(04-11-2018 05:18 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Immunity in section 230 in the Communications Decency Act is predicated upon being a neutral public forum.

There are numerous examples of Facebook suppressing conservative news https://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-work...1775461006

and suppressing conservative voices on their platform
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/me...nservative


Since Facebook has proven to not be a neutral public forum they should be subject to regulation.

Yep. Those who are just instinctively answering the OP with generic, "no, muh limited government" need to learn the law, and the consequences from something like this.

Well **** it all then. Lets regulate the hell out of them. And no ******* bitching when the left use the very regulations you want to write against conservative media. Consequences my ass. Consequences be damned you mean.

(04-11-2018 06:01 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Well **** it all then. Lets regulate the hell out of them. And no ******* bitching when the left use the very regulations you want to write against conservative media. Consequences my ass. Consequences be damned you mean.

unhinged

(04-10-2018 07:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  If they insist on putting their finger on the scales politically then Congress should regulate them. If they stay out of politics then hands off.

Agree Suckassberg wants social networking to become a regulated utility to make market access more difficult. The liberal mindset runs strong with that one though. He wants bots developed to find and eliminate "offensive" conservative speech. He even has/had a project to gain access to medical records and match them to FB users WTF?!? Talk about a HIPPA violation. What would he even use that data for?

Honestly, I don't care if a media outlet (including social media) are left leaning or right leaning........so long as they are upfront about what they are and let the average Joe/Jane know what they are.

Log onto Google - a banner pops up that says "We are a left leaning organization that will give preference to those that ideologically agree with us (or pay us the most money) and will steer those that use our search engine for those purposes." Kind of like the warnings on cigarette packs.

.............but no, they will never go for that - it defeats the purpose of influencing the ignorant sheeple to their causes.

Just some truth in advertising......

(04-11-2018 06:01 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Well **** it all then. Lets regulate the hell out of them. And no ******* bitching when the left use the very regulations you want to write against conservative media. Consequences my ass. Consequences be damned you mean.

The difference between you and me is the fact that if a conservative outlet is blatantly violating the rules I would have absolutely no problem with them being regulated. I want everybody to play by the rules regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum.

Kind of the point of the hearings, to decide whether to make Facebook a rule breaker by creating some.

(04-11-2018 08:14 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Kind of the point of the hearings, to decide whether to make Facebook a rule breaker by creating some.

As was posted earlier...the rules already exist. The hearings are to determine if they violated the existing rules.

On the surface I would support regulation of social media.

BUT

That would be used as a tool by the party of Government power to regulate everything under the sun on the internet.

AND

Facebook, Twitter, Etc. is a big business. They would LOVE regulation because they would help write it and then they would be the only ones rich enough to follow it. Choke out future competition via regulation compliance being too costly.

For this, I say no

(04-12-2018 07:09 AM)solohawks Wrote:  On the surface I would support regulation of social media.

BUT

That would be used as a tool by the party of Government power to regulate everything under the sun on the internet.

AND

Facebook, Twitter, Etc. is a big business. They would LOVE regulation because they would help write it and then they would be the only ones rich enough to follow it. Choke out future competition via regulation compliance being too costly.

For this, I say no

This is less about the nuts and bolts of regulation and more about society coming to an agreement on what is and isn't appropriate, ethical, etc. In a completely new realm of human activity.

As always, this is best done by going back to the original intentions of our experiment.

Individual rights. Limited government. Protection of minority views. Right to be secure in our persons, homes, papers and effects. Equal protection. Federalism. Promotion of the general welfare.

Things sort themselves out when we use those as the basis...and when we use other things...like politics, social dogmas, money, knee-jerk posturing, etc. they don't work themselves out.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

More rules. More regulations. More stifling of rights.

(04-12-2018 09:16 AM)Paul M Wrote:  More rules. More regulations. More stifling of rights.

I'm hearing a lot of liberals suddenly clamoring for less regulation and less government interference with corporations.

In fact, downright mad about it.

Providing that they are tech corporations based in California that donate lots of money to their preferred political party and have a mind to influence public opinion to their liking and seem to have an ingrained aversion to permitting speech that questions their social agendas.

Not other corporations. Those are evil, and need to be regulated out of existence.

I call this hypocrisy.







Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Misguided calling to regulate Facebook. Does nothing but protect Zuck who's already built his empire and creates obstacles to any startup who might want to compete. That includes any conservative angled service. Keep being the stupid party.

(04-12-2018 10:19 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Misguided calling to regulate Facebook. Does nothing but protect Zuck who's already built his empire and creates obstacles to any startup who might want to compete. That includes any conservative angled service. Keep being the stupid party.

A lot of us base our opinions on government regulation on the logic of the market.

In most cases the market has self-correcting mechanisms and government intervention will just throw things out of whack...and create unintended consequences.

This is not always the case and sometimes government regulation is necessary to insure the proper workings of the market.

For instance pollution. You can shove your costs onto someone else by dumping your waste in a stream. That skews the legit supply and demand curve. Therefore regulation to punish the polluter is required to keep the market efficient and legit.

We believe in the least intervention necessary to promote the efficient functioning of the market.

But that doesn't mean we believe all intervention is verboten.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(04-12-2018 09:26 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 09:16 AM)Paul M Wrote:  More rules. More regulations. More stifling of rights.

I'm hearing a lot of liberals suddenly clamoring for less regulation and less government interference with corporations.

In fact, downright mad about it.

Providing that they are tech corporations based in California that donate lots of money to their preferred political party and have a mind to influence public opinion to their liking and seem to have an ingrained aversion to permitting speech that questions their social agendas.

Not other corporations. Those are evil, and need to be regulated out of existence.

I call this hypocrisy.







Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Ding! Ding! Ding!

But let's let the left prove they're not hypocrites...

Libs, should the government force a business to participate in gay weddings?