6 ms·

I'm sick of this response. These social media companies individually can reach billions of people with the ability (proven) to sway their thoughts and emotions

I'm sick of this response. These social media companies individually can reach billions of people with the ability (proven) to sway their thoughts and emotions (see Facebook, WHO, Reddit). Free speech must apply to public forums like this

smt88 6y ago
I'm sorry you're sick of the First Amendment. Private companies have it just like you do. The remedy is to break up the big forums, not to take away the rights of their owners.
- kube-system 6y ago
  If we’re still talking about TikTok here, the concern is that they don’t have the right to free speech — that the rights on their platform is coopted by a government power.
  - platz 6y ago
    This simply isn't an issue regarding the first-amendment; not sure this thread needs to go into the philosophical dilemma on this here.
    - kube-system 6y ago
      Correct, it is an issue regarding the lack of Chinese speech rights. The US constitution is irrelevant in China. Human rights, however, are natural rights.
  - smt88 6y ago
    I'm not still talking about TikTok. I support banning Chinese social networks or any network where China has censorship power (either explicit or through back doors). I was responding narrowly about the idea that "free speech" demands that the US govt can force companies to choose what to publish. Forcing a company to stop operating here is an entirely different concept.
- brandonmenc 6y ago
  > not to take away the rights of their owners Why not? We have granted ourselves the right to limit the rights of corporations. The individual owners can keep their individual rights.
  - smt88 6y ago
    The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that corporations have 1st Amendment rights. You have to remember that "corporation" can mean any group organized for a purpose. It can be Exxon, but it can also be Planned Parenthood or AARP. People who can't speak loudly enough by themselves have a right to organize into a corporation, pool their money, and speak loudly together. You can argue that a business should not be both a commercial enterprise and a holder of 1st Amendment rights, but that's not what the law says. And anyway, it would be an impossible line to draw.
    - RandoHolmes 6y ago
      It would be no more impossible than having a non-profit, it would just require a new legal status.
      - smt88 6y ago
        Non-profits are a tax status, not a legal status.
        RandoHolmes 6y ago
        You say potato, I say potahto... Turns out tax status is enforced by laws. Weird, I know. "well akshually...". just don't.
    - brandonmenc 6y ago
      > corporations have 1st Amendment rights. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't forbidding them from censoring user content orthogonal to this?
root_axis 6y ago
Why? Yes, these websites reach a lot of people, but why is that a reason that the site owners should not be able to control the type of content appears on their site?
beowulfey 6y ago
Lol. That's all well and good, but it doesn't. That's just how it is.
ineedasername 6y ago
Private organizations are allowed to decide how their property is used, including the type of speech it is used to facilitate. This is inherent to the concept of private property. I don't know why you think these companies are public forums. If there is a public forum in this space, it is the internet itself. People who dislike the limits of these platforms have a variety of other venues on the internet to choose from, but what they are not at all entitled to is the automatic amplification of their voice by these large but private platforms.
- throwaway122378 6y ago
  If the internet is public forum to your point then anything built on top of the internet is built in the public forum. Your view on private organizations is antiquated like our laws.
robotron 6y ago
If a business can refuse service to anyone, so can social media sites, etc.
- throwaway122378 6y ago
  This is my whole point. Your thought process is stuck in the 19th and 20th century. Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc etc are not the same as your corner mom and pop shop. They are not businesses by the traditional sense of the word. We need new laws for new times

smt88 6y ago

I'm sorry you're sick of the First Amendment. Private companies have it just like you do. The remedy is to break up the big forums, not to take away the rights of their owners.

kube-system 6y ago
If we’re still talking about TikTok here, the concern is that they don’t have the right to free speech — that the rights on their platform is coopted by a government power.
- platz 6y ago
  This simply isn't an issue regarding the first-amendment; not sure this thread needs to go into the philosophical dilemma on this here.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    Correct, it is an issue regarding the lack of Chinese speech rights. The US constitution is irrelevant in China. Human rights, however, are natural rights.
- smt88 6y ago
  I'm not still talking about TikTok. I support banning Chinese social networks or any network where China has censorship power (either explicit or through back doors). I was responding narrowly about the idea that "free speech" demands that the US govt can force companies to choose what to publish. Forcing a company to stop operating here is an entirely different concept.
brandonmenc 6y ago
> not to take away the rights of their owners Why not? We have granted ourselves the right to limit the rights of corporations. The individual owners can keep their individual rights.
- smt88 6y ago
  The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that corporations have 1st Amendment rights. You have to remember that "corporation" can mean any group organized for a purpose. It can be Exxon, but it can also be Planned Parenthood or AARP. People who can't speak loudly enough by themselves have a right to organize into a corporation, pool their money, and speak loudly together. You can argue that a business should not be both a commercial enterprise and a holder of 1st Amendment rights, but that's not what the law says. And anyway, it would be an impossible line to draw.
  - RandoHolmes 6y ago
    It would be no more impossible than having a non-profit, it would just require a new legal status.
    - smt88 6y ago
      Non-profits are a tax status, not a legal status.
      - RandoHolmes 6y ago
        You say potato, I say potahto... Turns out tax status is enforced by laws. Weird, I know. "well akshually...". just don't.
  - brandonmenc 6y ago
    > corporations have 1st Amendment rights. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't forbidding them from censoring user content orthogonal to this?

root_axis 6y ago

Why? Yes, these websites reach a lot of people, but why is that a reason that the site owners should not be able to control the type of content appears on their site?

beowulfey 6y ago

Lol. That's all well and good, but it doesn't. That's just how it is.

ineedasername 6y ago

Private organizations are allowed to decide how their property is used, including the type of speech it is used to facilitate. This is inherent to the concept of private property. I don't know why you think these companies are public forums. If there is a public forum in this space, it is the internet itself. People who dislike the limits of these platforms have a variety of other venues on the internet to choose from, but what they are not at all entitled to is the automatic amplification of their voice by these large but private platforms.

throwaway122378 6y ago
If the internet is public forum to your point then anything built on top of the internet is built in the public forum. Your view on private organizations is antiquated like our laws.

robotron 6y ago

If a business can refuse service to anyone, so can social media sites, etc.

throwaway122378 6y ago
This is my whole point. Your thought process is stuck in the 19th and 20th century. Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc etc are not the same as your corner mom and pop shop. They are not businesses by the traditional sense of the word. We need new laws for new times