packgrad said:

---

I think it's funny people pretend not to understand why "private company" social media companies banning a conservative political candidate would be a cause for concern, particularly when they support the right for dictatorial regimes to make posts calling for the extermination of a race.

---

It's a huge cause for concern.

We're in a real pickle.

a. Massive, public utility-adjacent private companies censoring speech on social media platforms is a big cause for concern.

b. A sitting American president using social media platforms to disseminate disinformation for years that culminated in months of false narratives about being the victim of massive electoral fraud; being the rightful winner of an election that was stolen from him; and facilitating through these actions the least peaceful transition of presidential power in America's history, is a big cause for concern.

The problem is, we can't all agree that both of those are big causes for concern. Hell, tens of millions in this country don't even believe b.) happened, much less that it's a problem.

They're both real big ****ing problems.

BBW12OG said:

---

BS Civ....just you "but, but, but Trump..."

How many lies did your Dear Leader put out via his MSM cohorts?

Only difference is that Trump didn't have the cover provided to him that you and your lefties do. FACT.

Trump called out the MSM and it pissed them off.

You can take that bosides crap somewhere else.

---

We're talking about Trump getting the ban-hammer from social media. Doesn't have anything to do with the MSM or anybody's Dear Leader.

"A sitting American president using social media platforms to disseminate disinformation for years that culminated in months of false narratives about being the victim of massive electoral fraud; being the rightful winner of an election that was stolen from him; and facilitating through these actions the least peaceful transition of presidential power in America's history"

Do you agree this is true?

If not, what do you dispute?

If you do agree it's true, is it a problem?

Cornpack said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Really deplorable by both these platforms engaging in electioneering

JUST IN: Facebook will suspend former President Trump from its platform and Instagram at least until January 7, 2023, the company announced.

— NPR Politics (@nprpolitics) June 4, 2021

---

They're a private company, if you don't like their policy then don't use them. That's the free market at work.

Just as a sidebar, and not addressed at anyone saying anything, I do think it is a bit of a contradiction that the Trump crowd (on the whole) simultaneously believes that both 1. All these private companies should be forced to provide a platform for everyone as if it is some violation of freedom of speech if they don't (f.o.s. only applies to the government limiting speech of course) and 2. These private companies shouldn't have legal protections under Sec. 230 which would make them legally liable for anything someone on their platforms says.

---

I always find this amusing.

packgrad said:

---

I think it's funny people pretend not to understand why "private company" social media companies banning a conservative political candidate would be a cause for concern, particularly when they support the right for dictatorial regimes to make posts calling for the extermination of a race.

---

It's not that I don't understand, it's either you believe in the free market and the power of the consumer or you think the government should exercise control over it to get outcomes they find desirable.

Cornpack said:

---

packgrad said:

---

I think it's funny people pretend not to understand why "private company" social media companies banning a conservative political candidate would be a cause for concern, particularly when they support the right for dictatorial regimes to make posts calling for the extermination of a race.

---

It's not that I don't understand, it's either you believe in the free market and the power of the consumer or you think the government should exercise control over it to get outcomes they find desirable.

---

We don't have a free market. Why pretend like there is one when a conservative is banned?

packgrad said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

BS Civ....just you "but, but, but Trump..."

How many lies did your Dear Leader put out via his MSM cohorts?

Only difference is that Trump didn't have the cover provided to him that you and your lefties do. FACT.

Trump called out the MSM and it pissed them off.

You can take that bosides crap somewhere else.

---

We're talking about Trump getting the ban-hammer from social media. Doesn't have anything to do with the MSM or anybody's Dear Leader.

"A sitting American president using social media platforms to disseminate disinformation for years that culminated in months of false narratives about being the victim of massive electoral fraud; being the rightful winner of an election that was stolen from him; and facilitating through these actions the least peaceful transition of presidential power in America's history"

Do you agree this is true?

If not, what do you dispute?

If you do agree it's true, is it a problem?

---

. This I disagree with. The only two entities that haven't denounced these companies doing selective banning are liberals and the MSM. Even those right wing nut job presidents of Germany, France, and Mexico see this as a huge problem.

Its the job of the people to reelect or not reelect with a free flow of ideas. Facebook and Twitter shouldn't have that power to decide what is and what isn't disinformation

---

Correct. Civilized, as an independent, should understand that.

Civilized is fine with Hillary, AOC, Talib, Obama, MSNBC, CNN, etc spreading misinformation. Just Trump concerns him.

---

No I'm not fine with that. You just don't hear me talking about Hillary, AOC, Talib, Obama, Bush, Graham, McConnell, Blackburn, Braun, Cruz, or any other politician that falls within some standard deviation of politician knuckle-draggery. Some of that BS is assumed.

And we're talking about Trump being canceled by FB. That has nothing to do with the MSM.

I just don't pretend Trump's volume of disinformation is normal for politicians, liberal or conservative.

It's relevant that his dishonesty dwarfed that of other politicians, and that no other President or politician has ever completely fabricated a story about massive electoral fraud that 50 million Americans still believe and that directly led to whatever you want to call January 6.

Those events are into themselves. No other President or politician has ever come close.

I know, I know, that's just my TDS talking.

packgrad said:

---

Cornpack said:

---

packgrad said:

---

I think it's funny people pretend not to understand why "private company" social media companies banning a conservative political candidate would be a cause for concern, particularly when they support the right for dictatorial regimes to make posts calling for the extermination of a race.

---

It's not that I don't understand, it's either you believe in the free market and the power of the consumer or you think the government should exercise control over it to get outcomes they find desirable.

---

We don't have a free market. Why pretend like there is one when a conservative is banned?

---

What economic system do you think we have if you don't think we are a capitalist country? If you think it is socialism (especially in social media), what companies are state controlled?

Agreed. It is.

hokiewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

BS Civ....just you "but, but, but Trump..."

How many lies did your Dear Leader put out via his MSM cohorts?

Only difference is that Trump didn't have the cover provided to him that you and your lefties do. FACT.

Trump called out the MSM and it pissed them off.

You can take that bosides crap somewhere else.

---

We're talking about Trump getting the ban-hammer from social media. Doesn't have anything to do with the MSM or anybody's Dear Leader.

"A sitting American president using social media platforms to disseminate disinformation for years that culminated in months of false narratives about being the victim of massive electoral fraud; being the rightful winner of an election that was stolen from him; and facilitating through these actions the least peaceful transition of presidential power in America's history"

Do you agree this is true?

If not, what do you dispute?

If you do agree it's true, is it a problem?

---

. This I disagree with. The only two entities that haven't denounced these companies doing selective banning are liberals and the MSM. Even those right wing nut job presidents of Germany, France, and Mexico see this as a huge problem.

Its the job of the people to reelect or not reelect with a free flow of ideas. Facebook and Twitter shouldn't have that power to decide what is and what isn't disinformation

---

It's not about denouncing it, brother.

It's about denying it even exists.

Are many liberals and MSM denying that Trump got cancelled, or are they just OK with it because they know how dangerous his electoral fraud Big Lie is and they don't know what else to do?

50 million Americans falsely believe that the election was stolen. And they believe it because Trump said it was true.

And I said before, they're both problems.

I just think grown adults between a rock and a hard place about how to handle Trump spreading incredibly dangerous disinformation *for nobody's benefit but his own* is less of a problem than the 50 million Americans who actually believe the electoral fraud bill of goods that Trump sold them.

It's one thing to understand reality and not know what to do about it, it's another thing altogether for our President to lie over and over and over for the last 18 months and have 50 million people believe the lie.

Cornpack said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Cornpack said:

---

packgrad said:

---

I think it's funny people pretend not to understand why "private company" social media companies banning a conservative political candidate would be a cause for concern, particularly when they support the right for dictatorial regimes to make posts calling for the extermination of a race.

---

It's not that I don't understand, it's either you believe in the free market and the power of the consumer or you think the government should exercise control over it to get outcomes they find desirable.

---

We don't have a free market. Why pretend like there is one when a conservative is banned?

---

What economic system do you think we have if you don't think we are a capitalist country? If you think it is socialism (especially in social media), what companies are state controlled?

---

Certainly not free market. Prices in several industries are not controlled by unrestricted competition. Look no further than gas prices.

In social media, how is it a free market when liberal companies that have a stranglehold on the industry stifle voices contrary to their viewpoints, and not allow competing companies on the "social media marketplace"?

The Democrats clearly control the social media companies. You can certainly keep your head in the sand if you want to dispute that, but it is just pure ignorance if you do so.

For centuries political party did not need to be a protected party, but now that democrats and their minions have control of the spread of information on social media, perhaps it's time to revisit that.

packgrad said:

---

Cornpack said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Cornpack said:

---

packgrad said:

---

I think it's funny people pretend not to understand why "private company" social media companies banning a conservative political candidate would be a cause for concern, particularly when they support the right for dictatorial regimes to make posts calling for the extermination of a race.

---

It's not that I don't understand, it's either you believe in the free market and the power of the consumer or you think the government should exercise control over it to get outcomes they find desirable.

---

We don't have a free market. Why pretend like there is one when a conservative is banned?

---

What economic system do you think we have if you don't think we are a capitalist country? If you think it is socialism (especially in social media), what companies are state controlled?

---

Certainly not free market. Prices in several industries are not controlled by unrestricted competition. Look no further than gas prices.

In social media, how is it a free market when liberal companies that have a stranglehold on the industry stifle voices contrary to their viewpoints, and not allow competing companies on the "social media marketplace"?

The Democrats clearly control the social media companies. You can certainly keep your head in the sand if you want to dispute that, but it is just pure ignorance if you do so.

For centuries political party did not need to be a protected party, but now that democrats and their minions have control of the spread of information on social media, perhaps it's time to revisit that.

---

How does our government control gas prices? For domestic oil, there are regulations on the methods of harvesting oil and the procedures which it must be refined, but what actual price controls (beyond price gouging laws which can be used during a declared state of emergency) does the US government place on gasoline?

It is a free market because there are companies who have become successful because of consumer demand rather than the government picking winners and losers. Other platforms, such as Parler for example, haven't been as successful because of their failure to appeal to as many people. Should Amazon have been forced by the government to host them despite them not following the terms of their agreement which required content moderation? Should we limit the freedom to contract?

I mean no disrespect at all but you are actively advocating for a non-conservative, non-small government, non-free market policy position. I, as a conservative who is a staunch supporter of the free market and the rights of individuals to contract how they please, will keep beating that drum. That isn't being ignorant, that is being consistently principled rather than changing my mind because I don't like the outcome.

Remember those few weeks where we ignored Civ.?

It's time. He's just trolling at this point.

At least I make a point even if it pisses people off and rubs them the wrong way. I don't just disagree for the hell of it and change my direction midstream.

Not one damn person on here doesn't know where I stand and what I think. Go back three posts of Civs' and you see three different stands depending on who he's talking to.

Definition of a spineless lefty.

Good night guys... not dealing with his clown show.

hokiewolf said:

---

Ok, let's take Trump out of it and I'll give you another example. Bret Weinstein on his podcast started a grass roots political campaign to provide a 3rd party alternative candidate because like me, he was un happy with the two mainstream party candidates. Twitter suspended their account for bogus reasons.

https://articlesofunity.org/2020/09/press-release-for-our-twitter-ban/

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/516088-grassroots-activist-describes-frustration-with-twitter-over-account-suspension

It is still suspended today and you cannot share any links to Articles of unity on Twitter.

Are you still ok with the seemingly arbitrary suspension of an account created by a grass roots movement to create a third party by a tech platform thereby hobbling their efforts to present an alternative candidate that potentially would have siphoned voters from Joe Biden?

---

No I'm not OK with it.

To be clear I'm not OK with Trump's social media ban.

I'm also not OK with his incredibly dangerous stolen election lie or more generally his historical propensity for making **** up because reality doesn't suit him.

I don't have the answer to reconcile those two conflicting realities.

Cornpack said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Cornpack said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Cornpack said:

---

packgrad said:

---

I think it's funny people pretend not to understand why "private company" social media companies banning a conservative political candidate would be a cause for concern, particularly when they support the right for dictatorial regimes to make posts calling for the extermination of a race.

---

It's not that I don't understand, it's either you believe in the free market and the power of the consumer or you think the government should exercise control over it to get outcomes they find desirable.

---

We don't have a free market. Why pretend like there is one when a conservative is banned?

---

What economic system do you think we have if you don't think we are a capitalist country? If you think it is socialism (especially in social media), what companies are state controlled?

---

Certainly not free market. Prices in several industries are not controlled by unrestricted competition. Look no further than gas prices.

In social media, how is it a free market when liberal companies that have a stranglehold on the industry stifle voices contrary to their viewpoints, and not allow competing companies on the "social media marketplace"?

The Democrats clearly control the social media companies. You can certainly keep your head in the sand if you want to dispute that, but it is just pure ignorance if you do so.

For centuries political party did not need to be a protected party, but now that democrats and their minions have control of the spread of information on social media, perhaps it's time to revisit that.

---

How does our government control gas prices? For domestic oil, there are regulations on the methods of harvesting oil and the procedures which it must be refined, but what actual price controls (beyond price gouging laws which can be used during a declared state of emergency) does the US government place on gasoline?

It is a free market because there are companies who have become successful because of consumer demand rather than the government picking winners and losers. Other platforms, such as Parler for example, haven't been as successful because of their failure to appeal to as many people. Should Amazon have been forced by the government to host them despite them not following the terms of their agreement which required content moderation? Should we limit the freedom to contract?

I mean no disrespect at all but you are actively advocating for a non-conservative, non-small government, non-free market policy position. I, as a conservative who is a staunch supporter of the free market and the rights of individuals to contract how they please, will keep beating that drum. That isn't being ignorant, that is being consistently principled rather than changing my mind because I don't like the outcome.

---

So gas is a free market except when it isn't. Got it. If it was a free market, gouging wouldn't be regulated, and free market would determine pricing versus gas outages. That didn't happen. That doesn't happen. Not a free market.

Parler was not shut down for breaking rules. It is literally the most illogical viewpoint one could have to say that Patler was shut down for content moderation/inciting violence while allowing Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat to remain. Parler was shut down for political reasons. But please do the dance of being a conservative but supporting shutting down conservatives for political reasons.

I don't understand why people have to lie about their political affiliations on a message board.

Cornpack said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Cornpack said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Cornpack said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Cornpack said:

---

packgrad said:

---

I think it's funny people pretend not to understand why "private company" social media companies banning a conservative political candidate would be a cause for concern, particularly when they support the right for dictatorial regimes to make posts calling for the extermination of a race.

---

It's not that I don't understand, it's either you believe in the free market and the power of the consumer or you think the government should exercise control over it to get outcomes they find desirable.

---

We don't have a free market. Why pretend like there is one when a conservative is banned?

---

What economic system do you think we have if you don't think we are a capitalist country? If you think it is socialism (especially in social media), what companies are state controlled?

---

Certainly not free market. Prices in several industries are not controlled by unrestricted competition. Look no further than gas prices.

In social media, how is it a free market when liberal companies that have a stranglehold on the industry stifle voices contrary to their viewpoints, and not allow competing companies on the "social media marketplace"?

The Democrats clearly control the social media companies. You can certainly keep your head in the sand if you want to dispute that, but it is just pure ignorance if you do so.

For centuries political party did not need to be a protected party, but now that democrats and their minions have control of the spread of information on social media, perhaps it's time to revisit that.

---

How does our government control gas prices? For domestic oil, there are regulations on the methods of harvesting oil and the procedures which it must be refined, but what actual price controls (beyond price gouging laws which can be used during a declared state of emergency) does the US government place on gasoline?

It is a free market because there are companies who have become successful because of consumer demand rather than the government picking winners and losers. Other platforms, such as Parler for example, haven't been as successful because of their failure to appeal to as many people. Should Amazon have been forced by the government to host them despite them not following the terms of their agreement which required content moderation? Should we limit the freedom to contract?

I mean no disrespect at all but you are actively advocating for a non-conservative, non-small government, non-free market policy position. I, as a conservative who is a staunch supporter of the free market and the rights of individuals to contract how they please, will keep beating that drum. That isn't being ignorant, that is being consistently principled rather than changing my mind because I don't like the outcome.

---

So gas is a free market except when it isn't. Got it. If it was a free market, gouging wouldn't be regulated, and free market would determine pricing versus gas outages. That didn't happen. That doesn't happen. Not a free market.

Parler was not shut down for breaking rules. It is literally the most illogical viewpoint one could have to say that Patler was shut down for content moderation/inciting violence while allowing Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat to remain. Parler was shut down for political reasons. But please do the dance of being a conservative but supporting shutting down conservatives for political reasons.

I don't understand why people have to lie about their political affiliations on a message board.

---

Look man, if you aren't going to argue in good faith I'm just not going to talk to you. As for the "lying about their political affiliations" comment, I have sat an a county Republican Party executive board. I have worked on Republican campaigns before. I am a legal intern for a Republican judge. I am a part of my law school's federalist society. You can check my credentials. If you want to go around calling people a liar, where are yours?

---

Someone who doesn't support monopolies silencing people because of political affiliation. If those are your credentials and you support silencing of conservatives on social media because of some bull**** version of free market, you explain everything that's wrong with the Republican Party. I truly don't care if a law school kid wants to talk with me in any faith though, so I'm not concerned whether you continue.

Cornpack said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Cornpack said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Cornpack said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Cornpack said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Cornpack said:

---

packgrad said:

---

I think it's funny people pretend not to understand why "private company" social media companies banning a conservative political candidate would be a cause for concern, particularly when they support the right for dictatorial regimes to make posts calling for the extermination of a race.

---

It's not that I don't understand, it's either you believe in the free market and the power of the consumer or you think the government should exercise control over it to get outcomes they find desirable.

---

We don't have a free market. Why pretend like there is one when a conservative is banned?

---

What economic system do you think we have if you don't think we are a capitalist country? If you think it is socialism (especially in social media), what companies are state controlled?

---

Certainly not free market. Prices in several industries are not controlled by unrestricted competition. Look no further than gas prices.

In social media, how is it a free market when liberal companies that have a stranglehold on the industry stifle voices contrary to their viewpoints, and not allow competing companies on the "social media marketplace"?

The Democrats clearly control the social media companies. You can certainly keep your head in the sand if you want to dispute that, but it is just pure ignorance if you do so.

For centuries political party did not need to be a protected party, but now that democrats and their minions have control of the spread of information on social media, perhaps it's time to revisit that.

---

How does our government control gas prices? For domestic oil, there are regulations on the methods of harvesting oil and the procedures which it must be refined, but what actual price controls (beyond price gouging laws which can be used during a declared state of emergency) does the US government place on gasoline?

It is a free market because there are companies who have become successful because of consumer demand rather than the government picking winners and losers. Other platforms, such as Parler for example, haven't been as successful because of their failure to appeal to as many people. Should Amazon have been forced by the government to host them despite them not following the terms of their agreement which required content moderation? Should we limit the freedom to contract?

I mean no disrespect at all but you are actively advocating for a non-conservative, non-small government, non-free market policy position. I, as a conservative who is a staunch supporter of the free market and the rights of individuals to contract how they please, will keep beating that drum. That isn't being ignorant, that is being consistently principled rather than changing my mind because I don't like the outcome.

---

So gas is a free market except when it isn't. Got it. If it was a free market, gouging wouldn't be regulated, and free market would determine pricing versus gas outages. That didn't happen. That doesn't happen. Not a free market.

Parler was not shut down for breaking rules. It is literally the most illogical viewpoint one could have to say that Patler was shut down for content moderation/inciting violence while allowing Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat to remain. Parler was shut down for political reasons. But please do the dance of being a conservative but supporting shutting down conservatives for political reasons.

I don't understand why people have to lie about their political affiliations on a message board.

---

Look man, if you aren't going to argue in good faith I'm just not going to talk to you. As for the "lying about their political affiliations" comment, I have sat an a county Republican Party executive board. I have worked on Republican campaigns before. I am a legal intern for a Republican judge. I am a part of my law school's federalist society. You can check my credentials. If you want to go around calling people a liar, where are yours?

---

Someone who doesn't support monopolies silencing people because of political affiliation. If those are your credentials and you support silencing of conservatives on social media because of some bull**** version of free market, you explain everything that's wrong with the Republican Party. I truly don't care if a law school kid wants to talk with me in any faith though, so I'm not concerned whether you continue.

---

Whatever. Go on advocating for socialism while claiming you hate it. Because it's TOTALLY me that's the problem with the party and the reason why people are leaving it in droves.

---

Whatever. Go on supporting socialist companies. Because it's TOTALLY you that's the problem with the party and the reason why people are leaving it in droves.

Social media companies are just trying to control misinformation.

#Editorial: Tiananmen Square embodies Chinese people's confidence in China's politics. The Chinese public's understanding of June 4th incident has fundamentally changed.We laugh at those posturing "commemorative" activities orchestrated by outside forces. https://t.co/sQnspmzCZg pic.twitter.com/3ZT4BKzd1H

— Global Times (@globaltimesnews) June 4, 2021

hokiewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

BS Civ....just you "but, but, but Trump..."

How many lies did your Dear Leader put out via his MSM cohorts?

Only difference is that Trump didn't have the cover provided to him that you and your lefties do. FACT.

Trump called out the MSM and it pissed them off.

You can take that bosides crap somewhere else.

---

We're talking about Trump getting the ban-hammer from social media. Doesn't have anything to do with the MSM or anybody's Dear Leader.

"A sitting American president using social media platforms to disseminate disinformation for years that culminated in months of false narratives about being the victim of massive electoral fraud; being the rightful winner of an election that was stolen from him; and facilitating through these actions the least peaceful transition of presidential power in America's history"

Do you agree this is true?

If not, what do you dispute?

If you do agree it's true, is it a problem?

---

. This I disagree with. The only two entities that haven't denounced these companies doing selective banning are liberals and the MSM. Even those right wing nut job presidents of Germany, France, and Mexico see this as a huge problem.

Its the job of the people to reelect or not reelect with a free flow of ideas. Facebook and Twitter shouldn't have that power to decide what is and what isn't disinformation

---

Social media selectively enforcing rules against conservatives is certainly a problem, and people who care about free expression should actively criticize them and refuse to use their platform.

But outside of social pressure there is not a good way for regulation that doesn't run afoul of the first amendment, and/or set a dangerous precedent that can be abused by the other party. I don't want Trump telling Facebook what they have to host or ban and I don't want Biden doing it either. Leaving it up to the company itself isn't a great solution, but it's better than the alternatives

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

I don't understand why people have to lie about their political affiliations on a message board.

---

This is so tired. No one has anything to gain here by lying about their politics. I don't understand why people refuse to acknowledge that political views are more complex than pro-Trump and Socialist.

Political parties have always been made up of ever shifting coalitions of distinct voter groups. More than ever before, today's coalitions have a left a lot of people out in the cold, with major reservations for both parties

---

It's also so tired pretending to be a certain political affiliation and supporting suppression of speech. But, I know. Trump. The answer for everything.

IseWolf22 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

BS Civ....just you "but, but, but Trump..."

How many lies did your Dear Leader put out via his MSM cohorts?

Only difference is that Trump didn't have the cover provided to him that you and your lefties do. FACT.

Trump called out the MSM and it pissed them off.

You can take that bosides crap somewhere else.

---

We're talking about Trump getting the ban-hammer from social media. Doesn't have anything to do with the MSM or anybody's Dear Leader.

"A sitting American president using social media platforms to disseminate disinformation for years that culminated in months of false narratives about being the victim of massive electoral fraud; being the rightful winner of an election that was stolen from him; and facilitating through these actions the least peaceful transition of presidential power in America's history"

Do you agree this is true?

If not, what do you dispute?

If you do agree it's true, is it a problem?

---

. This I disagree with. The only two entities that haven't denounced these companies doing selective banning are liberals and the MSM. Even those right wing nut job presidents of Germany, France, and Mexico see this as a huge problem.

Its the job of the people to reelect or not reelect with a free flow of ideas. Facebook and Twitter shouldn't have that power to decide what is and what isn't disinformation

---

Social media selectively enforcing rules against conservatives is certainly a problem, and people who care about free expression should actively criticize them and refuse to use their platform.

But outside of social pressure there is not a good way for regulation that doesn't run afoul of the first amendment, and/or set a dangerous precedent that can be abused by the other party. I don't want Trump telling Facebook what they have to host or ban and I don't want Biden doing it either. Leaving it up to the company itself isn't a great solution, but it's better than the alternatives

---

Don't use the social media monopolies is not the solution. It's a ridiculous suggestion while pretending to hold some Puritan ideology. Government intervention is needed now that Democrats are trying to silence the right.

It's a false narrative pretending that Trump or Biden determines who they have to host.

What is happening is liberal companies are saying Trump can't post, but China can, but Iran can, but terrorists can, but Democratic misinformation congresspeople can. Democrat monopolies are trying to control the narrative, like they do in the news media.

griff17matt said:

---

Cornpack said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Really deplorable by both these platforms engaging in electioneering

JUST IN: Facebook will suspend former President Trump from its platform and Instagram at least until January 7, 2023, the company announced.

— NPR Politics (@nprpolitics) June 4, 2021

---

They're a private company, if you don't like their policy then don't use them. That's the free market at work.

Just as a sidebar, and not addressed at anyone saying anything, I do think it is a bit of a contradiction that the Trump crowd (on the whole) simultaneously believes that both 1. All these private companies should be forced to provide a platform for everyone as if it is some violation of freedom of speech if they don't (f.o.s. only applies to the government limiting speech of course) and 2. These private companies shouldn't have legal protections under Sec. 230 which would make them legally liable for anything someone on their platforms says.

---

I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. The issue isn't one or the other, it's that it should be one or the other. EITHER social media should be able to police their content and not be protected by 230 OR they shouldn't be policing speech.

Maybe you could say they should be able to police speech and be protected at the same time but I would really disagree with that when Apple and Google don't allow social media apps that don't align with their political leanings to be housed in their respective app stores.

Now, if we should be moving the target from Twitter and Facebook to Apple and Google, then I'd be interested in that discussion. But in the absence of that, I don't think it's good for the public discourse to be stiffled by social media companies while they are protected from any litigation.

---

Your second paragraph is exactly what I would say. The use of social media is not a right. It is a freedom of association and a freedom to contract issue to me. I don't believe the government should force people to do business with people they don't want to do business with. Political affiliations are not a protected class. If enough people want things to change, someone will create something to cater to that market.

griff17matt said:

---

Cornpack said:

---

griff17matt said:

---

Cornpack said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Really deplorable by both these platforms engaging in electioneering

JUST IN: Facebook will suspend former President Trump from its platform and Instagram at least until January 7, 2023, the company announced.

— NPR Politics (@nprpolitics) June 4, 2021

---

They're a private company, if you don't like their policy then don't use them. That's the free market at work.

Just as a sidebar, and not addressed at anyone saying anything, I do think it is a bit of a contradiction that the Trump crowd (on the whole) simultaneously believes that both 1. All these private companies should be forced to provide a platform for everyone as if it is some violation of freedom of speech if they don't (f.o.s. only applies to the government limiting speech of course) and 2. These private companies shouldn't have legal protections under Sec. 230 which would make them legally liable for anything someone on their platforms says.

---

I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. The issue isn't one or the other, it's that it should be one or the other. EITHER social media should be able to police their content and not be protected by 230 OR they shouldn't be policing speech.

Maybe you could say they should be able to police speech and be protected at the same time but I would really disagree with that when Apple and Google don't allow social media apps that don't align with their political leanings to be housed in their respective app stores.

Now, if we should be moving the target from Twitter and Facebook to Apple and Google, then I'd be interested in that discussion. But in the absence of that, I don't think it's good for the public discourse to be stiffled by social media companies while they are protected from any litigation.

---

Your second paragraph is exactly what I would say. The use of social media is not a right. It is a freedom of association and a freedom to contract issue to me. I don't believe the government should force people to do business with people they don't want to do business with. Political affiliations are not a protected class. If enough people want things to change, someone will create something to cater to that market.

---

Yes, but they did and they were removed from app stores on Google and Apple, I believe, right?

I know Parler was removed from app stores and Amazon booted them from AWS. Now, I don't really have an issue with making them moderate post capitol riot, I find it hypocritical they don't do the same for Antifa riots in various cities. It's the biased enforcement that riles up the angst against social media companies and I don't particularly blame them for being pissed, regardless of whether I would join in their discussion or not.

---

Again, this just boils down to the fact that I don't think Amazon, Apple, or whoever else should be forced by the United States government to do business with a party, provided they aren't discriminating against a protected class. I agree, their policy is totally hypocritical, but they can run their businesses how they want and if they want to alienate people on the right then they are more than free to do so. I mean, if you and me were to create a web hosting service and decided we only wanted to host people who were conservatives, that would be fine too.

packgrad said:

---

Irony.

We are deeply concerned by the blocking of Twitter in Nigeria. Access to the free and #OpenInternet is an essential human right in modern society.

We will work to restore access for all those in Nigeria who rely on Twitter to communicate and connect with the world. #KeepitOn

— Twitter Public Policy (@Policy) June 5, 2021

---

Especially after reading the last page or two...