[NobleFree]

Twitter. Facebook. Youtube. Their servers, like FR's, are their property to allow use of or not as they choose. The most that can be justly demanded of them is truth-in-labeling; if Twitter's going to ban ultrasound images, they should be required to say so clearly and up front.

[JonPreston]

Twitter. Facebook. Youtube. Their servers, like FR's, are their property to allow use of or not as they choose.

Not so. They socials have moved into politics and government.

[sinsofsolarempirefan]

I’m sorry, but I find this argument absurd. Do you really want to live in a world where regressive left thugs are able to get essential service providers to unperson somebody because they don’t like their political views? The left has already been forcing companies to fire people who have made comments they don’t like for many years now, now they are forcing social media companies to shut them down on social media platforms that are so important to modern life they ought to be considered public utilities.

If you use the ‘private companies can do what they want’ line, the next thing the left will be doing is preventing dissidents from being able to use bank accounts or get mortgages. Companies providing essential services absolutely have to be regulated otherwise the left will make it impossible for anyone who doesn’t kow tow to them to live a modern civilised life.

[crusher2013]

So your ISP should be able to block your Internet access because you post to FR?

The same with your phone company.

I don’t think so.

If you serve the public then you are required to serve everyone.

[MarkL]

Twitter. Facebook. Youtube. Their servers, like FR's, are their property to allow use of or not as they choose. The most that can be justly demanded of them is truth-in-labeling; if Twitter's going to ban ultrasound images, they should be required to say so clearly and up front.

These social media "providers" have been given special protections by law, and are treated as "carriers," much in the same way as communications carriers. So they are immune to FEC rules, as well as being given many other legal protections.

Sites like FR does NOT have anywhere near those sorts of protections.

Mark

[_Jim]

re: "Twitter. Facebook. Youtube. Their servers, like FR's, are their property to allow use of or not as they choose. The most that can be justly demanded of them is truth-in-labeling; "

AND - there's the rub, if you've been paying attention to this.

This is explained in one of his latest videos.

[FreeReign]

Twitter. Facebook. Youtube. Their servers, like FR's, are their property to allow use of or not as they choose. The most that can be justly demanded of them is truth-in-labeling; if Twitter's going to ban ultrasound images, they should be required to say so clearly and up front.

Which is it? Is Big Tech allowed to use their property as they like or are they subject to truth-in-labeling requirements?

You can't have it both ways.

You contradict yourself.

Anyway, Twitter, Facebook and Youtube along with Big Government have become a crony capitalist monopolistic conglomeration of power.

Big Tech's property, gained by such a symbiotic Big Government relationship, is hardly "private property".

[FreeReign]

Twitter. Facebook. Youtube. Their servers, like FR's, are their property to allow use of or not as they choose. The most that can be justly demanded of them is truth-in-labeling; if Twitter's going to ban ultrasound images, they should be required to say so clearly and up front.

Which is it? Is Big Tech allowed to use their property as they like or are they subject to truth-in-labeling requirements?

You can't have it both ways.

You contradict yourself.

Anyway, Twitter, Facebook and Youtube along with Big Government have formed a crony capitalist monopolistic conglomeration of power.

Big Tech's property, gained by such a symbiotic Big Government relationship, is hardly "private property".