In The News Today...

Regarding Dr. Seuss: It's a marketing choice like so many others. What the public will accept changes over time. If you want to sell to the public, you need to adapt. It's always been that way. Anyone remember the Frito Bandito?

Quote: kenarman

Social media is already deleting posts that don't pass the thought police. I guess you changed your mind about Trump having his tweets deleted. I expect that videos are already being deleted from youtube but I don't watch it much so wouldn't know. Will it start happening if it isn't now? I guarantee it will.

Why should a private company be obligated to provide a platform to people who they disagree with.

I am not a social media user, but I support their action. If you don't want to support them, don't use social media.

Youtube is more free-wheeling. For example Trump still has his channel. Most videos that are restricted are due to copyright challenges. There are some exceptions, but very few (Alex Jones would be a prime example). To be banned from Youtube for something other than repeat copyright complaints usually means you are pretty extreme.

Quote: Gandler

Why should a private company be obligated to provide a platform to people who they disagree with.

I am not a social media user, but I support their action. If you don't want to support them, don't use social media.

Youtube is more free-wheeling. For example Trump still has his channel. Most videos that are restricted are due to copyright challenges. There are some exceptions, but very few (Alex Jones would be a prime example). To be banned from Youtube for something other than repeat copyright complaints usually means you are pretty extreme.

You just made my point for me. "pretty extreme" is in the mind of the viewer, some people consider Trump pretty extreme others consider Bernie pretty extreme.

Quote: Gandler

Why should a private company be obligated to provide a platform to people who they disagree with.

Because when they get to the point that the so dominate they need to be considered a "common carrier" and be obliged to accept all comers. Like when TV stations had to "give equal time." Same as radio stations have to accept any political ad at the lowest rack rate available.

For that matter, same as colleges who demand Christian groups accept atheists and others who do not fit the mission of the group.

The standard was set long ago.

Quote: AZDuffman

Because when they get to the point that the so dominate they need to be considered a "common carrier" and be obliged to accept all comers. Like when TV stations had to "give equal time." Same as radio stations have to accept any political ad at the lowest rack rate available.

For that matter, same as colleges who demand Christian groups accept atheists and others who do not fit the mission of the group.

The standard was set long ago.

Common carrier? Sounds like socialism to me.

I don't think that the social media companies are dominate. I had one social media account, Facebook which I deleted, never any others (never understood the appeal of Twitter, and I still don't fully know what Tiktok or snapchat is, and I plan on keeping it that way), and I don't feel that I am missing anything.
I have an email and text messaging which I can talk to old acquaintances if I ever need to.

I actually left Facebook some time ago for political and privacy reasons (not the ones you bring up), but it just shows, if you disagree with policies stop using it. I never felt the need to demand Facebook change policies for what they are doing in some regions because I disagreed. Social media is by no means critical to life or a utility (in fact most people would probably be happier not on social media, which seems to be the trend when people break off).

Quote: AZDuffman

Because when they get to the point that the so dominate they need to be considered a "common carrier" and be obliged to accept all comers. Like when TV stations had to "give equal time." Same as radio stations have to accept any political ad at the lowest rack rate available.

For that matter, same as colleges who demand Christian groups accept atheists and others who do not fit the mission of the group.

The standard was set long ago.

If something meets the standard of a true monopoly, it shouldn't be too hard to justify breaking it up. Or easier, convincing them to do it voluntarily rather than have someone else do it for them.

Quote: Gandler

Common carrier? Sounds like socialism to me.

Nope. It is a term used in the trucking industry to name one. When one or just a few firms dominate but are not a natural monopoly.

Quote:

I don't think that the social media companies are dominate. I had one social media account, Facebook which I deleted, never any others (never understood the appeal of Twitter, and I still don't fully know what Tiktok or snapchat is, and I plan on keeping it that way), and I don't feel that I am missing anything.
I have an email and text messaging which I can talk to old acquaintances if I ever need to.

I actually left Facebook some time ago for political and privacy reasons (not the ones you bring up), but it just shows, if you disagree with policies stop using it. I never felt the need to demand Facebook change policies for what they are doing in some regions because I disagreed. Social media is by no means critical to life or a utility (in fact most people would probably be happier not on social media, which seems to be the trend when people break off).

Maybe you need to research the market share of these companies. Competitors are coming up, often using block chain tech, but that will take years same as cable took a good decade to break the lock of the three major TV networks.

Quote: Gandler

Why should a private company be obligated to provide a platform to people who they disagree with.

I am not a social media user, but I support their action. If you don't want to support them, don't use social media.

Youtube is more free-wheeling. For example Trump still has his channel. Most videos that are restricted are due to copyright challenges. There are some exceptions, but very few (Alex Jones would be a prime example). To be banned from Youtube for something other than repeat copyright complaints usually means you are pretty extreme.

Who maintains the infrastructure of the internet that FB is using? If these social media company's want to censor free speech then they should build their own web and have every right to not sell to whomever they choose.

Quote: AZDuffman

Because when they get to the point that the so dominate they need to be considered a "common carrier" and be obliged to accept all comers. Like when TV stations had to "give equal time." Same as radio stations have to accept any political ad at the lowest rack rate available.

For that matter, same as colleges who demand Christian groups accept atheists and others who do not fit the mission of the group.

The standard was set long ago.

This.

I don't want to pay for TSA at airports, I think the airlines should finance their own xray scanners, instead of making their friends rich on the public dime.

For that matter, let the airlines build and maintain their own airports.

These social media company's are getting away with the same thing that happened in Texas. Those utility's have to let other power providers sell electricity across the lines they maintain, which kills their profit. The internet is a "common carrier" which anyone can click on, its a GSE.

Quote: petroglyph

Who maintains the infrastructure of the internet that FB is using? If these social media company's want to censor free speech then they should build their own web and have every right to not sell to whomever they choose.

?????????
WTF
again
Wizards house, Wizards rules
No different then FB

You cant go in somebody's house, whether the house is brick and mortar or a web page
Yell and scream, and when shown the door, yell censorship
There are no rights to free speech in somebody else's house
You cant come into my camper and start screaming and when I kick you out, complain about censorship