Crime TX passes anti deplatforming bill for tech companies

[ElKarlo]

The fact that there is heavy involvement between public and private sectors, it’s quite common for private companies to comply to government standards like prevailing wages. This would be no different.

That’s a false equivalency. Wages aren’t opinions. Not in the same way that you can express yourself. As there are far more varied ways of doing so. While also your stance in wages too would be covered under speech to a certain extent. Not the implementation but the opinion part

 

[kahiljabroni]

Very odd that you clowns on the first page are crying about the first amendment when the GOP is having to try these desperate attempts because big tech has been systematically silencing those of a certain political viewpoint. Like it or not, social media is the new public square and they are the ones infringing on the first amendment.

 

[Neph]

The barriers to creating new sites are extremely low, and there are millions of existing sites. Seems very clear to me that no site has a monopoly on Internet content.

And yet the proof of the pudding is in the eating, in that despite it being easy to create your own site they have zero reach, zero users, and the theoretical possibility doesn't match the reality in which we live.

If you are an aspiring political candidate you really need social media reach, and that reach is privatised and can only be achieved through less than a handful of players. If they disapprove of your platform they currently have the right to remove you.

I'm naturally wary of overstep here but becoming a monopoly invites regulation to control your influence.

 

[Lead]

When everyone uses the same means of communication then indeed it does become an essential service. That's how FB or Twitter could be viewed as public utilities. The telephone wasn't an essential utility until it became ubiquitous and the standard by which people communicated.

I can see the merit of such an argument and so can you, so let's not play games.

Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Discord
Twitch
Tumblr
Pinterest
Reddit
Snapchat
TikTok
YouTube
WeChat

That’s some major players and then you consider all the small time ones like the very forum we are on. Then also consider how some of them didn’t even exist a few years ago and how much innovation we’ve seen in the industry in the last 5, 10, 15 years. There isn’t a monopoly here. If it really came down to it, I think it would be easier to just prevent M&A from the larger players over time. I mean, just take a second to think how stupid it would be to have government start regulating social networks. Unless you are for big government, that shouldn’t sound too appealing at all.

 

[Neph]

Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Discord
Twitch
Tumblr
Pinterest
Reddit
Snapchat
TikTok
YouTube
WeChat

That’s some major players and then you consider all the small time ones like the very forum we are on. Then also consider how some of them didn’t even exist a few years ago and how much innovation we’ve seen in the industry in the last 5, 10, 15 years. There isn’t a monopoly here. If it really came down to it, I think it would be easier to just prevent M&A from the larger players over time. I mean, just take a second to think how stupid it would be to have government start regulating social networks. Unless you are for big government, that shouldn’t sound too appealing at all.

I hate to say it but most of those on the list are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

No political party is being kicked off Discord and losing their audience/reach.

 

[Lead]

I hate to say it but most of those on the list are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

No political party is being kicked off Discord and losing their audience/reach.

Why would they be irrelevant? My point is there are many alternatives and a lot of the utility argument is there isn’t enough competition. The idea that any normal utility industry like water, electric, etc is anything like the social tech industry and could be just as efficiently regulated is pretty outlandish and destructive too.

 

[Lead]

The thing is I'm not even sold on the idea, just think it's worth mulling over. What's more interesting to me is how defensive people get when that possibility is brought up.

Most people don't like government overreach in their daily lives. It fine to mull over but I think the reasonable time frame to mull over it is less than 5 minutes.

 

[Lead]

No instead of doing something useful, it seems the GOP is only interested in stunt legislation and regulating businesses. That appears to be the only two planks in their party platform anymore.

Yea, stunt legislation and/or passing something off to the courts when they know full well it won't stick isn't a great precedent but it's happening more and more lately. It's going to over politicize the courts from the publics perspective when they have to rule on items that never should've shown up in the first place.

 

[Neph]

Why would they be irrelevant? My point is there are many alternatives and a lot of the utility argument is there isn’t enough competition. The idea that any normal utility industry like water, electric, etc is anything like the social tech industry and could be just as efficiently regulated is pretty outlandish and destructive too.

I'll believe they are alternatives when they are actually used as alternatives. They aren't.

 

[Lead]

I'll believe they are alternatives when they are actually used as alternatives. They aren't.

I honestly don’t know what you mean by this.

 

[Neph]

I honestly don’t know what you mean by this.

The conversation was about businesses and other political views being deplatformed from the major tech companies. You appeared to propose that Discord is an alternative to Facebook or Instagram for businesses or political parties. It absolutely isn't, nor are most of the others. The list of companies with this reach is very small and they do form a monopoly (or oligopoly of like minded companies).

 

[Lead]

The conversation was about businesses and other political views being deplatformed from the major tech companies. You appeared to propose that Discord is an alternative to Facebook or Instagram for businesses or political parties. It absolutely isn't, nor are most of the others. The list of companies with this reach is very small and they do form a monopoly (or oligopoly of like minded companies).

I was talking about individuals and political viewpoints which imo is more on topic. I don’t know what you mean by political parties as I haven’t seen a mainstream political party banned on any of these platforms. My point was if you have a political viewpoint you want to discuss online, there are plenty of places to do it. The platform we are on is an example of it and so is discord and others listed there.

 

[ShadowRun]

So much dishonest post in here, this is about protecting citizens free speech > corporations. The left has became giant corporation lovers I never thought I would see the day.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

So much dishonest post in here, this is about protecting citizens free speech > corporations. The left has became giant corporation lovers I never thought I would see the day.

The left doesn't care about corporate free speech when it comes to who they hire, or allow as clientele in other instances. But somehow the ability to censor communications under the 1st is hallowed ground here.

 

[ShadowRun]

The left doesn't care about corporate free speech when it comes to who they hire, or allow as clientele in other instances. But somehow the ability to censor communications under the 1st is hallowed ground here.

Well honestly they know the majority censored has bee. conservatives by big tech. So they want it to continue but it will turn on then and more and more lefty’s will be censored. Then it will be a problem.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Well honestly they know the majority censored has bee. conservatives by big tech. So they want it to continue but it will turn on then and more and more lefty’s will be censored. Then it will be a problem.

They censor/dictate to companies for the "right" reasons. Duh.

 

[44nutman]

And yet the proof of the pudding is in the eating, in that despite it being easy to create your own site they have zero reach, zero users, and the theoretical possibility doesn't match the reality in which we live.

If you are an aspiring political candidate you really need social media reach, and that reach is privatised and can only be achieved through less than a handful of players. If they disapprove of your platform they currently have the right to remove you.

I'm naturally wary of overstep here but becoming a monopoly invites regulation to control your influence.

So if I opened a grocery store next to a Wal Mart, the government should step in and make it so I can compete with Wal Mart. That sounds like the complete opposite of Capitalism to me.
It’s up to me as a business owner to compete. It’s like you want every business to get a trophy. Sorry I am no fan of that kind of government.
There are other sites out there. Parlor used to have a no censoring of posts rule but adjusted after posters posting pictures of their poo.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The left doesn't care about corporate free speech when it comes to who they hire, or allow as clientele in other instances. But somehow the ability to censor communications under the 1st is hallowed ground here.

I think it's more accurate to say that the left cares about freedom of speech for everyone, and Republicans care about freedom of speech exclusively for the right. The law we're talking about ITT will obviously be struck down as a violation of the First Amendment, for example--even by a rightist court.

 

[freakroor]

LoL texas with the big gov’t playbook

 

[Confucamus]

Imagine believing that everyone being allowed the same opportunity to voice their opinion on social media is somehow violating the first amendment.