4 ms·

> "Corporations have the right to free speech and cannot be compelled to broadcast anyone else's speech." Can't they? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-ti

> "Corporations have the right to free speech and cannot be compelled to broadcast anyone else's speech." Can't they? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine One might quibble about whether social media is the same as a broadcaster but the parent's statement is certainly not true universally. (As an amusing aside, the latter link contains "In 1969, the United States courts of appeals, in an opinion written by Warren Burger, directed the FCC to revoke Lamar Broadcasting's license for television station WLBT due to the station's segregationist politics and ongoing censorship of NBC network news coverage of the U.S. civil rights movement." Those who repeat the tired "corporations can't be compelled to host speech" slogan would've been speaking in support of WLBT's pro-racism right to not broadcast about the civil rights movement which shows you where their hearts really lie. These people may be on the left but they are not liberals.)

smt88 5y ago
Those laws apply to broadcasters because they use a finite public resource (broadcast spectrum). There is no finite public resource that Facebook has exclusive rights to use.
- ThrowawayR2 5y ago
  Facebook, Youtube, etc. have sufficient market share (globally even, not just in the US) as to be near monopolies so that argument might not fly at trial; it would be interesting to test it out. If the social and online media companies were broken into many small competing companies such that new ones could spring up easily, then that line of argument might be more plausible. Either way, the point remains: it's not "blatantly unconstitutional" and corporations can jolly well be compelled to broadcast speech they'd prefer not to. And, in the WLBT case, it's even quite self evidently in the best interest of the public for that to be so, in spite of what progressives have been trying to tell us.
  - smt88 5y ago
    > Facebook, Youtube, etc. have sufficient market share (globally even, not just in the US) as to be near monopolies The FCC does not regulate broadcasters because they're monopolies. It regulates them because they are granted the right to use a finite public resource. You're comparing apples and oranges. > If the social and online media companies were broken into many small competing companies such that new ones could spring up easily I strongly support breaking up the big tech companies. It's almost impossible to compete with them on their ad business. But as media companies? It's absolutely trivial to compete with them, and they don't seem to try to stop anyone. They just copy their business model. Since Facebook was founded, the following social networks have become huge and competitive with them: Twitter, Instagram, iMessage, Snapchat, WhatsApp, Kik, Telegram, Signal, TikTok, Vine, Tinder, Bumble... and those are some famous ones. The problem with Facebook being so dominant is how they did it (by buying competitors) and how they wield their power in the ad space. > it's not "blatantly unconstitutional" and corporations can jolly well be compelled to broadcast speech they'd prefer not to No, it's not. It doesn't become true because you keep saying it or because you think it should be. There is no precedent for something like this. You're making the more niche claim, so the burden of proof is on you.

smt88 5y ago

Those laws apply to broadcasters because they use a finite public resource (broadcast spectrum). There is no finite public resource that Facebook has exclusive rights to use.

ThrowawayR2 5y ago
Facebook, Youtube, etc. have sufficient market share (globally even, not just in the US) as to be near monopolies so that argument might not fly at trial; it would be interesting to test it out. If the social and online media companies were broken into many small competing companies such that new ones could spring up easily, then that line of argument might be more plausible. Either way, the point remains: it's not "blatantly unconstitutional" and corporations can jolly well be compelled to broadcast speech they'd prefer not to. And, in the WLBT case, it's even quite self evidently in the best interest of the public for that to be so, in spite of what progressives have been trying to tell us.
- smt88 5y ago
  > Facebook, Youtube, etc. have sufficient market share (globally even, not just in the US) as to be near monopolies The FCC does not regulate broadcasters because they're monopolies. It regulates them because they are granted the right to use a finite public resource. You're comparing apples and oranges. > If the social and online media companies were broken into many small competing companies such that new ones could spring up easily I strongly support breaking up the big tech companies. It's almost impossible to compete with them on their ad business. But as media companies? It's absolutely trivial to compete with them, and they don't seem to try to stop anyone. They just copy their business model. Since Facebook was founded, the following social networks have become huge and competitive with them: Twitter, Instagram, iMessage, Snapchat, WhatsApp, Kik, Telegram, Signal, TikTok, Vine, Tinder, Bumble... and those are some famous ones. The problem with Facebook being so dominant is how they did it (by buying competitors) and how they wield their power in the ad space. > it's not "blatantly unconstitutional" and corporations can jolly well be compelled to broadcast speech they'd prefer not to No, it's not. It doesn't become true because you keep saying it or because you think it should be. There is no precedent for something like this. You're making the more niche claim, so the burden of proof is on you.