PLEASE!!! Forget Trump for one sec when answering this.... Do social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook have too much control of ?

Question

Online free speech? Should they be considered a public forum and it’s users given constitutional protection of free speech? 

Think about this in terms of power...Should we allow two CEO’s to amass this much power and control over online free speech. Particularly when they buy out or destroy any competitors, making them among the only social media platforms 

Answer 1

Liberals run social media and they hate free speech. They want leftist information only and leftist opinions allowed only.



It's what communism is all about.

Answer 2

Free speech doesn't cover death threats and inciting violence. The social media platforms are complicit in the insurrection because they allowed hate speech and violent insurrection to be planned on their platforms.

Answer 3

They have their own rules and regulations and are not a part of the government so they're free to do what they like, idiot

Answer 4

Yes and no. What Twitter did was legal their liable for trump tweets. No yahoo answers censorship regardless of law

Answer 5

Violent platforms like Parler need to be permanently disabled. Terrorists and criminal activities have proven to be a hub on that place. One of the wonderful things about capitalism is no one in America should be forced to be a mule for anyone. Meaning if Amazon doesn't want to carry Parler because they violated their terms of services or even if they don't flat out believe in the product they shouldn't be forced to carry it because Amazon is not a public service it's private. Big tech are not public utilities they are private entities. 



If that bothers you that Twitter can permanently ban Trump. You have a problem with the right private companies have of not having things like the 1st Amendment pertain to them... I wonder would could solve your problem..... You can turn to socialism and have the government expand it's ultilies. social media platforms run by the Federal government and have the federal government carry digital market place. I'd agree with that if we expand medicare for all US citizens to be eligible to use that program. Of course, the Republicans should also reconsider their efforts in trying to kill the post office. Then again Republicans have proven to be hypocrites Trump's entire term. The Coup de gras was when I saw MAGA scream blue lives matter then at Capitol Hill I see MAGA actually beating policemen with the American flag.



Look the issue you have is the fact that we have billionaires run this country in behind the scenes. We're America, we believe in rights for private citizens, Supremem Court declared a while ago corporations are people and we are a capitalist country. We give a lot of freedom to capitalism unless it's for average citizens jumping tax brackets. Otherwise, in this country we give billionaires unlimited power through capitalism. We bail them out when they fail. They can buy all the lobbyist they want, in reality they buy all the politicians to have whatever laws and policies they want and don't want. America has been and always will be a true place of freedom the richer you are. You feel like your rights are being compromised? Things aren't going your way? If you want true freedom, you better become a billionaire. Not even millionaires in this country get everything they want here. EVERY major company in America has been doing what you've been talking about for decades. That's why we don't have more internet providers or faster internet. American internet speed is junkie compared to living in a country like Korea. You just never had a problem with it until it was big tech. This is what capitalism has looked like in this country for decades. How do you think Oakley became owned by Luxottica? Oakley was it's own company and pissed off Luxottica, so Luxottica salted the earth for Oakley until it was worthless and then Luxottica bought it. If you have a problem with companies doing whatever they want to use money to become as powerful as they want that's how capitalism works around here. 



You elect things not just in office but your money and what you use. If you're upset about how powerful big tech has become everybody using their services elected them to become that powerful. If you used it, that includes you. Now they're billionaires and money is more powerful than any politician or political group in this country. Money is the ultimate freedom of speech and freedom of everything. Because of money billionaire voices outweigh the voices of everyone else. It's idiotic in this country the average Americans are divided over Trump. We let people become that powerful. We give the billion

Answer 6

They are classed as similar to a utility, they were given legal protection against being sued over content. It’s exactly like a phone company, they can’t be sued if you use a phone to commit a crime. However when they start controlling content they cease to be a platform and become a publisher. They can be a publisher if 5hey want BUT, they must have their special legal status removed first. Until then they should be governed by the first amendment.

Answer 7

Yes, they have too much control. I don't say this based on the 1st amendment, but from a philosophical, human rights standpoint. In the 20th century, when those in power tried to control the flow of information by controlling print media and radio content, those who opposed them found ways around that information blockade by air dropping paper flyers and by broadcasting radio messages from across the border. For a time, it may be possible for white hat hackers to get around information blockades in the internet, but I suspect artificial intelligence will close those doors. And the actual physical infrastructure needed for the world wide web is too large to be duplicated in secret by subversives.

Answer 8

This is not a free speech issue since the government is not restricting access.  These businesses are also not charities.  They are in it to make money.  They aren't going to put themselves in a position where one user posting objectional content costs them 50 other users who cancel the service as a result.

Answer 9

I really agree with you on this. It's not great that 4 or 5 companies that control 99% of online communication can shadowban and demonetize and discriminate against anyone they want. We should have more unions and wage laws to protect people who earn money online and Youtube, etc shouldn't be classified as "private businesses" when they control the whole worlds ability to speak.

Edit: People should stop telling other people to "start their own website." That's a big hoop to jump through just for Free Speech

Answer 10

No one is stopping you or anyone else from starting your own. Funny how conservatives decry government interference but then want them to take control when it suits their needs.

Answer 11

TWITTER and other social media platforms have zero control over “free speech”.  What you suggest is that the “we the people “ should have control over their intellectual property and business, that is the very communism that Republicans fear so much. No. When you joined the app, you agree to the terms of service, violate those terms and you may be banned too. I can’t say that is wrong. 



Too many people are confusing being denied a platform, with being denied their right to free speech, this is not the case. Twitter et.al can not stop you from spreading your message, whatever it may be, they do have the right to refuse to aid you in spreading a message they as a for profit business will hurt their profit margin.

Answer 12

Freedom of speech comes with a price tag. You are responsible for what you say. Trump used twitter to spread lies, and egg on his people to violence. He could have also used it to defuse it. His tweet after the riot was to blame ANTIFA members were the true rioters. a lie that is still being spread now despite it being debunked .

For a president words have power. Trump knows this more than anyone. He misused it, It's taken away. It's called consequences

Answer 13

Given the near monopoly status of a few players in the social media business, perhaps there needs to be some independent oversight of their terms of service.



No one is saying they should not have their own user agreements and associated terms and conditions but there could be some oversight to certify that their terms and conditions are fair and reasonable and no-discriminatory. They could still ban those who spread hate, lies, unjustified accusations, child abuse material, incitement to criminality and the like .... and I am sure no one is suggesting such things should be encouraged on-line. 



The legal acceptability of approved terms and conditions would not mean a site had to continue to provide service. It has to remain a business decision whether to maintain a site.  It could be that a site ceases to serve one or more territories or operates fewer forums or decides to close completely. Such commercial decisions must rest with the owners of the site or else we would drift into unacceptable state interference in private commercial operations. No business will willingly kill off a good revenue stream nor maintain one that makes a loss, directly or indirectly.



Where there is a group serving a common interest (Voting rights for Dolphins as a silly example), it is plausible that such an organisation could provide its own forum if it feels inadequately served by existing services. As interest grows, the forum could expand to match. No one is saying it is easy but we used to manage with bulletin boards before the WWW was invented so it is definitely possible.

Answer 14

It is a purely business decision to not allow certain posts.  These platforms are FREE for users so where does all the money come from to create, support and keep these online???  Advertisers,  no business wants their ads on a platform that has hate speech, planning or promoting violence,acts of hatred, racism, etc.    So platforms have TOS users have to agree to in order to use the platforms.  Nothing to do with free speech or the 1st amendment.  

New platforms come up all the time,  it is a tough market to break into, barriers of entry.   Just like it would be pretty much impossible to start up a new electric company, it is not easy to succesfully start many other business in the US.  

Answer 15

I have never used either, so, to me, they have no influence.

Answer 16

Anyone banned on Yahoo, or Twitter, or FB can still spread their hate by other means.



P.S. Freedom of Speech is the concept that you can say what you want (with exceptions) without having to fear GOVERNMENT retaliation. Banning someone from an online platform does NOT violate the 1st amendment.

Answer 17

Violations of the Terms of Service include, make available any content that is harmful to children, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically, or otherwise objectionable;



violate any applicable laws or regulations;



impersonate any person or entity; or forge or manipulate headers or identifiers to disguise the origin of any content transmitted through the Service;



make available any content that you do not have the right to make available or that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights of any person or entity;



post content containing advertisements or other commercial solicitations without our prior written permission;

Answer 18

They are platforms with their own TOS. If you violate those terms, you're out. Just like I can kick you out if you threaten anyone in my home. There is nothing wrong with that.

Answer 19

Another halfwit acting as if they don't understand the 1st Amendment.