[CNN] Bernie Sanders doesn't 'feel comfortable' about Twitter's permanent ban against Trump despite

In general, Bernie trusts the Gov to make more sound decisions for the American people then large corporations... particularly, the Dems... If we could get more progressives serving, and money out of politics.

So if the question is how much does "free speech" cost when discussing trying to regulate a private company, the question should be, how much will it cost for the gubment to purchase FB and Twitter, turn them into public services.

 

Trump literally did that on Twitter multiple times...I agree with Bernie but at what point is too much just too much?

 

As we've seen there are actual consequences to misinformation being passed under the banner of free speech. It's not just the Jan. 6th Insurrection but also misinformation regarding the severity of the pandemic and measures to fight it.

It's already been established that under many circumstances misinformation cannot be allowed and free speech isn't an unlimited right. For example a donut shop couldn't claim that their donuts can cure cancer. If someone were to go onto Clutchfans and make that claim and encourage people to get donuts from there Clutch is perfectly fine to delete those posts and ban that poster.

 

I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that Sanders is for government purchasing and running FB and Twitter?

 

I don't know exactly what he's for, but if people want FB/Twitter to become a public utility, the government has to purchase a majority share no?

 

Twitter acknowledged that Trump broke their rules for years and they even called out a "world leader" exception for him. The Jan. 6th Insurrection was too much and given how much negative attention Twitter was getting with calls for boycotting Twitter they took action.

Twitter and FB aren't moderating, fact checking, banning out of civic responsibility or desire to censor for ideological purposes. This is about their profitability otherwise they would've acted sooner and not until there were real threats of regulations that could affect business operations and advertisers pulling money out.

 

Not exactly.

Utilities do not need to be majority owned by the government but are subject to much more regulation. This isn't my field but I know there are Clutchfans who work for utilities who can say more.

Besides that though there are private industries, such as medicine, that are heavily regulated. Construction is heavily regulated but also building codes, zoning laws, and etc.. also provide a lot of public control on that industry.

 

That's right, I had it mixed up in my head for a second, Gov could own it but doesn't have to.

So we'd need to develop a federal commission on FB/Twitter to regulate it

@Os Trigonum How exactly would you want this done so we can #FreeDonny?

 

I’m shocked the socialist dislikes a private company.

 

yey for freedom to incite violence

 

Social media platforms would probably prefer the government telling them who to ban or what policy to take with regards to bans, saves them the controversy so they can focus on making $. Until the government sets better guidelines, they shouldn't complain about what the private companies are doing.

 

principled stand (and consistency):

private companies should also be regulated... so, while Trump is a grade A moron and dangerous, I don't feel good about the power exercised by private companies to ban him
​

UNprincipled stand (and INconsistency):

private companies should NOT be regulated... free market baby! Oh, my god, noooooo. They can't do that to him. Twitter shouldn't be allowed to ban Trump! Hell no.

​

 

The government could adopt Clutchfans

 

#FreeHollic

 

Nope it's the argument the Oliver Wendall Holmes used or do you think he was being disingenuous?

Do better O's.

 

I read that and it tries to say the quote has no bearing on the case but never says it was disingenuous.

He 1st says the quote does not have anything to do with the case and then says the case was overturned so what's wrong with the argument.

The article never actually addresses what is wrong with that analogy it's a semantics argument.

 

They might but that would probably have a lot to do with how government decides who to ban. Social media is driven by advertising budget and regulated bans could affect advertising. FB argued against moderating posts and pages from Trump and other Rightwing politicians because they were making a lot of money off of political advertising and the Trump campaign used them a lot.

My own opinion is that social media companies would prefer to have no regulation and no responsibility for content and are moderating to hold off government regulation.

 

I'm sure the CCP would like to.

 

Also important to note that all of the cases cited involved government and speech. As has been repeatedly noted FB and Twitter aren't government.

 

I do like the spirit of the argument of social media being a ultility. The public/government deigns Twitter/FB/etc... monopoly status (by not breaking it up), but with strings attached.

If internet access is an inherent human right as some progressives claim, then why should the rule making powers be strictly held by those "utility" companies?

I guess the greater point to this is we don't have an FCC like entity for regulating new forms of internet communications. The public and government has been mostly hands off in how it settle, but for better or worse, the FCC did act as a clearing house between public private discourse in things regarding decency, obscenity, or what constitutes as hateful or disruptive speech.

I'm more conservative in relying on those institutions but maybe there's a better answer than letting things resolve on its own. Because right now, it's the oligarch tech companies taking matters into their own hands without the proactive consent or feedback of the public.