The day the First Amendment Died

[Newman]

Friday, January 8, 2021. I've never imagined anything like it, certainly not in America.

There were hints and precedents, of course, and of course the worst is yet to come. But Friday was the Full Monty, the naked power of high tech to stifle opposition speech. A sampling of headlines:

Twitter permanently bans President Trump

It Begins: Trump Protesters Are Getting Fired From Their Jobs For Attending Jan 6th Protest

General Michael Flynn, Sidney Powell Banned on Twitter. So were we.

Google Removes Parler From App Store Amid Reports That Trump is Joining the Platform

Google Play App Store Purges Parler Minutes After President Trump Banned From Twitter...

Big Tech Launches Massive Coordinated Cyber Attack on 74,000,000 Trump Voters — GOP SILENT

On Friday, Twitter permanently banned hundreds, if not thousands, of Trump supporters and prominent allies — before banning the president himself. Nearly every account that helped to promote the Stop the Steal rallies or challenge the election results were banned, including Ali Alexander, Michael Coudrey, Gen. Mike Flynn, Sidney Powell, and Lin Wood. Countless smaller accounts that supported the president were also getting suspended in a seemingly constant rate.

The same has been happening over on Facebook and Instagram.

[Gingersnap]

Parler is wonky because of the thousands signing up. Rush deactivated his own Twitter account before they could get him.

I don't really use social media but I'd dump them if I did.

[gary m]

I ignored Twitter for years and logged in for the first time back around September, mainly to easily grab stupid shit from there and post it here.

They are private companies and can allow and ban whomever they choose. However if they are going to act like publishers and control content, the should not be receiving Sec. 230 protections.

Lived over 60 years without Twitter, FB, and the like and could easily go the rest of my life without them.

It is kinda fun to watch the meltdown of both sides.

[Newman]

I ignored Twitter for years and logged in for the first time back around September, mainly to easily grab stupid shit from there and post it here.

They are private companies and can allow and ban whomever they choose. However if they are going to act like publishers and control content, the should not be receiving Sec. 230 protections.

Lived over 60 years without Twitter, FB, and the like and could easily go the rest of my life without them.

It is kinda fun to watch the meltdown of both sides.

We've faced this before. When a new industry develops, it commonly first presents as a monopoly or near about. Classic example is oil and Standard Oil.

So "Big Tech" is a new industry, and we have to come to grip with its power over free expression, "private" or not.

I wouldn't worry except that the industry has the Democratic Party in its hip pocket.

[gary m]

We've faced this before. When a new industry develops, it commonly first presents as a monopoly or near about. Classic example is oil and Standard Oil.

So "Big Tech" is a new industry, and we have to come to grip with its power over free expression, "private" or not.

I wouldn't worry except that the industry has the Democratic Party in its hip pocket.

Problem is that obviously, Big Tech also has Big Bucks and like any other conglomerate will either buy out competitors or buy off politicians to make sure their status remains unchallenged.

Yes, there are currently alternatives like Parler, Rumble, and Gab that have a more conservative bent but there are already calls from congresscritters as well as Democrat(ic) sycophants to have their apps pulled from Google and Apple for aiding and abetting treason, sedition and insurrection based on last Friday.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

I ignored Twitter for years and logged in for the first time back around September, mainly to easily grab stupid shit from there and post it here.

They are private companies and can allow and ban whomever they choose. However if they are going to act like publishers and control content, the should not be receiving Sec. 230 protections.

Lived over 60 years without Twitter, FB, and the like and could easily go the rest of my life without them.

It is kinda fun to watch the meltdown of both sides.

Amen! All of this, except that I never have bothered to sign up in the first place, since I can count on you folks to bring me all the outrageous and/or offensive content I can handle.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

We've faced this before. When a new industry develops, it commonly first presents as a monopoly or near about. Classic example is oil and Standard Oil.

So "Big Tech" is a new industry, and we have to come to grip with its power over free expression, "private" or not.

I wouldn't worry except that the industry has the Democratic Party in its hip pocket.

Or the other way around.

Sadly, they are not covered by the 1st Amendment, but should not be exempt from liability for content if they're going to control it. Make them liable for defamation, conspiracy, etc., and see what tune they sing.

[Gingersnap]

I don't really care what people say but these platforms need to decide: are they publishers or what? If they are publishers, then they need to abide by those rules.

[Gramps]

Or the other way around.

Sadly, they are not covered by the 1st Amendment, but should not be exempt from liability for content if they're going to control it. Make them liable for defamation, conspiracy, etc., and see what tune they sing.

That won't happen under the new administration. Too much money flowed from big tech to the Biden campaign and the Dem machine.

They are bought and paid for.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

That won't happen under the new administration. Too much money flowed from big tech to the Biden campaign and the Dem machine.

They are bought and paid for.

Well, in fact, I don't want them liable. I want them to stop deciding what we see (if we choose to frequent such platforms). This should be the technological equivalent of traditional public forum, the town square, as it were, and subject only

In fact, there is some to the traditional limitations thereon. But if these companies decide to regulate what they publish, they become the equivalent of newspapers, and should then be responsible for their content to the extent such publications have been so under standard Constitutional analysis.

Yellow journalism is one thing, and inevitable in a free press. Monopoly is a different animal.

There actually is some precedent for requiring private spaces to allow free speech, on the grounds that such spaces (specifically, shopping centers, IIRC) are the modern equivalent of the "town square."

ETA: Ah yes. Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980). Damn, law school was a long time ago! Had to look that one up.