Look, Zuck is cancer fine, and he needs to be investigated for Anti-monopoly practices and a host of other things.
But in this specific case, Trump is in the wrong. You cannot force a private business to serve you if they do not want to, and the president of suing a private business for not serving you is awful. Do you really want the government or the courts forcing private business to serve people they choose not to?
You are wrong here. Facebook and Twitter et al are publicly traded companies and they were set up as PLATFORMS, to be the modern "public square". This is why they have protections under 230 so they cannot be liable for what people say providing it is legal.
They HAVE to allow all voices to be heard if it's legal, and yet there are clearly illegal tweets on there which they don't remove while silencing the voices of of perfectly legal speech. Not just politics of course, they censored Doctors talking about Ivermectin or vaccine damage.
While publishers can of course decide what they allow to be published they haven't yet been designated so, and are still under 'platform' 230 protection. So they can be sued under that designation.
There is also the fact that they conspired with other to silence people and that I think would come under racketeering/RICO.
Phone companies cannot just cut off your service if they don't like your conversations or who you call even though they too are private companies.
Anyone who has stock in Facebook and Twitter should also sue for damaging their stock values imo.
Again, being it is irrelevant to their status as a private company. Would you except that argument if the left government tried to tell oil companies who they could and could not sell to, because they are publicly traded companies?
The fact that these companies are too big is indeed a problem and should be addressed under anti-trust and antimonopoly rules but it is irrelevant to their authority and rights as a private company.
Has a private company in America they have rules which they are public about and open with and if you break them they are removed.
The government should not be dictating to private companies who they can and cannot serve. you donβt get to only have conservative values when it is convenient and affects the left.
You are completely missing the point. They are designated as PLATFORMS, the 'Public Square' that is why they have protections under Section 230 so unlike publishers they are not liable for what anyone says on their platform. But that means they must allow all voices to be heard if it is legal speech.
If they want to be a publisher then and only then could they silence who they want. and be legally liable for whatever is published. Until that day comes they are a platform and must allow all voices to be heard. You don't get to pick and choose who speaks in the public town square. Everybody has a voice, it's up to people whether they want to listen to it.
When you are conspiring against the President of The United States to stop him conversing with the citizens then that is a HUGE problem. (If it turns out Zuckerberg and Dorsey et al take their orders from China to silence the President then you have a whole other can of worms and an Act of War.)
Until they get re-designated as a Publisher and lose their protection under section 230, then they can be sued for violating their original and existing Platform designation.
βMerely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints. Providing some kind of forum for speech is not an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed. Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor."
Look, Zuck is cancer fine, and he needs to be investigated for Anti-monopoly practices and a host of other things.
But in this specific case, Trump is in the wrong. You cannot force a private business to serve you if they do not want to, and the president of suing a private business for not serving you is awful. Do you really want the government or the courts forcing private business to serve people they choose not to?
You are wrong here. Facebook and Twitter et al are publicly traded companies and they were set up as PLATFORMS, to be the modern "public square". This is why they have protections under 230 so they cannot be liable for what people say providing it is legal.
They HAVE to allow all voices to be heard if it's legal, and yet there are clearly illegal tweets on there which they don't remove while silencing the voices of of perfectly legal speech. Not just politics of course, they censored Doctors talking about Ivermectin or vaccine damage.
While publishers can of course decide what they allow to be published they haven't yet been designated so, and are still under 'platform' 230 protection. So they can be sued under that designation.
There is also the fact that they conspired with other to silence people and that I think would come under racketeering/RICO.
Phone companies cannot just cut off your service if they don't like your conversations or who you call even though they too are private companies.
Anyone who has stock in Facebook and Twitter should also sue for damaging their stock values imo.
Again, being it is irrelevant to their status as a private company. Would you except that argument if the left government tried to tell oil companies who they could and could not sell to, because they are publicly traded companies?
The fact that these companies are too big is indeed a problem and should be addressed under anti-trust and antimonopoly rules but it is irrelevant to their authority and rights as a private company.
Has a private company in America they have rules which they are public about and open with and if you break them they are removed.
The government should not be dictating to private companies who they can and cannot serve. you donβt get to only have conservative values when it is convenient and affects the left.
You are completely missing the point. They are designated as PLATFORMS, the 'Public Square' that is why they have protections under Section 230 so unlike publishers they are not liable for what anyone says on their platform. But that means they must allow all voices to be heard if it is legal speech.
If they want to be a publisher then and only then could they silence who they want. and be legally liable for whatever is published. Until that day comes they are a platform and must allow all voices to be heard. You don't get to pick and choose who speaks in the public town square. Everybody has a voice, it's up to people whether they want to listen to it.
When you are conspiring against the President of The United States to stop him conversing with the citizens then that is a HUGE problem. (If it turns out Zuckerberg and Dorsey et al take their orders from China to silence the President then you have a whole other can of worms and an Act of War.)
Until they get re-designated as a Publisher and lose their protection under section 230, then they can be sued for violating their original and existing Platform designation.
βMerely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints. Providing some kind of forum for speech is not an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed. Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor."
SCOTUS Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Trump appointee.