DAMN STRAIGHT !!
SEC, FTC, FCC all have regulatory authority over these publicly-traded corporations (not, repeat not, private companies).
CDA (1996) Section 230 specifically provides them with Federal protection from content liability in exchange for operating as “open platforms” that do not act as content publishers (editors).
We do not need to pass new legislation. We do not even need to invoke anti-trust regulations.
We need our Federal government to apply the laws on the books.
These corporations have engaged in fiscal malfeasance by causing politically-motivated scandals that have damaged stock value.
They have committed consumer fraud by applying their terms of service - a contract - in a selective and deceptive manner. (Users are consumers: Their data provides the platform with revenue, directly and/or indirectly.)
Finally, and most pertinently, they have manifestly violated the conditions for their legal immunity by acting as content publishers.
Thanks for posting :)
“I dont remember voting for any of these people to run our country. Do you?”
No. However, I do remember an article where Zuckerberg was quoted as saying that he is the “Leader of Facebook”...in a context that describes a kind of developing Facebook Nation.
Are you cool with companies refusing to let black people sit at a lunch counter? With denying them a Twitter account because they are Jewish? With telling women "Sorry sweetie, this software is for men only?"
Of course not.
But at one time, the idea that the sanctity of property rights gave a private business complete autonomy to discriminate was a "principled conservative position." But this is not a "principled conservative position" anymore; even National Review repudiated having held it a half century ago. Today, mainstream conservatives reject the notion that the government cannot regulate against discrimination based upon race or religion. And it is well-established in the law that the Constitution gives the Congress the power to enact laws doing so, except where the government violates the religious liberty of the business owner, so put that in your cake and bake it.
The "principle" that we cant tell a private business who it must do business with is no principle at all. We accept that discrimination can be curbed, leaving only a debate over what kind of discrimination should be curbed.
First of all, private property means exactly that: private property. And anyone who claims that the government has a compelling interest in forcing private business owners to conduct business against their will has no idea what it means to be a conservative. This is how you end up in a completely untenable environment where a baker is forced by law to serve clients against his wishes ... under the directives of totalitarian laws and regulations written by lawyers who are free to accept or reject clients at will.
It's pathetic that someone has to resort to a religious freedom argument to make a legal case against this idiocy. A business owner should be free to accept or reject customers for any reason at all ... and "I just don't like you" should be a perfectly acceptable reason. If a business owner wants to reject a specific group of potential customers, then so be it. Professionals like lawyers and accountants do it all the time. Why aren't restaurant owners and bakers held to the same standards?
This country is doomed if someone like Kurt Schlichter no longer understands what the term "Mind your own business!" even means anymore. This idea of government compulsion to conduct business against your will has no place in a free nation.
There's no actual conservative principle that gives anyone the right to call someone else's business an open forum simply by calling it "the basic structure of modern American society."
There was a time when newspapers fit this description. If you tried to tell this country's founders that this "basic structure of American society" nonsense gave you the right to force newspapers to print your editorial content, you'd have been burned out of your home and chased to Canada.
Funny how we give the Chinese so much grief about violating intellectual property protections, when we find plenty of it right here from "conservatives" in the U.S.
The Anti-Trust stuff should have happened long ago against these companies... but Barry knew they were his meal ticket so no one was going to touch them during his years.