Quote:
Originally Posted by curves2000
I don't know if I am baiting anyone? People can choose to respond or not. Who's Mark? Zuckerberg?
I just put my very long $.02 into the conversation and people can discuss. People have been discussing Social media, Trump and censorship and more for a long long time.
The last day or two a massive conversation has been had globally over WhatsApp's new privacy policy and how they work with their Facebook counterpart. Literally millions of people are asking, "wtf, how much power do they want and need?" Nothing to do with Trump or anything else.
|
Okay, so they've BEEN allowing him to spew false claims of a fraudulent election with their warnings about false information. So, even though they are 100% aware that he's lying and spreading falsehoods, they allow it under the umbrella of free speech.
But, free speech has limits, and it always has had limits under specific situations. I'll just quote a previous post of mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan
Sure, except that the basic definition of the restriction to 1st amendment protections can be found with a 2 second search and the most basic resources ever: Encyclopedia Britannica.
Quote:
|
Second, a few narrow categories of speech are not protected from government restrictions. The main such categories are incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats. As the Supreme Court held in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the government may forbid “incitement”—speech “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and “likely to incite or produce such action” (such as a speech to a mob urging it to attack a nearby building). But speech urging action at some unspecified future time may not be forbidden.
|
It's clear to me that the bolded applies and Twitter is 100% acting constitutionally as the law and amendment has been interpreted. |
And to be clear, this isn't about them having power to censor people and decide what is worthy, this is about the health of a nation and doing their civic duty to quell a rebellion/coup. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
To your other points, should there be some limits on the power of these companies? Sure, but to what end and how do you enforce it? Seems like a bit of a quagmire to me. I guess the only thing I would want is a restriction on selling data to 3rd parties for anything other than business marketing purposes. Nothing political at all.