant here


Totally relevant. Twitter, FB etc are brands and their actions and policy decisions reflect brand values and priorities.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14147
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sat Mar 06, 2021 5:18 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:

As a government official, no.

In a democracy, dissent against government is not hate speech. If it incites violence, it is a law enforcement issue, not an SM policy issue.

A handful of SM Platform policymakers with limited knowledge can never decide, what is a fact. They can pretend, but they never would.


Sure, but that’s irrelevant because they own the IP and can do with it what they opine is best.


Private company internal policies are not above laws of the land and definitely cannot be applied selectively.


It was already explained in the previous page how and where that concept applies and where it does not.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5310
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sat Mar 06, 2021 5:24 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

Sure, but that’s irrelevant because they own the IP and can do with it what they opine is best.

IP? Internet Protocol Address or Intellectual Property?
I don't think either are relevant here


Totally relevant. Twitter, FB etc are brands and their actions and policy decisions reflect brand values and priorities.

I see, I agree
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate. 求同存異. よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
A placeholder line
You are now at your youngest moment in your remaining life.
 
bennett123
Posts: 10739
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sat Mar 06, 2021 5:42 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
bennett123 wrote:
So if someone posted things hostile to him, the SM would not be able to take it down?.


As a government official, no.

In a democracy, dissent against government is not hate speech. If it incites violence, it is a law enforcement issue, not an SM policy issue.

A handful of SM Platform policymakers with limited knowledge can never decide, what is a fact. They can pretend, but they never would.


So who decides, politicians or judges.

Both have limited knowledge.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19713
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sat Mar 06, 2021 6:02 pm

afcjets wrote:
Unfortunately we now have private monopolies though, so either split them up or impose restrictions on them. Another poster compared them to a bakery which is disingenuous. If a bakery won't write messages they disagree with on your cake, you can try going to another one.


Isn’t this just classic capitalism at work? The best rises to the top. Don’t like it? Nothing stopping you from starting your own “Facebook” or “Twitter”.

There is a direct comparison to the christian cake shop exercising their right to not serve gays. The bakers rights trumped their customers’ rights to not be discriminated against. Big tech is exercising their rights over those of their customers in exactly the same way - can’t post your hate messages on Twitter? Try another platform. Exactly the same.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
cpd
Posts: 6715
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sat Mar 06, 2021 6:14 pm

scbriml wrote:
afcjets wrote:
Unfortunately we now have private monopolies though, so either split them up or impose restrictions on them. Another poster compared them to a bakery which is disingenuous. If a bakery won't write messages they disagree with on your cake, you can try going to another one.


Isn’t this just classic capitalism at work? The best rises to the top. Don’t like it? Nothing stopping you from starting your own “Facebook” or “Twitter”.

There is a direct comparison to the christian cake shop exercising their right to not serve gays. The bakers rights trumped their customers’ rights to not be discriminated against. Big tech is exercising their rights over those of their customers in exactly the same way - can’t post your hate messages on Twitter? Try another platform. Exactly the same.


Splitting them up is more of the creeping scourge of socialism which should be stamped out.

There are other social media platforms people can use as well. If you don’t like Twitter then use something else.

Or better still, don’t use any of them at all.
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5310
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sat Mar 06, 2021 6:29 pm

scbriml wrote:
afcjets wrote:
Unfortunately we now have private monopolies though, so either split them up or impose restrictions on them. Another poster compared them to a bakery which is disingenuous. If a bakery won't write messages they disagree with on your cake, you can try going to another one.


Isn’t this just classic capitalism at work? The best rises to the top. Don’t like it? Nothing stopping you from starting your own “Facebook” or “Twitter”.

Didn't the sort of classic capitalism you mentioned about died a hundred years or so ago when things like antitrust law, labor law, and such became established?
There is a direct comparison to the christian cake shop exercising their right to not serve gays. The bakers rights trumped their customers’ rights to not be discriminated against. Big tech is exercising their rights over those of their customers in exactly the same way - can’t post your hate messages on Twitter? Try another platform. Exactly the same.

But the bakers' right to not serve customer with different sexual orientation was not being ruled by the court. Instead the court simply found that the civil right commission targeting the baker was biased.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... op/561986/
Last edited by c933103 on Sat Mar 06, 2021 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate. 求同存異. よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
A placeholder line
You are now at your youngest moment in your remaining life.
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5310
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sat Mar 06, 2021 6:31 pm

cpd wrote:
scbriml wrote:
afcjets wrote:
Unfortunately we now have private monopolies though, so either split them up or impose restrictions on them. Another poster compared them to a bakery which is disingenuous. If a bakery won't write messages they disagree with on your cake, you can try going to another one.


Isn’t this just classic capitalism at work? The best rises to the top. Don’t like it? Nothing stopping you from starting your own “Facebook” or “Twitter”.

There is a direct comparison to the christian cake shop exercising their right to not serve gays. The bakers rights trumped their customers’ rights to not be discriminated against. Big tech is exercising their rights over those of their customers in exactly the same way - can’t post your hate messages on Twitter? Try another platform. Exactly the same.


Splitting them up is more of the creeping scourge of socialism which should be stamped out.

There are other social media platforms people can use as well. If you don’t like Twitter then use something else.

Or better still, don’t use any of them at all.

Problem with Facebook is they have also acquired other competitors like Whatsapp and Instagram, with Whatsapp competing against Facebook messaging.
And I believe there are already ongoing antitrust investigation into their such acquisitions?
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate. 求同存異. よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
A placeholder line
You are now at your youngest moment in your remaining life.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sat Mar 06, 2021 7:13 pm

c933103 wrote:
Aesma wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Unless I am mistaken, isn't the proposed bill functionally similar to such antidiscrimination law?


What is the new protected class, then ?

The article say:

Senate Bill 12 would prohibit social media companies — including Facebook, Twitter and YouTube — from blocking, banning, demonetizing, or otherwise discriminating against a user based on their viewpoint or their location within Texas.


So no discrimination based on viewpoint or location? Sounds fair.

Can still ban someone for their actions if the banning is shown to be not associated with those things.

If one was from a rural right wing area of Texas and repeatedly posted one of those lies about trump having the election stolen then that person could be banned from the social media site because the ban was not done due to the location or viewpoint but because of the information within the posting.

Banning someone because of a view point would be tantamount to punishing a thought crime which is normally only ever advocated by religious people.

I fundamentally agree with this law although I don’t think it prevents people being banned or having their messages removed from social media. In light of that it seems to me to be a distraction from the colossal fuck up that has been going down in Texas recently.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11230
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sat Mar 06, 2021 7:42 pm

This law is nothing but a political stunt, which Abbot is well known for (political stunts). As far as I can tell it does nothing really as no one has been banned for "viewpoints". What people have been banned for is statements that are inflammatory, inciting of violence, supportive of or advocating things that illegal, or other things that are violation of the terms agreed to when one sings up for such services etc.

If I call someone here on A.net something that is bad my post can be removed. If I only and directly just attack one poster and not the topic I can have my posts removed and even be banned. However expressing my viewpoint (often needed to include the wording "my opinion" I have found), then that post is basically OK (provided it is not violating one of the forum rules).

This stupid bill changes NONE of that.

This is pure BS political grandstanding on the part of a Texas politician. But of course that is part and parcel of what Texas is isn't it? I mean Texas in know for cowboys and cows and bulls... and bulls grow by eating and everything they is converted into bulls#t. SO it follows that BS is normal part of Texas.

In my opinion. :stirthepot:

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8921
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sat Mar 06, 2021 8:22 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

Sure, but that’s irrelevant because they own the IP and can do with it what they opine is best.


Private company internal policies are not above laws of the land and definitely cannot be applied selectively.


It was already explained in the previous page how and where that concept applies and where it does not.


Yes you did. Has it been litigated and upheld?
All posts are just opinions.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4752
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sat Mar 06, 2021 9:58 pm

When a leftist bakery was asked was asked for a cake with a hate message on it, they simply said they would provide the cake and a tube of the wanted color, and the buyer could write whatever he wanted. A bakery that doesn't want to do wedding cakes for gays could do the same, or they could exercise their rights of free speech and put up biblical verses opposed to gay activity. Of course they would lose a lot of straight customer's business, so I doubt they would. But they about never would have any gay business of any sort.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14147
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sat Mar 06, 2021 11:17 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:

Private company internal policies are not above laws of the land and definitely cannot be applied selectively.


It was already explained in the previous page how and where that concept applies and where it does not.


Yes you did. Has it been litigated and upheld?


There is already a ton of precedent in employment and corporate law.

https://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2019/05/ ... h-at-work/

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/ar ... ate-speech

There is an interesting discussion here of just how broadly Citizens United expanded corporate protections for all forms of speech. As I said before, as that's the SCOTUS precedent we currently have, it stands until changed.

https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content ... t_work.pdf
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8921
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sat Mar 06, 2021 11:27 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
...
There is already a ton of precedent in employment and corporate law.


That is a non-answer. SMPs are not employers of users. Even US employers for the most part don't care what you do on personal devices unless it is detrimental to their brand.
All posts are just opinions.
 
LMP737
Posts: 6217
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sat Mar 06, 2021 11:30 pm

DIRECTFLT wrote:
Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrSPT0CwKfc

Let the Lawsuits against Big Tech begin . . .


This is nothing more than WMD, Weapon of Mass Distraction. It's funny how right after the disaster than has befallen Texas and the inept handling of it by the State of Texas that he would decide that this was all of a sudden so important. Don't forget lifting the mask mandate. It's almost like he is trying to distract people. Reading the posts on this thread he appears to have been largely successful.

The question is, how successful is this attempt at deflection in the state of Texas? If I were a resident of Texas and had my home ruined because of burst water pipes and my family freezing in our own home. Or my bank account wiped out because I was on autopay for my utility bill and my bill was $8000 and now I can't pay my other bills do you think I would give a crap about any of this? Hell no! And it doesn't matter which side of the issue you are on. You have bigger problems to worry about that mask mandates of social media.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14147
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sat Mar 06, 2021 11:42 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
...
There is already a ton of precedent in employment and corporate law.


That is a non-answer. SMPs are not employers of users. Even US employers for the most part don't care what you do on personal devices unless it is detrimental to their brand.


I was referring to precedent for companies having the right to opine on their brand values and political speech. You’re talking about consumers but most consumer rights laws don’t cover services rendered for free for obvious reasons.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5310
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:24 am

Aaron747 wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
...
There is already a ton of precedent in employment and corporate law.


That is a non-answer. SMPs are not employers of users. Even US employers for the most part don't care what you do on personal devices unless it is detrimental to their brand.


I was referring to precedent for companies having the right to opine on their brand values and political speech. You’re talking about consumers but most consumer rights laws don’t cover services rendered for free for obvious reasons.

I think the bill is trying to follow structure of laws like GPDR?
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate. 求同存異. よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
A placeholder line
You are now at your youngest moment in your remaining life.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8921
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:41 am

Aaron747 wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
...
There is already a ton of precedent in employment and corporate law.


That is a non-answer. SMPs are not employers of users. Even US employers for the most part don't care what you do on personal devices unless it is detrimental to their brand.


I was referring to precedent for companies having the right to opine on their brand values and political speech. You’re talking about consumers but most consumer rights laws don’t cover services rendered for free for obvious reasons.


Being free is a possible legal loophole, but are these really free when platforms are selling user data and selling ads.

Lot of users don't even know their personal photos are property of FaceBook, Google or other.

One way or the other, these companies won't be in same shape in few years. They have grown too big to fix themselves.
All posts are just opinions.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14147
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:42 am

c933103 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:

That is a non-answer. SMPs are not employers of users. Even US employers for the most part don't care what you do on personal devices unless it is detrimental to their brand.


I was referring to precedent for companies having the right to opine on their brand values and political speech. You’re talking about consumers but most consumer rights laws don’t cover services rendered for free for obvious reasons.

I think the bill is trying to follow structure of laws like GPDR?


LOL I highly doubt that. We're still talking about Texas.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14147
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:44 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:

That is a non-answer. SMPs are not employers of users. Even US employers for the most part don't care what you do on personal devices unless it is detrimental to their brand.


I was referring to precedent for companies having the right to opine on their brand values and political speech. You’re talking about consumers but most consumer rights laws don’t cover services rendered for free for obvious reasons.


Being free is a possible legal loophole, but are these really free when platforms are selling user data and selling ads.

Lot of users don't even know their personal photos are property of FaceBook, Google or other.

One way or the other, these companies won't be in same shape in few years. They have grown too big to fix themselves.


What is the precedent for 'I didn't read the TOS' or 'I didn't understand the contract' as a defense? None I'm aware of.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23492
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 1:22 am

c933103 wrote:
cpd wrote:
scbriml wrote:

Isn’t this just classic capitalism at work? The best rises to the top. Don’t like it? Nothing stopping you from starting your own “Facebook” or “Twitter”.

There is a direct comparison to the christian cake shop exercising their right to not serve gays. The bakers rights trumped their customers’ rights to not be discriminated against. Big tech is exercising their rights over those of their customers in exactly the same way - can’t post your hate messages on Twitter? Try another platform. Exactly the same.


Splitting them up is more of the creeping scourge of socialism which should be stamped out.

There are other social media platforms people can use as well. If you don’t like Twitter then use something else.

Or better still, don’t use any of them at all.

Problem with Facebook is they have also acquired other competitors like Whatsapp and Instagram, with Whatsapp competing against Facebook messaging.
And I believe there are already ongoing antitrust investigation into their such acquisitions?


But that is part of capitalism. Facebook buys whatever companies it wants. Another part of the issue are these MAGA people flocking to sites and outlets that simply echo their views. There was an exchange on here between me and I can't remember who that made it sound like s/he believed 1/6 didn't happen the way everyone saw it happen. We need to bring back critical thinking and not being afraid of facts.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
cpd
Posts: 6715
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 1:37 am

c933103 wrote:
cpd wrote:
scbriml wrote:

Isn’t this just classic capitalism at work? The best rises to the top. Don’t like it? Nothing stopping you from starting your own “Facebook” or “Twitter”.

There is a direct comparison to the christian cake shop exercising their right to not serve gays. The bakers rights trumped their customers’ rights to not be discriminated against. Big tech is exercising their rights over those of their customers in exactly the same way - can’t post your hate messages on Twitter? Try another platform. Exactly the same.


Splitting them up is more of the creeping scourge of socialism which should be stamped out.

There are other social media platforms people can use as well. If you don’t like Twitter then use something else.

Or better still, don’t use any of them at all.

Problem with Facebook is they have also acquired other competitors like Whatsapp and Instagram, with Whatsapp competing against Facebook messaging.
And I believe there are already ongoing antitrust investigation into their such acquisitions?


Then the others should have done more to be better. This is a core part of the free market. Successful companies should not be penalised for being successful - this just encourages people to stop innovating and you end up with a socialist welfare state.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3900
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 2:05 am

afcjets wrote:
alfa164 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
It aint much of a test. They are telling tech companies they have to host speech they don’t like / want on their private property. Never gonna happen.

Some of our brethren seem to be unable to understand that the First Amendment does not apply to private companies.

:roll:
Unfortunately we now have private monopolies though, so either split them up or impose restrictions on them.


That is simply false. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of social media companies - including at least 21 with more than 50 million users each. And whining about them doesn't change the law.


https://www.quora.com/How-many-social-media-sites-are-there-in-the-world-today

https://makeawebsitehub.com/social-media-sites/



afcjets wrote:
Another poster compared them to a bakery which is disingenuous. If a bakery won't write messages they disagree with on your cake, you can try going to another one.


If that bigoted baker is the only bakery in town... then yes, it would be even more critical. And I'd be willing to bet there are more social media companies in most towns than there are bakeries. Would you join a campaign to break-up such bigoted bakeries?

;)


Aaron747 wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
bennett123 wrote:
So if someone posted things hostile to him, the SM would not be able to take it down?.

As a government official, no. In a democracy, dissent against government is not hate speech. If it incites violence, it is a law enforcement issue, not an SM policy issue. A handful of SM Platform policymakers with limited knowledge can never decide, what is a fact. They can pretend, but they never would.

Sure, but that’s irrelevant because they own the IP and can do with it what they opine is best.


:checkmark: . There is - thank goodness - no law that says social media sites must allow the promotion of hate speech, false information, or violence.

And anyone who wants to start one is certainly welcome to do it... knowing the legal repercussions that might follow.
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5310
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 2:10 am

seb146 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
cpd wrote:

Splitting them up is more of the creeping scourge of socialism which should be stamped out.

There are other social media platforms people can use as well. If you don’t like Twitter then use something else.

Or better still, don’t use any of them at all.

Problem with Facebook is they have also acquired other competitors like Whatsapp and Instagram, with Whatsapp competing against Facebook messaging.
And I believe there are already ongoing antitrust investigation into their such acquisitions?


But that is part of capitalism. Facebook buys whatever companies it wants. Another part of the issue are these MAGA people flocking to sites and outlets that simply echo their views. There was an exchange on here between me and I can't remember who that made it sound like s/he believed 1/6 didn't happen the way everyone saw it happen. We need to bring back critical thinking and not being afraid of facts.

What do you think "capitalism" is?
It doesn't mean companies don't need to follow laws

cpd wrote:
c933103 wrote:
cpd wrote:

Splitting them up is more of the creeping scourge of socialism which should be stamped out.

There are other social media platforms people can use as well. If you don’t like Twitter then use something else.

Or better still, don’t use any of them at all.

Problem with Facebook is they have also acquired other competitors like Whatsapp and Instagram, with Whatsapp competing against Facebook messaging.
And I believe there are already ongoing antitrust investigation into their such acquisitions?


Then the others should have done more to be better. This is a core part of the free market. Successful companies should not be penalised for being successful - this just encourages people to stop innovating and you end up with a socialist welfare state.

But that's not how US law works, you might have your opinion on whether that turn US into an unfree market or not but that's the law
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate. 求同存異. よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
A placeholder line
You are now at your youngest moment in your remaining life.
 
johns624
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 2:26 am

c933103 wrote:
What do you think "capitalism" is?
It doesn't mean companies don't need to follow laws
How can a state regulate what a company does that isn't incorporated in that state?
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5310
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 2:47 am

johns624 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
What do you think "capitalism" is?
It doesn't mean companies don't need to follow laws
How can a state regulate what a company does that isn't incorporated in that state?

Same way as GDPR regulating any companies around the world serving European customer
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate. 求同存異. よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
A placeholder line
You are now at your youngest moment in your remaining life.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3900
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 2:48 am

c933103 wrote:
What do you think "capitalism" is?
It doesn't mean companies don't need to follow laws


Find a company that isn't following the law. The get back to us...

:roll:
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14147
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 2:48 am

c933103 wrote:
What do you think "capitalism" is?
It doesn't mean companies don't need to follow laws


You're all over the place in this thread - can you state clearly what you think the problem is with these companies? Is it the speech issue or the purported monopolies?
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23492
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 2:52 am

c933103 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Problem with Facebook is they have also acquired other competitors like Whatsapp and Instagram, with Whatsapp competing against Facebook messaging.
And I believe there are already ongoing antitrust investigation into their such acquisitions?


But that is part of capitalism. Facebook buys whatever companies it wants. Another part of the issue are these MAGA people flocking to sites and outlets that simply echo their views. There was an exchange on here between me and I can't remember who that made it sound like s/he believed 1/6 didn't happen the way everyone saw it happen. We need to bring back critical thinking and not being afraid of facts.

What do you think "capitalism" is?
It doesn't mean companies don't need to follow laws


They keep buying companies because they can. It takes away their competition. Survival of the fittest. And they can turn around and make more money off the shrinking marketplace. If there are only two or three social media outlets as opposed to twelve or thirteen, that is free market, right? That is what we are supposed to support. The free market. Right? The fewer choices the better because free market.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5310
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 3:04 am

alfa164 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
What do you think "capitalism" is?
It doesn't mean companies don't need to follow laws


Find a company that isn't following the law. The get back to us...

:roll:

My that reply was in response to another users claiming that companies "buy whatever they want" is part of "capitalism" despite there exists antitrust law
seb146 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
seb146 wrote:

But that is part of capitalism. Facebook buys whatever companies it wants. Another part of the issue are these MAGA people flocking to sites and outlets that simply echo their views. There was an exchange on here between me and I can't remember who that made it sound like s/he believed 1/6 didn't happen the way everyone saw it happen. We need to bring back critical thinking and not being afraid of facts.

What do you think "capitalism" is?
It doesn't mean companies don't need to follow laws


They keep buying companies because they can. It takes away their competition. Survival of the fittest. And they can turn around and make more money off the shrinking marketplace. If there are only two or three social media outlets as opposed to twelve or thirteen, that is free market, right? That is what we are supposed to support. The free market. Right? The fewer choices the better because free market.

You correctly understand the motivation of the motivation but you forget that the US already have law against such behavior and Facebook is now being sued over it, and that the law does not say it'a okay if there are more smaller competitors out there.
https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2 ... ys-general


Aaron747 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
What do you think "capitalism" is?
It doesn't mean companies don't need to follow laws


You're all over the place in this thread - can you state clearly what you think the problem is with these companies? Is it the speech issue or the purported monopolies?

I just think that such proposed rule seems useful, it doesn't appears to be totally unenforceable but will need to be tested on court, and it will be interesting to see how China-based international internet companies with Amrrican operation response to such rule.
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate. 求同存異. よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
A placeholder line
You are now at your youngest moment in your remaining life.
 
LMP737
Posts: 6217
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 3:10 am

scbriml wrote:
afcjets wrote:
Unfortunately we now have private monopolies though, so either split them up or impose restrictions on them. Another poster compared them to a bakery which is disingenuous. If a bakery won't write messages they disagree with on your cake, you can try going to another one.


Isn’t this just classic capitalism at work? The best rises to the top. Don’t like it? Nothing stopping you from starting your own “Facebook” or “Twitter”.

There is a direct comparison to the christian cake shop exercising their right to not serve gays. The bakers rights trumped their customers’ rights to not be discriminated against. Big tech is exercising their rights over those of their customers in exactly the same way - can’t post your hate messages on Twitter? Try another platform. Exactly the same.


What do you think is more pressing issue tot he average Texan? What you guys are talking about, or this?

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/06/97441796 ... nter-storm
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3900
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 3:20 am

LMP737 wrote:
What do you think is more pressing issue tot he average Texan? What you guys are talking about, or this?

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/06/97441796 ... nter-storm


:checkmark: . This is the great Abbott success story: directing attention away from the abject failures of his administration.

Sleight-of-hand seems to be his only area of competence.
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14147
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 3:30 am

c933103 wrote:
I just think that such proposed rule seems useful, it doesn't appears to be totally unenforceable but will need to be tested on court, and it will be interesting to see how China-based international internet companies with Amrrican operation response to such rule.


I see, thanks. I just don't see this being able to go anywhere - section 230 already supersedes what this does legally, and I have never heard of free products being subject to consumer protection regulation.

As for the monopoly issue, that investigation will take awhile. It's a bit illogical to call what's happening now a monopoly when there are so many market players. FB clearly has a market share advantage compared to other companies, but it's hard to call it monopolistic since several of their platforms are used for vastly different marketing purposes (and where they cross over can cannibalize each other).
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5310
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 3:42 am

Aaron747 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
I just think that such proposed rule seems useful, it doesn't appears to be totally unenforceable but will need to be tested on court, and it will be interesting to see how China-based international internet companies with Amrrican operation response to such rule.


I see, thanks. I just don't see this being able to go anywhere - section 230 already supersedes what this does legally, and I have never heard of free products being subject to consumer protection regulation.

Section 230 regulate contents posted by users while this regulate how platforms handle different users themselves, so I don't think it's covered by that?
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate. 求同存異. よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
A placeholder line
You are now at your youngest moment in your remaining life.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14147
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 4:13 am

c933103 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
I just think that such proposed rule seems useful, it doesn't appears to be totally unenforceable but will need to be tested on court, and it will be interesting to see how China-based international internet companies with Amrrican operation response to such rule.


I see, thanks. I just don't see this being able to go anywhere - section 230 already supersedes what this does legally, and I have never heard of free products being subject to consumer protection regulation.

Section 230 regulate contents posted by users while this regulate how platforms handle different users themselves, so I don't think it's covered by that?


Legally they are one and the same - 230 is broad enough to include restrictive actions.

(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]


The CDA also forbids preemption by state law beyond its provisions:

(3)State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 8:33 am

Aaron747 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

I see, thanks. I just don't see this being able to go anywhere - section 230 already supersedes what this does legally, and I have never heard of free products being subject to consumer protection regulation.

Section 230 regulate contents posted by users while this regulate how platforms handle different users themselves, so I don't think it's covered by that?


Legally they are one and the same - 230 is broad enough to include restrictive actions.

(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]


The CDA also forbids preemption by state law beyond its provisions:

(3)State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

So section 230 describes the actions that can be taken based on what the action is (refusing a product based on the product, I.e. I won’t sell you a cake that has the words gay wedding on it) and the proposed law from Texas says says that the cannot refuse the product based on the person is (cannot refuse to sell a cake to someone because they are gay but sell an identical cake to someone who isn’t).

If someone from rural Texas is banned from Facebook because they are from rural Texas and not because of something they posted then that is against this new proposed law. If someone from rural Texas spouts off inflammatory racist lies and gets banned because of the inflammatory racist lies then this law does not protect them from being banned or having posts removed.

Can any of the people who think this laws is a useful one please point to a single example of where it would have had an impact on the actions of either a social media company or any of its users then please cite it? .....Thought not.

If the people of rural Texas were actually worried about not being able to access Social media then the more likely reason for that is a lack of electricity.

On the other hand though, imagine the funnies on this site where we could just call out the half witted racists without evidence and not fear having the posts removed.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8921
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:37 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

I was referring to precedent for companies having the right to opine on their brand values and political speech. You’re talking about consumers but most consumer rights laws don’t cover services rendered for free for obvious reasons.


Being free is a possible legal loophole, but are these really free when platforms are selling user data and selling ads.

Lot of users don't even know their personal photos are property of FaceBook, Google or other.

One way or the other, these companies won't be in same shape in few years. They have grown too big to fix themselves.


What is the precedent for 'I didn't read the TOS' or 'I didn't understand the contract' as a defense? None I'm aware of.


Just because millions are clicking "I Agree" doesn't make a contract enforceable. No one can read and understand 50 pages of fine print on 5-inch screen. Even then terms cannot be restrictive or one-sided. There are a number of cases where contracts became void.

My point is there need to a legal review or legislation at federal level on this issue.
All posts are just opinions.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14147
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:50 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:

Being free is a possible legal loophole, but are these really free when platforms are selling user data and selling ads.

Lot of users don't even know their personal photos are property of FaceBook, Google or other.

One way or the other, these companies won't be in same shape in few years. They have grown too big to fix themselves.


What is the precedent for 'I didn't read the TOS' or 'I didn't understand the contract' as a defense? None I'm aware of.


Just because millions are clicking "I Agree" doesn't make a contract enforceable. No one can read and understand 50 pages of fine print on 5-inch screen. Even then terms cannot be restrictive or one-sided. There are a number of cases where contracts became void.

My point is there need to a legal review or legislation at federal level on this issue.


Guidelines for enforceable TOS from the American Bar Association:

Courts are now regularly enforcing so-called "click wrap" agreements, where a user's assent to the terms and conditions posted on a website is rendered by clicking on a button that says "I agree" or "yes".... Yet, even where an electronic agreement requires express assent, there are still reasons why a court may not enforce it. A court will consider whether the terms were presented in a way that provided reasonable notice, i.e., Was the typeface legible? Was the full text of the agreement easy to find? Was the text, even if large, easy to understand?

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/busi ... ing/terms/

Now have a look here...are they not abiding by the above?

https://www.facebook.com/terms.php
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8921
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 2:00 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

What is the precedent for 'I didn't read the TOS' or 'I didn't understand the contract' as a defense? None I'm aware of.


Just because millions are clicking "I Agree" doesn't make a contract enforceable. No one can read and understand 50 pages of fine print on 5-inch screen. Even then terms cannot be restrictive or one-sided. There are a number of cases where contracts became void.

My point is there need to a legal review or legislation at federal level on this issue.


Guidelines for enforceable TOS from the American Bar Association:

Courts are now regularly enforcing so-called "click wrap" agreements, where a user's assent to the terms and conditions posted on a website is rendered by clicking on a button that says "I agree" or "yes".... Yet, even where an electronic agreement requires express assent, there are still reasons why a court may not enforce it. A court will consider whether the terms were presented in a way that provided reasonable notice, i.e., Was the typeface legible? Was the full text of the agreement easy to find? Was the text, even if large, easy to understand?

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/busi ... ing/terms/

Now have a look here...are they not abiding by the above?

https://www.facebook.com/terms.php


You might want to read the ABA opinion in its entirety.

What provisions are not enforceable?
As in the world of paper contracts, certain provisions in terms and conditions may not be enforceable, even if you have obtained a click of "I agree". Illegal provisions, such as usurious finance charges, are void as against public policy, no matter how clear the other party's consent may be. Other provisions may be considered "unfair trade practices" under federal or local consumer protection laws. In addition to being unenforceable, there may be substantial penalties associated with including illegal or unfair terms in a consumer contract.

Moreover, provisions in standard form contracts which are so favorable to the vendor as to "shock the conscience" will not be enforceable on grounds of "unconscionability". An example of a provision in an electronic contract which is sometimes enforced, but other times found to be unconscionable, is one requiring the resolution of relatively small claims against the company in a location far from where the claimant resides, or a waiver of the right to bring a class action.

It is hard to enumerate provisions which are unconscionable, since the outcome often turns on the specific facts of the case, the applicable state law, the sympathies of the court, jury or arbitrator, and the standard industry view of a customer’s reasonable expectations. Even if the only risk is that the provision will be struck down (and that is often not the only risk), there can be negative publicity associated with any challenge to the company's business practices.
All posts are just opinions.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14147
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 2:15 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:

Just because millions are clicking "I Agree" doesn't make a contract enforceable. No one can read and understand 50 pages of fine print on 5-inch screen. Even then terms cannot be restrictive or one-sided. There are a number of cases where contracts became void.

My point is there need to a legal review or legislation at federal level on this issue.


Guidelines for enforceable TOS from the American Bar Association:

Courts are now regularly enforcing so-called "click wrap" agreements, where a user's assent to the terms and conditions posted on a website is rendered by clicking on a button that says "I agree" or "yes".... Yet, even where an electronic agreement requires express assent, there are still reasons why a court may not enforce it. A court will consider whether the terms were presented in a way that provided reasonable notice, i.e., Was the typeface legible? Was the full text of the agreement easy to find? Was the text, even if large, easy to understand?

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/busi ... ing/terms/

Now have a look here...are they not abiding by the above?

https://www.facebook.com/terms.php


You might want to read the ABA opinion in its entirety.

What provisions are not enforceable?
As in the world of paper contracts, certain provisions in terms and conditions may not be enforceable, even if you have obtained a click of "I agree". Illegal provisions, such as usurious finance charges, are void as against public policy, no matter how clear the other party's consent may be. Other provisions may be considered "unfair trade practices" under federal or local consumer protection laws. In addition to being unenforceable, there may be substantial penalties associated with including illegal or unfair terms in a consumer contract.

Moreover, provisions in standard form contracts which are so favorable to the vendor as to "shock the conscience" will not be enforceable on grounds of "unconscionability". An example of a provision in an electronic contract which is sometimes enforced, but other times found to be unconscionable, is one requiring the resolution of relatively small claims against the company in a location far from where the claimant resides, or a waiver of the right to bring a class action.

It is hard to enumerate provisions which are unconscionable, since the outcome often turns on the specific facts of the case, the applicable state law, the sympathies of the court, jury or arbitrator, and the standard industry view of a customer’s reasonable expectations. Even if the only risk is that the provision will be struck down (and that is often not the only risk), there can be negative publicity associated with any challenge to the company's business practices.


I most certainly did. What's curious is why you did not respond to the part I highlighted in directly relevant response to your point on TOS.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8921
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 3:03 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
... What's curious is why you did not respond to the part I highlighted in directly relevant response to your point on TOS.


Because judges doesn't rule just based on text of TOS written by corporate attorneys. Contract text is there just to intimidate public.

These are clear monopolies. A WhatsApp or Instagram user are now has to abide by FaceBook rules.

Service is not free if the platform is making money by sharing, selling user privacy data and ads.

These empires are basically house of cards, a little puff of air is enough.

There is precedent, Ma Bell and Microsoft used to behave the same way.
All posts are just opinions.
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 947
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 3:05 pm

Good, I think it's appropriate. It's okay to censor a network, as long as that network doesn't contain people's communications. Once it does contain people's communications, then I think censorship should be classified as a felony (mail tampering), where the criminal can be rehabilitated in a supportive prison setting.
 
User avatar
DIRECTFLT
Topic Author
Posts: 2482
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:00 am

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 5:38 pm

LMP737 wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:
Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrSPT0CwKfc

Let the Lawsuits against Big Tech begin . . .


This is nothing more than WMD, Weapon of Mass Distraction. It's funny how right after the disaster than has befallen Texas and the inept handling of it by the State of Texas that he would decide that this was all of a sudden so important. Don't forget lifting the mask mandate. It's almost like he is trying to distract people. Reading the posts on this thread he appears to have been largely successful.

The question is, how successful is this attempt at deflection in the state of Texas? If I were a resident of Texas and had my home ruined because of burst water pipes and my family freezing in our own home. Or my bank account wiped out because I was on autopay for my utility bill and my bill was $8000 and now I can't pay my other bills do you think I would give a crap about any of this? Hell no! And it doesn't matter which side of the issue you are on. You have bigger problems to worry about that mask mandates of social media.


I thankfully didn't have the problems above, and so I am able to have concerns of Big tech censoring opposing viewpoint.

As to choosing an electric provider:
Rule #1: Never go with autopay for an Electric or Water account.
Rule # 2: Never go with a Variable Rate tied to the Wholesale price of Energy.

I have followed these rules since before electric deregulation in Texas in 2002.
Smoothest Ride so far ~ AA A300B4-600R ~~ Favorite Aviation Author ~ Robert J. Serling
 
WIederling
Posts: 9988
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Texas Gov. Abbott's new bill prohibits social media companies from censoring viewpoints

Sun Mar 07, 2021 6:03 pm

scbriml wrote:
Isn’t this just classic capitalism at work? The best rises to the top. Don’t like it? Nothing stopping you from starting your own “Facebook” or “Twitter”.


Depends on what the metric of "best" is.

Best for "profits"? Sure!

But as a society you want best for the community.
Markets won't provide that. IMU they work strongly against it.

Jerry Pournelle wrote:
A totally unregulated market will end up with human flesh sold in the market place. Growth of regulation leads to concentrations of wealth and the kind of "Permit Raj" that kept India and China in the dumps for so long. All that is obvious -- but it's obvious to those who issue the permits, too

ref: http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/2011/Q2/mail677.html#Thursday
Last edited by WIederling on Sun Mar 07, 2021 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Murphy is an optimist

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aaron747, B777LRF, TheF15Ace, tommy1808, Virtual737 and 69 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos