Where we are and where we're going.
Soon...
Then...
And finally.
The robot overlords will smile.
Wintercrossreply 15I think the main problem, is when the rules are not being applied equally and are often being stretched in order to target people who don't share twitter/facebook etc political alignment.It's fine, if they say "These are our rules, please follow them." but if they then go and ignore people who align politically calling for violence and riots, but then banhammer any one else whos words could be taken out of context into potentially breaching the policy, then it causes a big problem.
Agreed.
Social Media companies have every right to restrict or limit users even if they are still abiding by the TOS. They are a private company, however, if the TOS policy states something, it should be applied evenly among the users and without prejudice.
Thank you!
Not true based on the amount of power around the world social media has. they have public function by creating a platform for people to share ideas.
In 1946, the Supreme Court ruled in Marsh v. Alabama that a private entity that behaves like a government body and offers a public function is subject to the United States Constitution. In short, massive corporations, in some instances, are more powerful than the United States government. Due to their size, big tech often acts as a de facto government.
I do agree with this but that principle has to be enforced equally.
Not actually relevant.
In 1946 there was nothing even vaguely akin to Facebook etc.
Facebook does not provide a 'public function' as you are required to register with a private entity in order to use it.
It may be wide-spread and universally accessible...but it's still a private forum by definition as there are private rules of 'engagement'...
That! And incitement to riot is equally as bad as the actual rioting, especially when it comes from a public figure, a person of influence, a person in a position of power. Furthermore, when such a person uses media outlets to incite insurrectionists to riot, then those media outlets are quite within their rights to terminate that person's ability to do so... no matter who they are.
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6
A lot of cray-cray there but no 'incitement to riot' by any rational definition. Kamala Harris's language about BLM/Antifa riots was more specifically inciting than anything Trump actually said. And don't go stupid on me - I can't stand Trump's ego and grandstanding but my eyes/ears don't tell me what the media is trumpeting (see what I did there?).
"In 1946 there was nothing even vaguely akin to Facebook etc." Also arguably irrelevant:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/save-the-constitution-from-big-tech-11610387105?
