Posted on 06/06/2019 8:11:26 AM PDT by Liberty7732
“If we make essential-ness the basis for socializing property, we’ve opened a Pandora’s box; medical care is essential, but conservatives don’t want socialized medicine.”
Right, so what happens when a doctor refuses to treat you because they don’t like your political beliefs? This is the world in which we are heading, where your views are policed and service providers are allowed to dictate what opinions you are allowed to express. You libertarian types seem to be obsessed with what the government might do to you but are utterly blind to the danger posed by corporate fascism running rampant over your rights. At least the government is somewhat democratically accountable for their actions.
Wrong - my position on this thread is not that refusing to host certain points of view on one's servers is hunky-dory, but that the right to do so is part and parcel of property rights.
Right, so what happens when a doctor refuses to treat you because they don’t like your political beliefs?
You go to a different doctor.
You libertarian types seem to be obsessed with what the government might do to you but are utterly blind to the danger posed by corporate fascism running rampant over your rights. At least the government is somewhat democratically accountable for their actions.
George Washington said, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence,—it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master". Was he a libertarian?
Obvious collusion. These tech giants need to be busted up, big time. The politician that did so would be praised by +70% of the users.
Social Media is the modern public square.
You would allow the left to dominate debate and thus government and culture forever.
See how long property rights last under that environment.
You are very unwise.
No such physical disruption is required for new social media platforms.
If you serve the public then you are required to serve everyone.
How does that apply to Facebook but not FR?
I see you addressed none of my points.
Social Media is the modern public square.
The "public square" doctrine, insofar as it applies to private property e.g. shopping malls, is a violation of property rights to be resisted by conservatives.
“You go to a different doctor.”
And what if all the doctors in town are of the same mindset? Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram etc are all owned by a handful of companies controlled by leftist ideologues instituting policies of silencing conservatives if they become too influential.
Alternatives like Gab, Telegram etc are not popular and don’t have the same mass audience, so they are essentially acting as a cartel that is stifling the rights of people who in their eyes, step out of line.
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence,—it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master” George Washington lived in an age multinational corporations didn’t exist, and private businesses certainly didn’t wield the kind of power governments and people that they do now. Back then, a government was the only instution powerful enough to excercise tyranny. Back then, you also had a very diverse range of press, even at the local level and the papers were usually very staunch rivals and didn’t conspire together to create a singular narrative the way social media companies today do.
The solution is sabotage. Conservatives need to find the best and brightest hackers to take down, harrass and disrupt the enemy. Google, Twitter, and Facebook may be powerful, but they are not immune.
These are NOT privately held companies any longer they are publicly held companies AND listed on the stock exchange!!! FR is not!!!
That’s what Standard Oil and AT&T thought.
“How does that apply to Facebook but not FR?”
Free Republic is a message board and internet forum, and like most message boards, geared towards serving the niche of certain like-minded individuals, there are literally thousands of message boards out there, there are only a few social media companies and the ones that matter are acting like a cartel deciding which opinions are permissable and which are not.
You are arguing in favour of giving your enemies the means to destroy your freedom by denying you a platform to counter their narrative. Good look resisting against people violating your property rights when people who think seizing it is rightful ‘social justice’ and nobody is allowed to speak out against it on pain of being unpersoned by silicon valley and all the big banks.
Government's not your friend there - all they're interested in forcing doctors to do is perform abortions.
Funny how quickly some "conservatives" choose to forget how government force is actually used.
Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram etc [...] are essentially acting as a cartel
Unproven - what percentage of web traffic goes through those sites?
Back then, a government was the only instution powerful enough to excercise tyranny.
Government is still the only one who can use guns or lock you up - which matter just a bit more than blocking one from a web site.
they are publicly held companies
Owned by stockholders, who have property rights like everyone else.
That’s what Standard Oil and AT&T thought.
Standard Oil and AT&T thought they had the right to refuse to host certain points of view on their servers? If not, exactly what did they think they had the right to do, and how is it relevant to the issue of expropriating social media servers?
In your mind property rights trump everything, even if it eventually leads to slavery.
Comparing FR to facebook is like comparing the local beloved restaurant to starbuck. Scale does matter in terms of law and regulations.
Or do you think TR was wrong for trust busting standard oil.
Government is a potential source of tyranny, but it isn’t the only one.
“Unproven - what percentage of web traffic goes through those sites?”
Youtube is owned by Google, Facebook and Instagran are both owned by the same company. Between them and Twitter, I would say the majority of online commentary/news goes through them. Leaving these exclusively in the hands of the left to use as they want is a very dangerous idea. You know the people who wield power and influence over these companies are the same people who think the American founding fathers were evil old white racists right? They aren’t using this monopoly of influence for good.
“Government is still the only one who can use guns or lock you up - which matter just a bit more than blocking one from a web site.”
And who gets to control the government if these social media companies get to control the mainstream narrative and shut out alternative voices? Don’t think your constitution is safe if the only voices allowed a mainstream platform are the ones who want to smash it to pieces in order to impose their cultural marxism and ideas of ‘social justice’ on the world. If you do, you can kiss goodbye to the constitution because many of them are already hostile to the 1st and 2nd amendments, but by that point, you will have already argued in favour of giving them almost complete control over mainstream political discourse and allowed them to argue in favour of tearing up the constitution with nobody to argue against it. That constitution is only as good as the will that exists to abide by and protect it.
Hope this helps.
Facebook et al are free of charge. Hope this helps.
So we should erode property rights based on what you would say?
Don’t think your constitution is safe if the only voices allowed a mainstream platform are the ones who want to smash it to pieces
"We had to destroy the Constitution in order to save it."
AND - there's the rub, if you've been paying attention to this.
This is explained in one of his latest videos.
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.