Social Media Anti-Censorship Act (SMACA): Would you support it?

[FDB]

deleted

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

No. They can censor anyone they want, it's their business.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

LOL no. This is also unconstitutional.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

[Hammy]

What happened to the conservative notion that free market rules and business should have the right to decide who has access to their services?

[Beet]

What happened to the conservative notion that free market rules and business should have the right to decide who has access to their services?

That is usually true, but that doesn't mean businesses are exempt from regulation. If a platform is a de facto monopoly, then it should fall under regulation. For instance, television and radio bands are limited, so the government licenses who gets them, and gets to regulate or fine their content (via the FCC). No conservative objects to that.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The FCC gets to regulate them because they use PUBLIC airwaves. Cable and satellite TV and radio are not regulated by the FCC.

[Beet]

The FCC gets to regulate them because they use PUBLIC airwaves. Cable and satellite TV and radio are not regulated by the FCC.

That's because cable companies are improperly not recognized as monopolies.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The cable companies aren't what would be regulated, it'd be the channels.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The FCC gets to regulate them because they use PUBLIC airwaves. Cable and satellite TV and radio are not regulated by the FCC.

That's because cable companies are improperly not recognized as monopolies.

You keep using that word, but I don't think you know what it means.

HINT: It's not a big company doing something you don't like.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

What happened to the conservative notion that free market rules and business should have the right to decide who has access to their services?

The only true notions American "conservatives" possess are bigotry and greed. All the rest are just props and stage dressing for the gullible.

[Beet]

The FCC gets to regulate them because they use PUBLIC airwaves. Cable and satellite TV and radio are not regulated by the FCC.

That's because cable companies are improperly not recognized as monopolies.

You keep using that word, but I don't think you know what it means.

HINT: It's not a big company doing something you don't like.

Even many Dems agree that cable companies are monopolies, Ernest. Heck, if Bernie Sanders had come out against the AT&T Time Warner merger, liberals would be applauding the move. But since it's Trump, silence.

[Joe Biden 2024]

The FCC gets to regulate them because they use PUBLIC airwaves. Cable and satellite TV and radio are not regulated by the FCC.

That's because cable companies are improperly not recognized as monopolies.

You keep using that word, but I don't think you know what it means.

HINT: It's not a big company doing something you don't like.

Even many Dems agree that cable companies are monopolies, Ernest. Heck, if Bernie Sanders had come out against the AT&T Time Warner merger, liberals would be applauding the move. But since it's Trump, silence.

He did come out against it.

[Sestak]

The FCC gets to regulate them because they use PUBLIC airwaves. Cable and satellite TV and radio are not regulated by the FCC.

That's because cable companies are improperly not recognized as monopolies.

You keep using that word, but I don't think you know what it means.

HINT: It's not a big company doing something you don't like.

Even many Dems agree that cable companies are monopolies, Ernest. Heck, if Bernie Sanders had come out against the AT&T Time Warner merger, liberals would be applauding the move. But since it's Trump, silence.

Yeah but...
social media companies such as twitter are not monopolies.

[136or142]

What happened to the conservative notion that free market rules and business should have the right to decide who has access to their services?

That is usually true, but that doesn't mean businesses are exempt from regulation. If a platform is a de facto monopoly, then it should fall under regulation. For instance, television and radio bands are limited, so the government licenses who gets them, and gets to regulate or fine their content (via the FCC). No conservative objects to that.

Oh great.  Then there should be no problem significantly altering the content on Fox 'News,' Sinclair Broadcasting, I Heart Radio (Formerly Clear Channel.) 

[Antonio the Sixth]

Both sides of this "debate" have lost sight of the big picture for short-term partisan consideration. It's definitely hilarious to see Republicans champion unfettered free speech imposed on private entities, but it's downright sickening to see Democrats essentially argue that tech behemoths like Facebook have the absolute right to police everything that's said on their site. The obvious answer is that we need public regulations that protect free speech while cracking down on its blatant abuses.

[Hindsight was 2020]

So businesses should be forced to give Alex Jones a platform but it’s totally ok to discriminate against gay couples cause freedom?

[136or142]

Both sides of this "debate" have lost sight of the big picture for short-term partisan consideration. It's definitely hilarious to see Republicans champion unfettered free speech imposed on private entities, but it's downright sickening to see Democrats essentially argue that tech behemoths like Facebook have the absolute right to police everything that's said on their site. The obvious answer is that we need public regulations that protect free speech while cracking down on its blatant abuses.

How would that work without getting into unconstitutional government censorship?

[7,052,770]

Clearly we should repeal all civil rights acts and replace them with ones that protect the real victims in America, conservatives and Christians.

[IceSpear]

Why do communist totalitarian Republicans hate the free market?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Both sides of this "debate" have lost sight of the big picture for short-term partisan consideration. It's definitely hilarious to see Republicans champion unfettered free speech imposed on private entities, but it's downright sickening to see Democrats essentially argue that tech behemoths like Facebook have the absolute right to police everything that's said on their site. The obvious answer is that we need public regulations that protect free speech while cracking down on its blatant abuses.

FTR, the bill doesn’t allow “unfettered” free speech, and I wouldn’t support that, either. It’s main purpose is to stop them from rigging the system to their advantage.

Yes. We get it. Republicans think it's unfair that their ignorance isn't considered as good as everyone else's knowledge. They are wrong.

[KingSweden]

Both sides of this "debate" have lost sight of the big picture for short-term partisan consideration. It's definitely hilarious to see Republicans champion unfettered free speech imposed on private entities, but it's downright sickening to see Democrats essentially argue that tech behemoths like Facebook have the absolute right to police everything that's said on their site. The obvious answer is that we need public regulations that protect free speech while cracking down on its blatant abuses.

FTR, the bill doesn’t allow “unfettered” free speech, and I wouldn’t support that, either. It’s main purpose is to stop them from rigging the system to their advantage.

And where and how is that line drawn? If (for example) Facebook chooses not to host, say, a conspiracy theorist with followers who harass the parents of murdered children, that’s their prerogative. They no more owe such a person a platform than Twitter owes tankies a place to broadcast their intention to purge the kulaks. How is that “rigging for advantage?”

[136or142]

Both sides of this "debate" have lost sight of the big picture for short-term partisan consideration. It's definitely hilarious to see Republicans champion unfettered free speech imposed on private entities, but it's downright sickening to see Democrats essentially argue that tech behemoths like Facebook have the absolute right to police everything that's said on their site. The obvious answer is that we need public regulations that protect free speech while cracking down on its blatant abuses.

FTR, the bill doesn’t allow “unfettered” free speech, and I wouldn’t support that, either. It’s main purpose is to stop them from rigging the system to their advantage.

Yes. We get it. Republicans think it's unfair that their ignorance isn't considered as good as everyone else's knowledge. They are wrong.

Asimov.

[America Needs R'hllor]

So businesses should be forced to give Alex Jones a platform but it’s totally ok to discriminate against gay couples cause freedom?

Yep. Freedom only for conservative Christians is basically the Religious Right's platform

Both sides of this "debate" have lost sight of the big picture for short-term partisan consideration. It's definitely hilarious to see Republicans champion unfettered free speech imposed on private entities, but it's downright sickening to see Democrats essentially argue that tech behemoths like Facebook have the absolute right to police everything that's said on their site. The obvious answer is that we need public regulations that protect free speech while cracking down on its blatant abuses.

FTR, the bill doesn’t allow “unfettered” free speech, and I wouldn’t support that, either. It’s main purpose is to stop them from rigging the system to their advantage.

What "system" ? ? ? Christ, it's like Trumpists only know how to repeat canned phrases like "fake news" and "rigged". The system is a free market where private media companies get to decide the rules of their own websites. Want to give Alex Jones a platform? Create a new social media company where you can talk about how the Jews are making all the frogs gay in peace. I, for one, applaud the normal media companies for not tolerating antisemitism and homophobia.

[Torie]

Well, well, shocking as it may seem, here I find that BRTD made the most salient points, and I agree with him, and he wins the thread, and the answer is no, hell no. Well done BRTD.