The issue of free speech in private and social media.

[Vanoi]

Reddit is heavily biased towards left and right-wing content there is heavily censored. It would make sense to force oligopolies to give platform to anyone.

Why should they have access to the platform. I don't see in the Bill of Rights where it says you have a right to a platform.

We have never forced newspapers or TVs to give a platform to everyone so why social media be different?

[The spartan]

Reddit is heavily biased towards left and right-wing content there is heavily censored. It would make sense to force oligopolies to give platform to anyone.

Well duh, everything that doesn't appeal exactly to your world view is biased toward the left. Don't you get how this works?!

[Love Mountain]

Well duh, everything that doesn't appeal exactly to your world view is biased toward the left. Don't you get how this works?!

It's ridiculous. HH knows perfectly how content there works. There are a ton of right-wing subreddits.

[Heathen Hammer]

Why should they have access to the platform. I don't see in the Bill of Rights where it says you have a right to a platform.

We have never forced newspapers or TVs to give a platform to everyone so why social media be different?

Because with social media is controlled by an oligopoly and it is necessary to make sure that its owners don't have political power.

Well duh, everything that doesn't appeal exactly to your world view is biased toward the left. Don't you get how this works?!

Are you seriously going to argue that virtue-signaling corporate CEOs aren't politically biased when it comes to censoring content on their platform?

[Vanoi]

Because with social media is controlled by an oligopoly and it is necessary to make sure that its owners don't have political power.

Social media is more than Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Reddit. It's not an oliopoly and even if it was oligopolies are not illegal in the US. You can break oligopolies up but they still have the full right to deny people from using their services.

You don't care that they are an oligopoly. They can be broken up if that was the problem. You want to take away a business's right to deny people service. You want socialism. You want the government to completely regulate who a business can deny service to.
Sorry this isn't Venezuela.

[Heathen Hammer]

Social media is more than Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Reddit. It's not an oliopoly and even if it was oligopolies are not illegal in the US. You can break oligopolies up but they still have the full right to deny people from using their services.

You don't care that they are an oligopoly. They can be broken up if that was the problem. You want to take away a business's right to deny people service. You want socialism. You want the government to completely regulate who a business can deny service to.
Sorry this isn't Venezuela.

So basically your understanding of socialism is not giving corporate CEOs literal political power of determining what can be said on the Internet.

[Vanoi]

A business's right to deny someone service without violating the law is not political power.

It's their services so why shouldn't they get to determine who uses it? Don't like it? Create your own. You don't require social media to speak your mind either.

You want to take rights away from businesses. As I said this isn't Venezuela.

[Heathen Hammer]

Businesses forming an oligopoly to deny users majority of the field (this case being social media) because of their political views is a political power. Again, I don't think allowing likes of Zuckerberg to decide what can be said on the Internet is a good idea.

[♔The Black Knight♔]

Businesses forming an oligopoly to deny users majority of the field (this case being social media) because of their political views is a political power. Again, I don't think allowing likes of Zuckerberg to decide what can be said on the Internet is a good idea.

How does Zuckerberg have control over the ENTIRE internet? What's to stop you from forming your own website that supports your views and provide a platform for everybody? Surely there are people that think like you and could provide you the financial needs to get it off the ground.

[Vanoi]

Businesses forming an oligopoly to deny users majority of the field (this case being social media) because of their political views is a political power.

There is no proof of this conspiracy and you accept Terms and Conditions immediately when using their services. Don't break the terms and your fine. Can't help Alex Jones did that.

Again, I don't think allowing likes of Zuckerberg to decide what can be said on the Internet is a good idea.

Zuckerberg should have full right to determine whatever is on Facebook. It's his business and right. You don't have to use his service.

[Heathen Hammer]

How does Zuckerberg have control over the ENTIRE internet? What's to stop you from forming your own website that supports your views and provide a platform for everybody? Surely there are people that think like you and could provide you the financial needs to get it off the ground.

Because the issue is that when you have major social media websites form an oligopoly to enact political censorship across a number of major platforms on the Internet, it becomes a free speech problem. The fact that it is an oligopoly is the reason "why don't you start your own business like that" doesn't really make any sense.

There is no proof of this conspiracy and you accept Terms and Conditions immediately when using their services. Don't break the terms and your fine. Can't help Alex Jones did that.

The proof is that they form an oligopoly and specifically target right-wing content, as we don't see the same in regards to leftist or, say, Islamist content.

Zuckerberg should have full right to determine whatever is on Facebook. It's his business and right. You don't have to use his service.

Again, if his service reflects on society to such an extent, then his right to determine this should be sacrificed to preserve more important constitutional freedoms for everyone else.

[♔The Black Knight♔]

Because the issue is that when you have major social media websites form an oligopoly to enact political censorship across a number of major platforms on the Internet, it becomes a free speech problem. The fact that it is an oligopoly is the reason "why don't you start your own business like that" doesn't really make any sense.

Again, WHY can't you? You keep saying its an oligopoly, but you haven't described the means in which they stop startups from competing against them. You just say they do without providing the process in which it happens.

[Heathen Hammer]

Again, WHY can't you? You keep saying its an oligopoly, but you haven't described the means in which they stop startups from competing against them. You just say they do without providing the process in which it happens.

We have Gab.ai, which was supposed to be just that and we know how that ended. The whole point is that big tech makes an effort at shutting down competition, basically dividing social media between several major companies that all suppress certain political opinions, which again, become a freedom of speech issue.

[♔The Black Knight♔]

We have Gab.ai, which was supposed to be just that and we know how that ended. The whole point is that big tech makes an effort at shutting down competition, basically dividing social media between several major companies that all suppress certain political opinions, which again, become a freedom of speech issue.

Gab.ai made itself reliant on Microsoft's services in the first place, so it was subject to business decisions made by Microsoft. And correct me if I'm wrong, but they are still operational as a website correct? The platforms that don't censor speech are still there for people to use and they always will be.

You act as if all corporates collaborate and form a unified agenda, but you know that interests arn't ubiquitous like that. There are conservative entrepreneurs who have billions of dollars and could compete with social media platforms if they wanted to. Nothing Google, Microsoft, or any large company could do about it.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Reddit is heavily biased towards left and right-wing content there is heavily censored.

Oh cool I haven't seen you have this conspiracy theory before, could you give an example of how?

[Vanoi]

Because the issue is that when you have major social media websites form an oligopoly to enact political censorship across a number of major platforms on the Internet, it becomes a free speech problem.

There's no evidence of this political censorship though. Ring-wing groups and organizations like PragerU aren't banned from Facebook. I see ads for their videos all the time.

Not being able to use social media is not a free speech issue. Are you able to speak your mind freely without persecution or arrest? That's free speech. I have mentioned 10 times now social media also isn't the only platform available. You have no right to use social media. Free speech is not dependent on social media.

The fact that it is an oligopoly is the reason "why don't you start your own business like that" doesn't really make any sense.

Still no evidence of an oligopoly and Facebook cannot control your own social media app. You have to compete. It sounds more and more like you just want socialism. You can always go live in Venezuela. Socialist paradise.

The proof is that they form an oligopoly and specifically target right-wing content, as we don't see the same in regards to leftist or, say, Islamist content.

Again, if his service reflects on society to such an extent, then his right to determine this should be sacrificed to preserve more important constitutional freedoms for everyone else.

As it has been said before only the government can violate your free speech rights. You don't have a right to a platform either.

And since when does Facebook reflect society? We've been over how most Americans consider social media to be completely inaccurate so it's influence is overblown.

[Heathen Hammer]

Gab.ai made itself reliant on Microsoft's services in the first place, so it was subject to business decisions made by Microsoft. And correct me if I'm wrong, but they are still operational as a website correct? The platforms that don't censor speech are still there for people to use and they always will be.

You act as if all corporates collaborate and form a unified agenda, but you know that interests arn't ubiquitous like that. There are conservative entrepreneurs who have billions of dollars and could compete with social media platforms if they wanted to. Nothing Google, Microsoft, or any large company could do about it.

Because if social media in question is used by significant part of population, it should be considered a public forum, and as a result should be obliged to maintain individual freedoms. Which is why it would make sense to force Twitter, Facebook and other popular social media sites to provide platform to everyone

[Gaidin]

Because if social media in question is used by significant part of population, it should be considered a public forum, and as a result should be obliged to maintain individual freedoms. Which is why it would make sense to force Twitter, Facebook and other popular social media sites to provide platform to everyone

Need. Law. Written.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Because if social media in question is used by significant part of population, it should be considered a public forum, and as a result should be obliged to maintain individual freedoms. Which is why it would make sense to force Twitter, Facebook and other popular social media sites to provide platform to everyone

What exactly do you think a "public forum" is in the eyes of the law?

[Heathen Hammer]

What exactly do you think a "public forum" is in the eyes of the law?

A form of media which is used by majority of the public.