3 ms·

Imagine an alternate scenario. Say the major tech companies get fed up with Elizabeth Warren's calls to regulate them. Facebook removes all her groups. Cloudf

Imagine an alternate scenario. Say the major tech companies get fed up with Elizabeth Warren's calls to regulate them. Facebook removes all her groups. Cloudflare shuts down her websites. Youtube removes her videos. Google only leaves anti-Elizabeth Warren search results up, etc. Basically a major presidential candidate is completely locked out of having any presence on the Internet whatsoever. Would your reaction be the same? "This has nothing to do with free speech. These are merely private companies deciding they don't want to associate with Elizabeth Warren."

inscionent 7y ago
No one is entitled to a youtube channel, that I am aware of. Would it be bad publicity? Maybe but, I'm sure plenty of people would cheer the ban. I've never needed Facebook, Google or Cloudflare to have an internet presence, but maybe I don't know what the internet is.
- afiori 7y ago
  I assure you that a politician today in the US needs a social media presence. As much as he/she would need a news presence. Many people on both side make a point of how memes were essential in Trump's win.
thenewnewguy 7y ago
This is false equivalence. Imagine if I could support a company when they help take down websites breeding hate speech and terrorists - and not support that same company if they interfered with an election.
- Thorentis 7y ago
  No, they aren't equating mass shooting and political candidates. They are responding to the assertion that political ideology isn't a protected class. If you want to defend the 1st amendment rights of companies to choose their customers, you must apply that across the board, or suggest the laws be changed. If companies can exercise their 1st amendment rights to shut down political ideology in this instance (and if you think that's fine), then to be consistent you need to defend it elsewhere. Shutting down political opponents, choosing which political ads to run, choosing which investigations to allow in search results, etc. And censoring Elizabeth Warren is a perfectly valid example of how companies could exercise their rights, if indeed you think those rights should exist.
  - thenewnewguy 7y ago
    I understand the point they're making, but I'm not putting forth the argument they're arguing against. I think companies should be banned from most forms of political speech because their goals are by nature typically harmful to their workers and often the public at large. However, even if the laws were changed to do so, I don't think that this should count as 'political speech'. Terrorism and hate should not be considered valid or protected political ideologies.
hacknat 7y ago
I think market retribution would take care of their decision pretty handily. I also think the same is true for Republicans. Twitter could never survive the market retaliation if they banned the Republican Party, but they have every legal right to do so. Also, changing the players in my scenario has nothing to do with anything, mine isn’t an opinion it is a matter of rule of law. If you don’t share that assumption with me than I have to fall silent.
- Taek 7y ago
  Market retribution would take time, and I'm not sure the impact on market usage would be as big as you suggest. Certainly the market retribution on Facebook invading privacy has been slow a minimal. And that aside, Warren would certainly lose the election if that happened. The election would be materially interfered with, regardless of whether the market responded to the moderation or not.
- 2_listerine_pls 7y ago
  >Market retribution... Good Joke

inscionent 7y ago

No one is entitled to a youtube channel, that I am aware of. Would it be bad publicity? Maybe but, I'm sure plenty of people would cheer the ban. I've never needed Facebook, Google or Cloudflare to have an internet presence, but maybe I don't know what the internet is.

afiori 7y ago
I assure you that a politician today in the US needs a social media presence. As much as he/she would need a news presence. Many people on both side make a point of how memes were essential in Trump's win.

thenewnewguy 7y ago

This is false equivalence. Imagine if I could support a company when they help take down websites breeding hate speech and terrorists - and not support that same company if they interfered with an election.

Thorentis 7y ago
No, they aren't equating mass shooting and political candidates. They are responding to the assertion that political ideology isn't a protected class. If you want to defend the 1st amendment rights of companies to choose their customers, you must apply that across the board, or suggest the laws be changed. If companies can exercise their 1st amendment rights to shut down political ideology in this instance (and if you think that's fine), then to be consistent you need to defend it elsewhere. Shutting down political opponents, choosing which political ads to run, choosing which investigations to allow in search results, etc. And censoring Elizabeth Warren is a perfectly valid example of how companies could exercise their rights, if indeed you think those rights should exist.
- thenewnewguy 7y ago
  I understand the point they're making, but I'm not putting forth the argument they're arguing against. I think companies should be banned from most forms of political speech because their goals are by nature typically harmful to their workers and often the public at large. However, even if the laws were changed to do so, I don't think that this should count as 'political speech'. Terrorism and hate should not be considered valid or protected political ideologies.

hacknat 7y ago

I think market retribution would take care of their decision pretty handily. I also think the same is true for Republicans. Twitter could never survive the market retaliation if they banned the Republican Party, but they have every legal right to do so. Also, changing the players in my scenario has nothing to do with anything, mine isn’t an opinion it is a matter of rule of law. If you don’t share that assumption with me than I have to fall silent.

Taek 7y ago
Market retribution would take time, and I'm not sure the impact on market usage would be as big as you suggest. Certainly the market retribution on Facebook invading privacy has been slow a minimal. And that aside, Warren would certainly lose the election if that happened. The election would be materially interfered with, regardless of whether the market responded to the moderation or not.
2_listerine_pls 7y ago
>Market retribution... Good Joke