Should Twitter and Facebook be considered Public Utilities and regulated as such?

2020-10-17T21:43:25-04:00

Many people are heavily influenced by what they see on Twitter, Face Book and Rally Point. Should they be compelled to be straightforward, honest, to publish all referred information and to not suppress information? SGT Philip Roncari

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 17 at 2020 10:17 PM

2020-10-17T22:17:45-04:00

I say no because that would require every social media platform to be a public utility.

I do believe there should be fines when a large platform spreads misinformation though. Like you said, a lot of people read these and are heavily influenced by the information they see on these platforms. I think once a platform hits a certain size, they have a responsibility to support the good of society and that by standing back and pretending they have no influence on their content, they are encouraging far left/right extremism and/or conspiracy theories to proliferate.

Basically, if you don't tend the yard the weeds take over. If you're going to have a yard that big you have a responsibility to take care of it. It's a social contract

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 18 at 2020 12:14 AM

2020-10-18T00:14:28-04:00

Absolutely not. I already pay exorbitant prices for the ability to access the internet. With that being said:

Are they a publisher - deciding what can and cannot be displayed? Or are they a platform and do not interfere with what is being displayed.

"...Section 230 encourages Internet platforms to moderate “offensive” speech, but the law was not intended to facilitate political censorship. Online platforms should receive immunity only if they maintain viewpoint neutrality, consistent with traditional legal norms for distributors of information. Before the Internet, common law held that newsstands, bookstores, and libraries had no duty to ensure that each book and newspaper they distributed was not defamatory. Courts initially extended this principle to online platforms. Then, in 1995, a federal judge found Prodigy, an early online service, liable for content on its message boards because the company had advertised that it removed obscene posts. The court reasoned that “utilizing technology and the manpower to delete” objectionable content made Prodigy more like a publisher than a library."

"Congress responded by enacting Section 230, establishing that platforms could not be held liable as publishers of user-generated content and clarifying that they could not be held liable for removing any content that they believed in good faith to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” This provision does not allow platforms to remove whatever they wish, however. Courts have held that “otherwise objectionable” does not mean whatever a social media company objects to, but “must, at a minimum, involve or be similar” to obscenity, violence, or harassment. Political viewpoints, no matter how extreme or unpopular, do not fall under this category."

https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html

Platform, or Publisher?

If Big Tech firms want to retain valuable government protections, then they need to get out of the censorship business.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 18 at 2020 12:33 AM

2020-10-18T00:33:04-04:00

https://nypost.com/2020/10/16/twitter-still-holding-the-posts-account-hostage-over-hunter-biden-links/
CSM Charles Hayden They allow every single allegation and falshood about president trump to be published unimpeded but silicon Valley has its agenda and is actually pumping money into the sleepy Joe campaign.

Twitter still holding The Post’s account hostage over Hunter Biden links

Twitter has refused to unlock The Post’s account unless the news organization deletes six tweets about its own reportingon Hunter Biden’s emails — despite a policy change sp…

Response by SGT Javier Silva made Oct 18 at 2020 1:37 AM

2020-10-18T01:37:15-04:00

I do believe that a social media platform that decides to edit content on their site, should be treated as any other publisher who edits content.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 18 at 2020 9:16 PM

2020-10-18T21:16:26-04:00

The greater overall problem stems from the astronomically lowed barriers of entry to mass communication.

See, many moons ago I was a PAPER BOY (do folks even know what that is?) and really only three means of media exposure existed; TV, Radio, and Print. I suppose word of mouth too.

Anyway.............. one had to OWN the delivery method to get the message out to the masses. So there were only a FEW such sources such as newspaper facilities, TV and Radio stations with corporate owners and regulated by the FCC.

Then to become a reporter one had to actually get an EDUCATION and be taught to a certain level reporting ethics.

Then through ALL OF THAT, through economic capital of investing in the distribution means, and hiring professionally trained reporters could the message get out.

Now............... any moron can shoot their mouth off and the message is seen/heard by MILLIONS at little to no cost of time or resources. Facebook and Twitter are staffed with thousands of censors probably without any education in media ethics. If it makes them feel funny they nix it.

That's the larger over all problem. I mean FB and Twitter could be regulated as such, but at the end of the day the Internet genie is out of the bottle. It doesn't stop morons in their basement who haven't seen the light of day in years from reaching millions of naive viewers through some other internet channel or link.

*************
I think the world wide connection has led to the degradation of local communities. We now compare our lives and success against a much larger population of inclusion. Whereas before, our benchmarks were localized by our neighbors and coworkers in our community. Our envy goes well beyond our neighborhood and against those unrealistically out of our reach (which I also believe has played a part in the drive of consumerism in our society).