Should companies be allowed to disassociate themselves from other companies like Parler?

Using monopoly power to coordinate and destroy a competitor violates our anti-trust law. Doing it in coordination with Democrat politicians violates the 1st Amendment.

Their actions are so blatant and so clearly violative that I'm confident that it will be dealt with. I suspect in one of the three following manners, or a combination:

1. Either expand or restrict section 230. Section 230 gives them immunity against charges of censorship and any accountability if they do censor. Depending on their needs they alternatively argue that they are a common carrier or a publisher. I think they will be forced to pick one or the other. Expanding section 230 protections along with the requirement that they truly act as a common carrier might be a better alternative to constricting it.
2. This will likely be combined with State Level laws that expose them to massive penalties for viewpoint censorship. Poland, for example is exposing them to $2.2M fines for unfair and unequal use of their power to restrict access. It is my understanding that North Dakota is considering similar legislation. The advantage of this is that we don't have to wait for Congress and these massive monopolies likely have enough bought off to prevent real and effective regulation.
3. AG conducting a RICO/AntiTrust action. I like this one the least. After watching how these folks operated so politically in the Hillary/Trump/Summer of Riots era, I no longer trust them as foundational pillars to ensure our rights are secured against encroachment. They more appear to be guardians of the swamp. I think #2, because it bypasses the Swamp, would be the best place to move forward at the moment.

 

I must be missing something. We have five pages of responses to a question about private companies and their right to do business with whichever company they choose. Why shouldn't they have that right? What am I missing?

 

You might be confusing disassociate with essentially shutting down.

 

In what ways is Google Play or the Apple Store a competitor of Parler? If anything I would think they took a profit loss from removing Parler from their store

 

Yeah, that's why an amendment to Section 230 is better.

 

like what? in what ways do you think the government should control free social media forums like politicalforum.com? or a local church site, or a far right site or a far left site?

Section 230 protect websites like ours from rich people suing them over what their poster post... to silence them - you think rich people like Trump would not abuse that? free sites would have to shut down as they could not afford the legal fees to stay open, or just delete everything any rich person\group\corp asked them to delete to avoid those legal costs

 

Removal of, or an amendment to Section 230, would not be government control.

That's why I said that an amendment to Section 230 is better.

 

like what though? what kinda amendment to Section 230 is better?

Removal of section 230, would be control by the rich via the courts....

 

Is this true? It doesn't seem so according to this part of Section 230:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

 

that would mean if you post a link to someone else's website, or a reply in quotes to someone else's post, you're not legally liable for what they said (even though their content was in your post when you hit submit)

 

A change to this:

The popular opinion in conservative/Republican circles is to remove "or otherwise objectionable."
The problem is that these leftist social media companies find just about ANY mainstream conservative opinion to be "objectionable!"

 

that is not true, but these corps do find hate speech not appropriate for their platforms though, conservatives just need to tone it down a notch....

they can do it, many conservatives here able to do just that, so can they

Trump brought this on himself via his own EO - careful what one wishes for

"Trump signs executive order targeting social media companies"

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics/trump-twitter-social-media-executive-order/index.html

""By exposing companies to potential liability for everything that billions of people around the world say, this would penalize companies that choose to allow controversial speech and encourage platforms to censor anything that might offend anyone," Facebook spokesman Andy Stone said in a statement."

 

Well, I really doubt that in the absence of Section 230, users could be liable for posting a link to someone else's website, or a replying in quotes to someone else's post. However, it certainly would seem to protect a twitter user from using otherwise libelous language in a tweet. This is what differs the US to insane authoritarian countries such as the UK and Canada, where someone can be arrested, not only for libelous speech on say Twitter, but for offensive speech!

 

actually they could, that is what section 230 is for, to protect you, me and those running the websites

how does the AU handle it with their websites?

 

Define "hate speech."

Why do you make it sound as if conservatives find it difficult to not engage in "hate speech?"

How did he bring his ban on himself with that EO?

 

I never said conservatives do not, in fact I said conservatives here are able to do it fine, so those banned need to try harder, I know they can do it too

most of us know hate speech when we see it

https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/

"abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation."

the EO wanted exactly this to happen, it happened, Trump did this

 

Well we don't see cases as ridiculous as that even in authoritarian countries like UK and Canada, so I doubt that it would happen in the US.

Not sure actually. It will never be a problem though - social media companies seem to be only interested in interfering in US politics.

 

have you seen the crazy lawsuits the rich bring.... Trump would most certainly do so if he could, even if he would lose in the end, he would still do it as he is rich and a free web site does not have the funds to fight him and everyone else that wanted to take them to court if they did not delete a post

and not just rich people like Trump, fanatical groups on the left and right, religious groups, ect.... look at Scientology

 

So hate speech is only a conservative problem?

Conservatives are suspended or banned all the time without being told what it is that they said.
Do you actually think that the only conservatives who have ever been suspended or banned, have been guilty of hate speech?

The EO "wanted exactly" for Trump to be banned?

 

Against social media companies?

 

never said hate speech is only a conservative problem, they just king of that hill right now

so are people on the left, both sides seem to learn their lesson here and come back and tone it down for the most part

never said that either, Trump wanted companies to be liable, which leads to exactly what happened to Trump when his speech was inciting violence

Biden will erase the Trump legacy and undo all his EO's soon enough

not many laws were passed by Trump, lots of EO's, and those can all be reversed with a pen

 

So you admit that the social media companies are useless at their jobs, by suspending or banning people without telling them what it is that they said, and/or suspending or banning people who haven't actually been guilty of hate speech?

And you're saying that if Trump did not pass the EO, that he wouldn't have been banned?

And if a Republican becomes President in 2024 or 2028, then they will likely erase the Biden legacy and undo all of his EO's soon enough. What's your point?

So then why the hell does DACA still exist?

 

Where did I say that, I never post to Twitter or Facebook, will have to take your word for it, that they don't tell you why you were banned

nope, his passing the EO is what set the tech giants into this mode, I do not think they would have banned him had he not sighed the EO

yes, just like Trump erased all the Obama EO's, that is normal for America.... laws are harder to reverse, EO's are easy

 

I thought that you were saying that it happens to people on the left too when you said, "so are people on the left, both sides seem to learn their lesson here and come back and tone it down for the most part." What did you mean by that?

Except the EO was utterly USELESS.

 

yes, people on both the left and right go to extremes at times, both sides get there hands slapped and usually learn to behave on a given board

the EO caused a stir, just what Trump wanted, only it backfired