3 ms·

Is Twitter the only way to communicate over the Internet? Why is a “social media” company headed by the most popular “conservative” in America failing? Why ca

Is Twitter the only way to communicate over the Internet? Why is a “social media” company headed by the most popular “conservative” in America failing? Why can’t FoxNews create its own social media company?

cowtools 4y ago
Pulled from payment processor, DDoS protection, etc. "If they don't like it, why can't they just create their own internet that we will not be able to access?"
- scarface74 4y ago
  That’s not why Truth Social is failing https://time.com/6209392/truth-social-financial-problems-trump/ https://time.com/6209392/truth-social-financial-problems-tru... Trump is supposedly a billionaire. He couldn’t fund the equivalent of Cloudflare if he desires? He couldn’t find enough like minded investors?
  - cowtools 4y ago
    Sorry, I confused truth social with another website called gab. In any case they are simply mastodon forks, are they not? I can't see why it would require massive funding. I don't think the failure of truth social speaks to the failure of "splinter" forums at large.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      Conservatives love the free market. Truth Social is showing the free market voting with its dollars
catiopatio 4y ago
What does that have to do with my question — or anything else I’ve said? What word should we use to describe the viewpoint-based prohibition of someone’s speech?
- scarface74 4y ago
  A private company gets to decide its own policy? If the government wants a platform where everyone can say whatever it wants it’s free to create a government funded platform. Alternatively, conservatives are all about the free market. Let them create a platform where their views can be heard.
  - catiopatio 4y ago
    Why should we grant private companies the novel privilege of being shielded from liability for what they publish, if they're not willing to guarantee public access to their platform in return?
    - scarface74 4y ago
      A private company has never been required to guarantee access to anyone as long as they don’t discriminate because of a “protected status”. Political speech is not a protected status. Does Christian mingle have to allow Muslims? Is RedState - that has banned me twice for not towing the line - forced to allow me to voice my viewpoint? Is the NRA forced to publish discussion about gun control?
      - catiopatio 4y ago
        That’s a completely incorrect assertion. Common carriers are private companies required to guarantee non-discriminatory access to the public. They do this in exchange for a shield from liability for what the public says/does/transfers via their service. The legal framework for this dates back to English common law, and applies to telephone companies, airlines, freight carriers, taxi companies, and just about any other company that provides public services under the privilege of a government-granted shield from liability. The only companies of this type that this doesn’t apply to are ”interactive computer service” providers, because they were granted a special privilege cut out in the Communication Decency Act of 1996, while we asked for nothing in return [1]. That’s the issue, here. If the NRA wants to launch an “interactive computer service” that publishes user content, then yes, I think they should be forced to either accept liability for what they publish, or accept they they must serve the public without viewpoint discrimination. If RedState wants to host a comment section, then I think the same rule should apply to them, too. ISPs, too. This is the fundamental concept on which all arguments for net neutrality rest. [1] Not entirely true; the liability shield of the Communications Decency Act was intended to counterbalance the criminalization of user transmission of “obscene or indecent” material on the internet. The indecency clauses were struck down by the courts, leaving the privileges and none of the responsibilities. The whole law was a broken, idiotic idea and should have been scrapped entirely.

cowtools 4y ago

Pulled from payment processor, DDoS protection, etc. "If they don't like it, why can't they just create their own internet that we will not be able to access?"

scarface74 4y ago
That’s not why Truth Social is failing https://time.com/6209392/truth-social-financial-problems-trump/ https://time.com/6209392/truth-social-financial-problems-tru... Trump is supposedly a billionaire. He couldn’t fund the equivalent of Cloudflare if he desires? He couldn’t find enough like minded investors?
- cowtools 4y ago
  Sorry, I confused truth social with another website called gab. In any case they are simply mastodon forks, are they not? I can't see why it would require massive funding. I don't think the failure of truth social speaks to the failure of "splinter" forums at large.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Conservatives love the free market. Truth Social is showing the free market voting with its dollars

catiopatio 4y ago

What does that have to do with my question — or anything else I’ve said? What word should we use to describe the viewpoint-based prohibition of someone’s speech?

scarface74 4y ago
A private company gets to decide its own policy? If the government wants a platform where everyone can say whatever it wants it’s free to create a government funded platform. Alternatively, conservatives are all about the free market. Let them create a platform where their views can be heard.
- catiopatio 4y ago
  Why should we grant private companies the novel privilege of being shielded from liability for what they publish, if they're not willing to guarantee public access to their platform in return?
  - scarface74 4y ago
    A private company has never been required to guarantee access to anyone as long as they don’t discriminate because of a “protected status”. Political speech is not a protected status. Does Christian mingle have to allow Muslims? Is RedState - that has banned me twice for not towing the line - forced to allow me to voice my viewpoint? Is the NRA forced to publish discussion about gun control?
    - catiopatio 4y ago
      That’s a completely incorrect assertion. Common carriers are private companies required to guarantee non-discriminatory access to the public. They do this in exchange for a shield from liability for what the public says/does/transfers via their service. The legal framework for this dates back to English common law, and applies to telephone companies, airlines, freight carriers, taxi companies, and just about any other company that provides public services under the privilege of a government-granted shield from liability. The only companies of this type that this doesn’t apply to are ”interactive computer service” providers, because they were granted a special privilege cut out in the Communication Decency Act of 1996, while we asked for nothing in return [1]. That’s the issue, here. If the NRA wants to launch an “interactive computer service” that publishes user content, then yes, I think they should be forced to either accept liability for what they publish, or accept they they must serve the public without viewpoint discrimination. If RedState wants to host a comment section, then I think the same rule should apply to them, too. ISPs, too. This is the fundamental concept on which all arguments for net neutrality rest. [1] Not entirely true; the liability shield of the Communications Decency Act was intended to counterbalance the criminalization of user transmission of “obscene or indecent” material on the internet. The indecency clauses were struck down by the courts, leaving the privileges and none of the responsibilities. The whole law was a broken, idiotic idea and should have been scrapped entirely.