Slashdot Mirror
President Trump Says It is 'Very Dangerous' When Companies Like Twitter Regulate Own Content (reuters.com)
In an interview with Reuters on Monday, the U.S. President Donald Trump said that it is "very dangerous" for social media companies like Twitter and Facebook to regulate the content on their own platforms. Trump's remarks come on the backdrop of technology giants Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Spotify, and YouTube ridding select kind of content of their platforms in the recent weeks. On Saturday, Trump argued that social media companies are "closing down the opinions" of conservatives. He tweeted, "They are closing down the opinions of many people on the RIGHT, while at the same time doing nothing to others. Speaking loudly and clearly for the Trump Administration, we won't let that happen."
Further reading: Twitter Is 'Rethinking' Its Service, and Suspending 1M Accounts Each Day.
Further reading: Twitter Is 'Rethinking' Its Service, and Suspending 1M Accounts Each Day.
Your Comcast analogy is highly flawed. But then, you knew that.
As in who they decide is allowed to buy one? Either you allow all private companies to select who can use their service or you allow none of them to do so.
The baker was asking for the right to discriminate against a specific viewpoint because of their religious beliefs. The question was whether the baker's religious freedom was impinged enough to justify the violation of anti-discrimination laws.
Twitter and Facebook are trying to formula viewpoint neutral policies in order to get rid of toxic content and maintain healthy communities.
It's a tricky issue, but kind of unavoidable, and they're arguably doing it in a way that would be compatible with the US 1st amendment (if they were bound by it).
I stole this Sig
Uhh you have your terms mixed up. Twitter provides a service, but isn't an internet service provider. This falls exactly in line with pro net neutrality views.
The page you linked to mentions that Brandenburg (1969) held that political speech which may be politically dangerous is protected. That's because the first amendment was written with political speech in mind. Brandenburg in no affects the proverbial "shouting fire in a crowded theater".
Just five years later, SCOTUS held in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), there is "no constitutional value in false statements of fact".
Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater would be a "false statement of fact" for which there is little protection, and the government has a strong legitimate interest in protecting from deaths and injuries from trampling and other injuries caused by such an action.
No, what I do agree with is Alex Jones' Terms of Service of InfoWars:
If you violate these rules, your posts and/or user name will be deleted.
Remember: you are a guest here. It is not censorship if you violate the rules and your post is deleted. All civilizations have rules and if you violate them you can expect to be ostracized from the tribe.
Funny how Alex Jones is being a huge hypocrite when he gets banned from other websites and then claims he's being censorwd.
No one on Twitter has 1A protection -- NO ONE. Twitter is a private corp, not part of the gov't, and "free speech" as defined by the 1A *only* affects the gov't ability to block said speech.
Is this a joke? Yes, there are tens of thousands of them. You posted your question right here on one of the (formerly?) more popular ones.
Well, they don't have the capacity to censor me, even if they all ganged up and worked together to try. But I assume you're actually asking about what if they didn't let me post on their websites. What would happen? Um, I'd post somewhere else. Or I'd bring back my own website.
With everybody else. Seems you might be a little too attached to Facebook's well-lit alleyway.
risk changing their legal status from an open platform to a curated one and hence liable for their content
They're protected from liability for the speech of their users by the Communications Decency Act. The CDA explicitly states that moderating their platforms does not remove that protection.
Critical to Trump. Twitter in particular is his way of bypassing the media and their scrutiny of what he says.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution just keeps the government from censoring your speech. Since social media is not the government, they can do whatever they want: allowing you to speak unfettered, closing your account, censoring what you say. There's NOTHING illegal or wrong about that; it's only a problem when the government starts censoring your speech.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
I should know better than to feed an obvious troll, but..
Are you related to slashdot_is_fake? Similar cute names with underscores, joined around the same time, only posted a little bit, and seems to only rise to the defense of Alex Jones.
Thank you for illuminating the rest of us and letting us know with whom you'd like to be counted. Now we know, and knowing's half the battle.
So.. are you from Glorious Russian Troll Factory #2?
Let's see you turn red and sputter s'more. It's totes adorbs when you lose it like that!
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
How about 2,300 examples and counting?
http://projects.thestar.com/donald-trump-fact-check/