I do. I don't believe Big Tech in general are left-wing authoritarians who want to drive right-wing thought out of the digital public square. Why would they? They care most about the bottom line. Facebook's top 10 trending posts everyday are always right-wing content. Twitter faced enormous pressure to suspend Trump's account for violating their rules over and over, and they held firm until he incited an insurrection.

When you think everyone with authority who disagrees with you is evil or has no defensible principles, inevitably you can't understand their real motivations. Rabid cynicism distorts reality.

This post was edited by IceMage on Jan 13 2021 07:16am

The USA has established these conditions through the 1A. Yes, monolith sites may have a lot power when they represent majority percentages of webtraffic or user counts. Yes, shadow sites can act as platforms for bad actors. Yes, providing tooling for the government to police these domains would do more harm when protecting 1A rights than blocking tooling.

Zuckerberg, Dorsey and Bezos are intended to answer to consumers. The anti-monopoly angle makes way more sense to me and doesn't infringe upon 1A.

Just to be clear, a website is like a house, the internet the roads and highways. How long would you tolerate someone talking shit in your house?

^ Parler is like a bad renter in this analogy.

Of course this is an anti-monopoly case at its root. The social media giants derive their scary ability to infringe on free speech rights or to manipulate the public discourse precisely because they have a near-monopoly on digital communication.

headline reads, "Big Tech giants limits the public's ability to be heard by millions online that they didnt have until big tech giants gave it to them."

God giveth, and god taketh away.

They shouldn't have told us it was a human right.

Its a good thing shitting in another persons house isnt a part of free speech rights, else Trump and other retards being banned might have some weight in their argument.

I'm simply suggesting that we acknowledge facts: communication on social media has become an essential and indispensable part of modern life, a politician who's completely blacklisted/deplatformed cannot be competitive. This is the new reality, and laws should be adjusted accordingly.

I don't use Twitter and only touch my Facebook once a year.

Social media is absolutely not indispensable to modern life in even the loosest sense.

If you didn't want corporations fucking people over you shouldn't vote for Republicans, because this is the logical conclusion of their free market pro corporate message. When there's a few big players they can easily collude to shut out the inconvenient, and that's been a goal of the Republican party for at least 30 years and hasn't changed one iota under Trump.

Chickens have come home to roost, both from his words and from his parties actions.

politicians who are blacklisted are generally blacklisted because of massive public outrage from the left, a group that wont vote for them anyways. and by getting blacklisted they get street cred from the right who will vote for them.

the right needs to pool resources to make their own echo chamber platform and hit Twitter and the others where it hurts, or nothing will change. look at the stock price tumble banning Trump caused, imagine an actual exodus.

too much bitching, not enough programming. years of tears and we get Parler? that's the best there is? i thought silicon valley being all lefties was just a fear driven social pressure thing, surely they must be able to get a dozen programmers together willing to make a platform that isnt total shit, right? the issues with big tech and censorship are inherently leftist ideology driven issues, correct? that's what we've been told.

well in academia if u have a theory u test it, in this case that means making a right wing driven test case of a social media platform and seeing what outputs prove to have been leftist ideology driven and which are inherent to a social media company regardless of politics.

or we could be idiots who just cry about twitter and demand govt action that we all know wont do jack shit. yup, lets do that.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jan 13 2021 08:09am

The evidence of where big tech sits is pretty obvious if you want to look at it.

They prefer center-right content. Once you get so far left you start questioning the economic status-quo you aren't recommended anymore, but you have to go to insane lengths on the right to not get recommended. Oh god Sargon got censored! What did he do?!?!?!? Just sent porn to people because he 'accidentally' got a significant neo-nazi following on Twitter.