Big tech,just another arm of the government

Eegore wrote on 09/01/22 at 20:03:40:



By your statement an entity cannot influence the means of production unless it is the owned....


Best regards,  

"By your statement an entity cannot influence the means of production unless it is the owned...."


 I will need further clarification.  What I mean to convey is that a privately owned company is not subject to Free Speech in the same way a Government run entity is.

 For instance I run my own company, we have our own encrypted messaging program and I am not required by any part of the Constitution to recognize the 1st Amendment.  We can censor anything we wish and only allow access to approved individuals.  This is specific to 1st Amendment and only 1st Amendment with the exemption of all other known things.

 Now if this privately run messaging program was publicly run, then the guidelines would be different.

"No, you’re wrong. That same media is used by the government to inform its citizens of emergencies. Which means the government is very well aware of the influence those platforms have on the general public."


 And can any of these companies refuse to allow the government to use their platform?  Can Twitter, tomorrow, if they wanted, refuse to allow all Federal communications to exist on their platform, including emergencies?

 Yes they could.  Because they are privately owned and operated.  They do not have to allow people to use their program because of "free speech" laws.  Those only apply to the Government.


When government agencies in lock step executive or legislative branch, step in and use those platforms to directly interfere in an election by withholding information damaging to their  preferred political opponent or by encouraging publication of false information to benefit their preferred political opponent, that’s censorship.

 It may be censorship, but how is this a violation of "free speech" when the medium used is owned by a private company?  The private company at the end of the day is choosing what appears on their program, not the Government.  The First Amendment imposes very strict non-discrimination structure on "government actors."

 Facebook, Twitter, YouTube are not Government Actors.

 I get it that the Government is using these platforms, but the company itself has no obligation to protect your 1st Amendment.  If anything one could sue the Government for misusing a private company, but on the other end Facebook etc. have a media right.

At what point does this really become a freedom of speech violation?


 When private companies/citizens are held to the same free speech standard by the US Constitution as Government actors.

 At this time no citizen or private company has an obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights.  Significant changes to US law would need to happen.  Starting with allowing me to sue you if you do not let me use your company's assets to say things I want.  

"... can any of these companies refuse to allow the government to use their platform?  ...because they are privately owned and operated..."

Yes. Agree

Yet if one had a influencing platform.
And a government entity came to you and said;
'You will do this, or this will happen' (Threatening)
'You will do this, and this will happen' (Bribe)

Don't think anybody, that owns a 'influencing platform' has the balls to say no to any variation of the above.

Yet if one had a influencing platform.
And a government entity came to you and said;
'You will do this, or this will happen' (Threatening)
'You will do this, and this will happen' (Bribe)

Don't think anybody, that owns a 'influencing platform' has the balls to say no to any variation of the above.


 I think that would be a totally different set of crimes and legal questions than the 1st Amendment.  Trump was restricted from most of these platforms while in office so I'm not sure Government bribery and threats were part of it.  I have no way to tell.