Donate!
Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register :: View Members
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8
Send Topic Print
Future of social media (Read 557 times)
Eegore
Serious Thumper
*****
Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 8376

Re: Future of social media
Reply #45 - 12/03/22 at 16:33:14
 
Maybe that is the next step. Government using corporate to further their agenda is government taking away our rights, using a third party.

 That actually would be illegal.  The Government can't take away your rights by using a third party, but in this case that third party is a Private Company.  A private company doesn't have to protect your rights on their property.

 You can not just say you have rights where you don't.  Like on somebody's private property for instance.  You don't have rights there.
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
WebsterMark
Serious Thumper
*****
Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 13165

Gender: male
Re: Future of social media
Reply #46 - 12/04/22 at 04:49:10
 
Elon Musk agrees with you Eegore. His point is Twitter, acting by itself to suppress free speech, is not a 1st amendment violation, but acting under orders from the government, is.

I disagree with the first part of that and everyone should agree with the 2nd, even a TDS infected deranged Sew.

But Twitter presented itself as a free speech platform, with exceptions for dangerous speech, but there was no understanding this included reposting or commenting on articles published in major publications ONLY BECAUSE THEY WERE CONTRARY TO THE POLITICAL IDEOLOGY of the company. That’s where they are liable. There’s a very good possibility they changed the outcome of an Presidential election.
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
Eegore
Serious Thumper
*****
Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 8376

Re: Future of social media
Reply #47 - 12/04/22 at 07:30:50
 
 So the thing here is proving that Twitter didn't request guidance from the Government and was instead "ordered" under penalty, to do what they did.

 Since Twitter went to the Government and literally asked for guidance, it is going to be an uphill battle for Musk or whoever to criminally pursue the Government for an attack on anyone's rights.  

 My issue is people keep trying to throw their "rights" into a situation where they have none. For instance:

"Government using corporate to further their agenda is government taking away our rights, using a third party."

 You don't have rights on the third party property.  It's illegal for the Government to take away your rights - where you have rights.  For instance if Twitter was being used to keep you from speaking at a public forum, or somebody else property.  As for Twitter's property, to bad, it's not yours, you have no right to use it - move on.
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
justin_o_guy2
Serious Thumper
*****
Offline

What happened?

Posts: 55279
East Texas, 1/2 dallas/la.
Re: Future of social media
Reply #48 - 12/04/22 at 08:15:40
 
You don't understand how I mean that. And I am finished trying.
Back to top
 
 

The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.- Edmund Burke.
  IP Logged
Eegore
Serious Thumper
*****
Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 8376

Re: Future of social media
Reply #49 - 12/04/22 at 10:21:14
 
 The issue would be of more concern if the Government was doing this across the board or at least in a larger capacity, so far we only have evidence that the Government tosses directive to companies that ask for it.

 They ask for it.

 We don't see Conservative voices being limited or revoked over on Truth or Parler.  Trump just remarked about suspending the Constitution over there with no problems.  If the Government was over on these platforms trying the same antics then there would be immediate concern, but so far that's not the case.

 This needs to be monitored for sure, but we also don't need to drag the 1st Amendment into arguments where it doesn't apply.  These people suing Twitter because it is a Government Actor are barking up the wrong tree.
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
Serowbot
YaBB Moderator
ModSquad
*****
Offline

OK.... so what's the
speed of dark?

Posts: 28695
Tucson Az
Gender: male
Re: Future of social media
Reply #50 - 12/04/22 at 11:57:15
 
Can you go on Truth Social or Parlor and say Trump is a tax cheating, racist, rapist, insurrectionist, liar, with micro mushroom thingy?

(EDIT)... Thingy?...apparently you can't here either..  Grin
Back to top
 
 

Ludicrous Speed !... ... Huh...
  IP Logged
pg
Serious Thumper
*****
Offline



Posts: 5273
In Transit
Re: Future of social media
Reply #51 - 12/04/22 at 15:39:10
 
Eegore wrote on 12/03/22 at 15:47:44:
"When a partnership is formed, and collaboration & cooperation exists.  An argument can be made they are participating in the capacity of a state actor."


Not according to multiple court rulings, thus my interpretation that law would need to change since the argument has been made, and has always lost.

 Case No. 4:21-cv-00548-YGR Rutenburg v. Twitter, Inc. rules against social media companies being "State Actors"

 The Supreme Court decision in Packingham v. North Carolina creates precedent, but not in the direction you want.

 Loomers list of losing cases includes calling Twitter a "State Actor" and lost, twice.

 Multiple cases exist all, so far, with the same outcome:  Social Media companies aren't State Actors.



I briefly looked at the first two cases.  Rutenburg couldn't prove that Twitter passed the threshold that infringed on their rights.  The Packingham case involves the same stakeholders but isn't really a fair comparison.

I don't dispute the position you are making to a point.  I believe there is a threshold where they are in fact acting as a state actor.  This is extremely difficult to prove and or get a favorable ruling based on the jurisdiction of the court.

Best regards,
Back to top
 
 

I don't make the rules, I just know what they are.....




  IP Logged
pg
Serious Thumper
*****
Offline



Posts: 5273
In Transit
Re: Future of social media
Reply #52 - 12/04/22 at 15:44:44
 
Eegore wrote on 12/03/22 at 16:33:14:
 You can not just say you have rights where you don't.  Like on somebody's private property for instance.  You don't have rights there.



That is a very slippery slope.  If someone asks you to participate in unlawful conduct on their property or using their property, the behavior is still unlawful.

Best regards,
Back to top
 
 

I don't make the rules, I just know what they are.....




  IP Logged
Eegore
Serious Thumper
*****
Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 8376

Re: Future of social media
Reply #53 - 12/04/22 at 16:23:17
 
That is a very slippery slope.  If someone asks you to participate in unlawful conduct on their property or using their property, the behavior is still unlawful.


 I agree but that is different than saying you have the Right to free speech on somebody else's property.  

  Twitter asked the Government to participate and is exclusively using it's own property where no 1st Amendment protections exist.  If the Government asked Twitter to let child p orn on Twitter then Twitter is breaking laws for sure.  

 False advertising would be a closer application of Twitter claiming Free Expression than saying they are violating 1st Amendment rights.  Saying the Government is infringing on our rights by banning speech exclusively on Twitter is useless, because you have no rights on that property.  If somehow the Government used Twitter to ban your speech somewhere else like on a public forum or mediums where you actually have 1st Amendment rights - then they broke the law.
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
pg
Serious Thumper
*****
Offline



Posts: 5273
In Transit
Re: Future of social media
Reply #54 - 12/04/22 at 16:35:42
 
I don't dispute the position you are making to a point.  I believe there is a threshold where they are in fact acting as a state actor.


This is beyond that threshold................

An FBI agent testified to Republican attorneys general this week that the FBI held weekly meetings with Big Tech companies in Silicon Valley ahead of the 2020 presidential election to discuss "disinformation" on social media and ask about efforts to censor that information.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-weekly-big-tech-ahead-2020-election-agen...

Best regards,
Back to top
 
 

I don't make the rules, I just know what they are.....




  IP Logged
WebsterMark
Serious Thumper
*****
Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 13165

Gender: male
Re: Future of social media
Reply #55 - 12/05/22 at 03:45:30
 
pg wrote on 12/04/22 at 16:35:42:
I don't dispute the position you are making to a point.  I believe there is a threshold where they are in fact acting as a state actor.


This is beyond that threshold................

An FBI agent testified to Republican attorneys general this week that the FBI held weekly meetings with Big Tech companies in Silicon Valley ahead of the 2020 presidential election to discuss "disinformation" on social media and ask about efforts to censor that information.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-weekly-big-tech-ahead-2020-election-agen...

Best regards,


The key to that Pg is why they asked. Did they ask in the course of fulfilling the scope of their duties as domestic law enforcement or to influence a presidential election towards one particular outcome?
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
WebsterMark
Serious Thumper
*****
Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 13165

Gender: male
Re: Future of social media
Reply #56 - 12/05/22 at 05:04:29
 
Wall Street Journal this mo


Elon Musk’s release of internal emails relating to Twitter’s 2020 censorship is news by any definition, even if the mainstream media dismiss it. There will be many threads to unspool as more is released, but a couple of points are already worth making.

The first is that Mr. Musk would do the country a favor by releasing the documents all at once for everyone to inspect. So far he’s dribbled them out piecemeal through journalist Matt Taibbi’s Twitter feed, which makes it easier for the media to claim they can’t report on documents because they can’t independently confirm them.

A second point is an huzzah for Rep. Ro Khanna, the California progressive Democrat, who warned Twitter in 2020 about the free-speech implications and political backlash of censoring the New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop. That was good advice, even if Twitter didn’t take it.

A third point is the confirmation of the central role that former spies played in October 2020 in framing the Hunter Biden story in a way that made it easier for Twitter and Facebook to justify their censorship.

Recall that former Democratic intelligence officials James Clapper and John Brennan led the spooks in issuing a public statement suggesting that the laptop may have been hacked and its content was Russian disinformation. On Oct. 16, 2020, Mr. Clapper told CNN that “to me, this is just classic textbook Soviet Russian tradecraft at work.” On Oct. 19, 51 former spooks released their statement claiming that the arrival of the emails “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” (The statement and signers are published nearby.)

We now know that the Clapper-Brennan claims were themselves disinformation and that the laptop was genuine and not part of a Russian operation. CBS News recently waddled in two years later with a forensic analysis of its own and concluded it is real.

But the claims by the spies gave an excuse for the media to ignore the Hunter Biden story and even to dismiss Hunter’s former business partner, Tony Bobulinski, who went on the record before the election to confirm much of the content on the laptop with documentation in the form of voluminous text messages.

We examined those messages ourselves at the time, and our Kimberley Strassel spoke with Mr. Bobulinski and put it all on the record before the election. We also wrote an editorial. But nearly all of the rest of the press ignored or trashed the story.

The Twitter documents published by Mr. Taibbi include part of what appears to be a memo from James Baker, the Twitter deputy general counsel. “I support the conclusion that we need more facts to assess whether the materials were hacked. At this stage, however, it is reasonable for us to assume that they may have been and that caution is warranted,” Mr. Baker wrote.

He continued that “there are some facts that indicate that the materials may have been hacked, while there are others indicating that the computer was either abandoned and/or the owner consented to allow the repair shop to access it for at least some purposes. We simply need more information.”

With an election so close, any delay helped the Biden campaign, which was trying to squelch the Hunter Biden story that raised questions about what Joe Biden knew about Hunter’s foreign business dealings. Twitter went ahead and suppressed the story across its platform, going so far as to suspend the New York Post’s Twitter account.

Readers may recall that Mr. Baker was director Jim Comey’s general counsel at the Federal Bureau of Investigation during the Russia collusion fiasco in 2016. He was the main FBI contact for Michael Sussmann, the Clinton campaign lawyer who spread falsehoods about the Trump campaign regarding Alfa Bank, among other things.

Mr. Baker’s ties to the former intelligence officials who signed the “Russian information operation” statement may have influenced his Twitter memo and the censorship decision. All of this is likely to be fodder for House Republican hearings into the FBI’s role in the Hunter Biden story.

The partisan foray by current and former U.S. intelligence officials in the last two elections should be deeply troubling to Americans on the left and right. They have authority by dint of access to information that isn’t confirmable by the press, which takes their spin as gospel. This is a form of political corruption that needs to be exposed, and perhaps the Twitter documents will help to unlock the story
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
Eegore
Serious Thumper
*****
Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 8376

Re: Future of social media
Reply #57 - 12/05/22 at 06:00:43
 
"The key to that Pg is why they asked. Did they ask in the course of fulfilling the scope of their duties as domestic law enforcement or to influence a presidential election towards one particular outcome?"

 This I agree with.  So do you prosecute Twitter for violating your 1st Amendment rights because of the FBI's intent, or the FBI?  If Twitter was impeding your access to public forums by means of FBI guidance I'd see an avenue towards saying Twitter intentionally impacted your rights.

 Maybe if there were correspondence where Twitter approached the FBI with intent to stop you from using other means of communication.  Or maybe if Twitter was aware of the FBI's intent and agreed.  There has to be a nexus of known intent to make them a State Actor.

 When it comes to changing election results, a private company has no obligation to be neutral, or honest.  Twitter is not violating your rights if they try to get Biden to win by controlling how you use their private property - unless they impact your ability to use a public forum.
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
WebsterMark
Serious Thumper
*****
Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 13165

Gender: male
Re: Future of social media
Reply #58 - 12/05/22 at 09:55:52
 
When it comes to changing election results, a private company has no obligation to be neutral, or honest.

I don’t think that’s true. Libel laws.
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
WebsterMark
Serious Thumper
*****
Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 13165

Gender: male
Re: Future of social media
Reply #59 - 12/05/22 at 10:00:11
 
And 50 years ago, the Supreme Court created a right known as the right to privacy. That’s how they allowed women to kill their babies.

So can we create a “right to fairness” on public free-speech platforms?
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8
Send Topic Print


« Home

 
« Home
SuzukiSavage.com
10/06/24 at 23:34:15



General CategoryPolitics, Religion (Tall Table) › Future of social media


SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2!
YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved.