- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The best argument against social media banning people
Posted on 5/4/19 at 8:49 pm
Posted on 5/4/19 at 8:49 pm
The court ruled that you can't block people on social media because it "deprives them of access to official Presidential statements," and your feed is considered a "public square," so why is Facebook and Twitter allowed to deprive citizens access to that same public square?
Mark Dice made this point on twitter and I think it’s arguably the best point I’ve seen. If courts have determined social media is a public square and people can’t be blocked... how can twitter or Facebook block anyone from the same public square.
Mark Dice made this point on twitter and I think it’s arguably the best point I’ve seen. If courts have determined social media is a public square and people can’t be blocked... how can twitter or Facebook block anyone from the same public square.
7
Posted on 5/4/19 at 8:51 pm to Lsujacket66
quote:
The court ruled that you can't block people on social media because it "deprives them of access to official Presidential statements," and your feed is considered a "public square,"
This ruling applied to Trump, and maybe all public officials, not ordinary citizens.
Posted on 5/4/19 at 8:51 pm to Brosef Stalin
Exactly
Posted on 5/4/19 at 8:57 pm to Lsujacket66
And, these social media companies went in front of congress and told them they were unable to police their entire platforms, so they were exempted from libel suits.
It certainly looks like they’ve figured out how to monitor their platforms. You don’t get it both ways....
It certainly looks like they’ve figured out how to monitor their platforms. You don’t get it both ways....
Posted on 5/4/19 at 9:29 pm to Lsujacket66
quote:
The court ruled that you can't block people on social media because it "deprives them of access to official Presidential statements," and your feed is considered a "public square," so why is Facebook and Twitter allowed to deprive citizens access to that same public square?
You can still access twitter feeds without needing an account, if I’m not mistaken.
Posted on 5/4/19 at 9:34 pm to LSUTIGER in TEXAS
quote:
And, these social media companies went in front of congress and told them they were unable to police their entire platforms, so they were exempted from libel suits.
Yep, they want to be considered an open platform and thus, not held liable from things posted and the accompaning results, but then they also want to act as a publisher with the right to ban content.
Posted on 5/4/19 at 10:06 pm to Revelator
What if it is found out that Facebook was actually seeded by the US Government. That would mean Facebook is a government agency masquerading as a public corporation. Then Facebook would be under government rules pertaining to the first ammendment.
Posted on 5/4/19 at 10:14 pm to Born to be a Tiger1
quote:
What if it is found out that Facebook was actually seeded by the US Government. That would mean Facebook is a government agency masquerading as a public corporation. Then Facebook would be under government rules pertaining to the first ammendment.
And zuckerberg is a cyborg amongst us. I like where this can go to mind frick the tin foil hatters.
As for the OP...they have become to much of a public company to not be held accountable for how it messes with the public. Like the govt calling in MLB.
Will be interesting cause they want to be regulated, so away not to is tough. Obviously $5billion fines aint cutting it.
They do use regulated means to get their product out there, so that may be an avenue....it's hidden in the Net Neutrality debate somewhere.
Posted on 5/4/19 at 10:27 pm to Lsujacket66
The trump twitter case didn’t make the argument that twitter, generally, was a public square. It argued that the trump twitter account was a presidential account and blocking individuals from that presidential account forum was a 1A violation. I’m not arguing that is the correct ruling, but it is the actual ruling which is different from the basis of your OP (and what you claim Dice argued).
Posted on 5/4/19 at 10:33 pm to cwill
quote:
The trump twitter case didn’t make the argument that twitter, generally, was a public square. It argued that the trump twitter account was a presidential account and blocking individuals from that presidential account forum was a 1A violation. I’m not arguing that is the correct ruling, but it is the actual ruling which is different from the basis of your OP (and what you claim Dice argued).
.... and therefore, with Trump’s tweet tonight about James Woods, Twitter is effectively blocking Woods’ access to @POTUS @RealDonaldTrump in the twittersphere public square.
Posted on 5/5/19 at 10:55 am to Lsujacket66
quote:
The court ruled that you can't block people on social media because it "deprives them of access to official Presidential statements," and your feed is considered a "public square," so why is Facebook and Twitter allowed to deprive citizens access to that same public square?
Mark Dice made this point on twitter and I think it’s arguably the best point I’ve seen. If courts have determined social media is a public square and people can’t be blocked... how can twitter or Facebook block anyone from the same public square.
now this is a solid argument
although what do you do with people posting kiddy porn or violating terms of service?
Posted on 5/5/19 at 11:01 am to Lsujacket66
quote:Social Media: The new Judicial Branch.
it "deprives them of access to official Presidential statements,"
Posted on 5/5/19 at 11:04 am to scrooster
quote:
.... and therefore, with Trump’s tweet tonight about James Woods, Twitter is effectively blocking Woods’ access to @POTUS @RealDonaldTrump in the twittersphere public square.
Posted on 5/5/19 at 12:46 pm to Lsujacket66
When FB and Twitter began banning people based on politics, they became publishers in practice and should be held to the same standards and responsibilities as such. They are no longer platforms.
Posted on 5/5/19 at 12:59 pm to DrunkerThanThou
Why don't yall just stop using those crappy spying, censoring platforms. Surely there is a different social media platform out there that isn't actively trying to destroy all conservatives!
The above is not meant to convey that I think FB and twitter should be allowed to do what they are doing. I just wish they would crash and burn and not have power anymore.
The above is not meant to convey that I think FB and twitter should be allowed to do what they are doing. I just wish they would crash and burn and not have power anymore.
Posted on 5/5/19 at 1:33 pm to wookalar1013
I have never had Twitter, but I do look at it occassionally. Seems everything can be viewed without an account.
Posted on 5/5/19 at 1:34 pm to omegaman66
quote:
Why don't yall just stop using those crappy spying, censoring platforms. Surely there is a different social media platform out there that isn't actively trying to destroy all conservatives!
I get what you are saying here and I have a similar feeling about the news. I can't believe someone does not start a true news network that only does straight up reporting with no bias either way. You would think there would be a market for that, I know I would be interested. I may be in the minority on that however, maybe people really do like to be bullshitted and mislead
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News