4 ms·

I think that the First Amendment, as written, is a good thing. I think the government should be restricted heavily from punishing people for their speech. I g

I think that the First Amendment, as written, is a good thing. I think the government should be restricted heavily from punishing people for their speech. I generally think that private organizations and individuals should not be held to that same requirement. I think the Internet should be a utility, and ISPs should not be able to deny you access to the Internet. I think that Twitter should have the same right to deny service that my local bar does, which is to say, they can discriminate as long as it's not against a protected class.

CountDrewku 5y ago
> I think the government should be restricted heavily from punishing people for their speech. Ok then explain to me why it's ok for these politicians to celebrate removal and de-platforming of individuals and post about it on social media? I'd also like to know why they're allowed to have hearings asking when certain platforms are going to ban specific rival politicians? >I think the Internet should be a utility, and ISPs should not be able to deny you access to the Internet. I think that Twitter should have the same right to deny service that my local bar does, which is to say, they can discriminate as long as it's not against a protected class. Explain? Why one and not the other? ISP's are businesses too. What I'm seeing when you write this is basically that you'd like to hold businesses you dislike to different standards that ones you don't. I assume you're ok with the social media stuff because it's catering to your opinions currently. You need to ask yourself if Trump had a stranglehold on Silicon Valley like the left currently does would you still be ok with your views? Additionally, once private businesses reach a point where they're too big and they control too much market share they need to be held to different standards. You mentioned ISP's this is exactly what's happened with them. They all start working in coercion just like the handful of big tech companies have. There are no competitors without building a entirely separate infrastructure now.
- anoonmoose 5y ago
  > explain to me why it's ok for these politicians because they're just speaking (which is protected), the government did not actually remove or de-platform anyone. > why they're allowed to have hearings same as above. > Why one and not the other? For the same reason I think "roads" and "endpoints on the road" are different. For the same reason I think "electricity" and "water" should be utilities. It's a pipe. I just think they're different things.
  - CountDrewku 5y ago
    >because they're just speaking (which is protected), the government did not actually remove or de-platform anyone. You're not following what I'm saying. They're explicitly coercing companies into doing things due to the fact they can bring down real repercussions if they do not. The government is using big tech as a middle man to do their bidding and silence "bad" speech. That, is in fact the same as doing it themselves, therefore stomping all over the 1st amendment. Just because Pablo Escobar uses mules and dealers to peddle his drugs doesn't mean he's not guilty.
    - anoonmoose 5y ago
      I am following what you're saying, I just think you're wrong. They are not "explicitly coercing companies". There is no law forcing the companies to do it, no stated punishment for not doing it, no evidence that the companies would actually receive punishment if they did not do it. I understand you think that is the same as doing it themselves- from a moral standpoint you may be correct, but in my opinion, legally you are completely incorrect, and I am defending the laws. Although, if you change your statement to "implicitly coercing companies", you may be actually fairly accurate, I just don't think that is a bad thing, it happens all the time.

CountDrewku 5y ago

> I think the government should be restricted heavily from punishing people for their speech. Ok then explain to me why it's ok for these politicians to celebrate removal and de-platforming of individuals and post about it on social media? I'd also like to know why they're allowed to have hearings asking when certain platforms are going to ban specific rival politicians? >I think the Internet should be a utility, and ISPs should not be able to deny you access to the Internet. I think that Twitter should have the same right to deny service that my local bar does, which is to say, they can discriminate as long as it's not against a protected class. Explain? Why one and not the other? ISP's are businesses too. What I'm seeing when you write this is basically that you'd like to hold businesses you dislike to different standards that ones you don't. I assume you're ok with the social media stuff because it's catering to your opinions currently. You need to ask yourself if Trump had a stranglehold on Silicon Valley like the left currently does would you still be ok with your views? Additionally, once private businesses reach a point where they're too big and they control too much market share they need to be held to different standards. You mentioned ISP's this is exactly what's happened with them. They all start working in coercion just like the handful of big tech companies have. There are no competitors without building a entirely separate infrastructure now.

anoonmoose 5y ago
> explain to me why it's ok for these politicians because they're just speaking (which is protected), the government did not actually remove or de-platform anyone. > why they're allowed to have hearings same as above. > Why one and not the other? For the same reason I think "roads" and "endpoints on the road" are different. For the same reason I think "electricity" and "water" should be utilities. It's a pipe. I just think they're different things.
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  >because they're just speaking (which is protected), the government did not actually remove or de-platform anyone. You're not following what I'm saying. They're explicitly coercing companies into doing things due to the fact they can bring down real repercussions if they do not. The government is using big tech as a middle man to do their bidding and silence "bad" speech. That, is in fact the same as doing it themselves, therefore stomping all over the 1st amendment. Just because Pablo Escobar uses mules and dealers to peddle his drugs doesn't mean he's not guilty.
  - anoonmoose 5y ago
    I am following what you're saying, I just think you're wrong. They are not "explicitly coercing companies". There is no law forcing the companies to do it, no stated punishment for not doing it, no evidence that the companies would actually receive punishment if they did not do it. I understand you think that is the same as doing it themselves- from a moral standpoint you may be correct, but in my opinion, legally you are completely incorrect, and I am defending the laws. Although, if you change your statement to "implicitly coercing companies", you may be actually fairly accurate, I just don't think that is a bad thing, it happens all the time.