Davos Elite: Regulate Social Media Before Flyover Rubes Get Hooked on Wrong News Sources

[clip] The right wants regulation too, but of a very different kind. Multiple right-wing commentators have called for Google and Facebook, whose market share eclipses old 20th-century monopolies like Standard Oil and the Bell System, to be regulated like utilities.

The impetus is the threat of political bias from companies that now have more influence over the flow of news and information than any other company in history. Facebook, through a recent change to its news feed algorithm, threatens to undercut the success of new media outlets. Google, by tweaking its search results, could swing an election anywhere in the world. Twitter has been the birthplace of entire political movements.

Yet all of these companies are subject to less regulation on viewpoint neutrality than a small-time radio or TV broadcast station, which are subject to the equal time rule (not to be confused with the Fairness Doctrine.) This states that broadcast stations must give equal and equivalent airtime to political candidates who request it. Give a Democrat five minutes, and you have to give his opponent five minutes too.

[clip]
In addition to the utility argument, which would subject the tech giants to similar rules on content neutrality that were previously applied to ISPs under Title II regulations, conservatives have also suggested tying social media company’s legal immunity to viewpoint neutrality. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act exempts social media companies from legal liability for posts made by their users — without this protection, there is no way the tech giants could have grown to the size that they have achieved.

When I married at 19, there was room at the Chicago Theological Seminary so we took our first apartment there, across Robie House from my college dorm. We were there almost a year in a two bedroom apartment when Jesse moved in with his pregnant wife, daughter and son. So they put him into our apartment and moved us to a one bedroom down the hall.

There was a floor party and listening to Jesse was the first time I’d ever heard anyone say that people who CHOSE not to work should be supported by society. THEIR rights superceded MINE. I’d been of the opinion that each should be free to do their own thing, but that’s when I had to start thinking that some people felt their rights more important than mine. Well, I was still very young.

Grapes were the big issue then, as I remember. He kept putting up signs on the floor laundry room and, as I really didn’t like boycotts, I’d write objections on them.

Jesse’s wife was very quiet. He was the dominant character then. His kids were cute as buttons. The little boy, I remember, wandered into our apartment, when I was having a small party, to eat a cookie.

I also remember the signs on the 1st floor cafeteria door when Jesse was marching in Selma, and everyone in the building was worried whether he’d come back alive. There were notices of where people were and how they were doing.

My childhood friend and my mother both had apartments eventually on 55th street, and my friend said she used to frequently see Jesse visiting his mistress, who had an apartment on her floor.

ask...and you shall receive..”In 1529, Henry VIII became the first monarch to publish a list of banned books, and royal permits were required in order to establish a printing press.”

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=yjolt

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.