[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/qa/ - Question & Answer


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: whgovtechbias.jpg (147 KB, 2134x1067)
147 KB
147 KB JPG
consider sharing your stories of bad hiro

http://wh.gov/techbias
>>
4chan isn't social media we're all anonymous here
>>
The first amendment does NOT say "companies shall make no rule abridging the freedom of speech." Forcing companies not to ban certain users for their views is, in effect, a violation of free speech.
>>
>>2742042
Silly Anon, expecting Americans to actually read the framing documents of their own government.
>>
>>2742042
For decades the FCC had a policy called the "Fairness Doctrine" which requires public communication services (TV & Radio) to devote a "fair" amount of time to both sides of political issues and to remain officially non-partisan.

It's not an insane argument to make that twitter & normbook are essentially public communication services by their monopolistic control of social media and so subject to government oversight in a similar manner.
>>
>>2742042
1) Free speech as a concept is distinct from the first amendment. It's like saying that the second amendment invented the concept of self-defense. Nobody is claiming what Facebook is doing violates the first amendment; they're claiming it abridges free speech
2) The first amendment does not give companies free reign to refuse service to whoever they want. No court has ruled this. If they did, it would also extend to, say, Christian bakeries deciding not to bake for gay weddings
3) Stopping Facebook from banning people doesn't stop them from expressing their own opinions, so you can't claim their own free speech is abridged
4) Wanting multi billion dollar megacorps with de facto monopolies to have total unfettered control over all public discourse in their domain is retarded and if you think otherwise you're either an ancap (in which case neck yourself) or their decisions are benefiting you in some way (in which case you will do a 180 on your opinion as soon as this stops being the case)
>>
>>2742042
who said anything about forcing? a company can decide to respect freedom of speech on it's platform or not. many choose to not. I find that disgusting personally when it comes to large mediums of human interaction such as youtube or facebook. sure they have the right to silence who they please, but it indisputably makes them anti-freedom of speech on that level of public discourse. they deserve all the criticism they get and more.
>>
>>2742042
When a platform bans someone this isn't actually free speech or even speech. And it isn't done by the company and instead done by people like employees or the CEO of the company, for instance.
>>
File: 1548448188643.jpg (25 KB, 250x241)
25 KB
25 KB JPG
>>2742013
>waaah why are people intolerant of my intolerance
>>
>>2742878
yikes, you just posted cringe bro
>>
>>2742878



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.