tbutkovich

Just like MA Bell was broken up when they became a huge monopoly, so should Big Tech social media. Time to break these into smaller more manageable entities: These companies are nothing more than networks and servers and the servers can very easily be sold off to other firms wishing to get into the social media biz.

If these CEO’s are going to decide what social media gets broadcast and what doesn’t they are no longer advocates of free speech but morph into public relations entities.

The CEO’s of these companies are public relations advocates supporting Joe Biden and the Democrats. They decide who gets a voice and who doesn’t. They have censored all the allegations of criminal actions of the Biden family from getting out amongst the public.

Funny how they jumped on news that could damage Donald Trump like the false information regarding Trumps tax returns, but quenched stories from the New York on the damning information on the the Biden family Chinese exposee!.

The social media that has sided with the Democrats censoring conservative speech which means they are advocates of favoring and supporting a one party system.

C*******m is a one party system, which implies they are advocating the support of the c*******t ideology!

They must be split up into multiple competing social media in a purposeful way as they did MA Bell years ago!

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

Backwards.

You are free to ignore and boycott those social media companies. You are free to start your own social media companies and news channels. CEOs and editors constantly make decisions on what to air or print, whether it is the print or social media.

What is happening is that your side is losing the political debate as consumers are siding with reality, not alternate facts. You want to k**l that messenger. I suggest you stop whining and build a message that interests American citizens.

It is, in fact, your side that wants to impose a one party system and Americans are about to tell you that ain't happening. That is why you want to break up the tech giants, not out of concern for monopolies. You tolerate monopolies in plenty of economic areas with nary a peep. By focusing on the tech giants only, most Americans understand your purpose: to control information, to legitimize your propaganda, to impose your alternate reality.

tbutkovich

Now I know why the call you “Working Class Stiffed!”

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

That sure was an intelligent reply. Typical though....after Trump all you righties have left is name calling.

tbutkovich

Yeah it is because if you v**e for Joe Biden consider yourself “stiffed!” If you don’t know what that means, “Google It!”

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

Sad....

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

If you believe that social media platforms should be regulated like Service utilities, then you'll agree that healthcare companies should as well.

tbutkovich

You’re way out of your comfort zone! You should not do posts on subject matter you know nothing about because, in doing so, you really do demonstrate your ignorance on the subject. Let me spell it out for you:

Problem: The Media Tech Giants are supposed to allow all voices to be heard of those using the public social media. Unfortunately, these companies have chosen through their corporate political bias to restrict some voices and support others. They have gone from a vehicle of free speech to a public relations entity where they suppress speech they disagree with but broadcast speech they support. This censorship of selected opposing views benefits those who are supported giving them their right to freedom of expression, but harms representing an opposing view by denying their right to freedom of expression. When a media company does that, they become a public relations arbiter, or more aptly put a voice controller. Allowing free speech of those who’s views the Media Tech Giants embrace and censorship of those voices they oppose is clearly a rights violation.

The first step is for the government to issue a “cease and desist” order on these Social Media Tech Giants. This has already been done on numerous occasions but the censorship actions of these media organizations continues.

As a result of this refusal to comply with an order allowing free uncensored speech, which is a right under the First Amendment, it becomes necessary to impose greater penalties on these companies. If they do not change their behavior, Congress should take action to break them up, forcing them to divest their assets creating smaller entities which offer the voices of all conservative and liberal voices without suppression.

When private companies which have a monopoly and choose to support the voices of a select political group, the government has the “obligation to defend the American People’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech!”

Ordering compliance with our laws would be the first step but if they continue their biased political suppression of certain types of speech, Congress should demand the divestiture of these companies into smaller entities.

Divestiture would increase the number of companies and more choices so all voices can be allowed to express their views without censorship. I would add that the headquarters of these new social media companies be set up in a more conservative state other than California

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

"Problem: The Media Tech Giants are supposed to allow all voices to be heard of those using the public social media."

That falsehood is the root of your problem alright. Show me the rule, regulation, mandate, etc. that stipulates social media must post everything anyone wants to write. They are under no obligation to express your opinion.

You, on the other hand, are free to start your own platform for stating your opinion and that of those who support you.

That you look for government regulation might give a hint that you are looking for the wrong solution to your problem. You're not a closeted l*****t, are you?

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Incorrect, period...
It is time to divest the monopolies..primarily because key concern among many is that social media companies, because they are operating on a global scale, will censor material based on the requirements of those countries that censor the most, countries that certainly don’t protect freedom of speech like the United States. “As companies alter speech rules and speech operations in a wholesale way (rather than retail via country), then the strictest regime prevails.” This is a considerable threat to free expression.”

They can put out wh**ever they want to a certain degree but when they use censorship as a tool to intentionally mislead the public or suppress them at hand, that is called fraud, manipulation, not protected under free speech.. Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include fraud... These large conglomerates are committing fraud against the people by manipulating what they see and don’t see.

Likewise, the first amendment is limited to the government and its suppression of our freedom of speech. Not what the private sector market does... the question becomes whether the First Amendment could be applied to limit the censorial actions of private companies.??

The 14th Amendment limits “state action” and not “individual invasion of individual rights.” In other words, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights limit the actions of governmental actors, not private actors....

The way to correct this is to bring lawsuits directly against these monopolies committing fraud and suppression..

tbutkovich

There are definitive restrictions on posting porn and other vile material on social media. That’s not what is at issue here. What is at issue is media fairness on the rights of those with opposing points of view being heard. Social media has been given wide latitude allowing a large variety of posts by its subscribers, but the complaint has to do with media bias.

When the media posts the liberal NY Times story on Trump’s taxes to shed a bad light on the president, but withhold stories shedding bad light on Joe Biden’s son and the many H****r B***n scandals that’s not media fairness.

When you shutdown the Twitter account of White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany’s story which shed light on “ How H****r B***n got paid $50K/mo to get Joe to use political influence in Burisma.”

When Twitter and Facebook cross the line and decide to become public relations agents for the Democrat Party and selectively suppress bad press on the Democrats to coverup the behavior of Joe Biden but publish f**e news or lies or truncated reports on Donald Trump to paint a bad picture of Donald Trump, it’s time for the government to act.

It’s the poster’s First Amendment Right to be heard! Get with the program “Zweibelkoff!”

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

The only onion head on here is you....trying to dictate to someone else what they should have to print or publish. Twitter is under no obligation to spread White House propaganda.
It is a 1st amendment right to speak....no has to listen. Not listening is not censorship.

tbutkovich

Wrong again, Onion Head!

You can’t apply corporate “bias” to posts by subscribers. What if OPP dissed you on this forum for your liberal posts? You would be screaming at the top of your lungs!

When it works for your side, you’re silent or you defend it, even if it violates the rights of the opposition. If you let that happen over a period of time and the rights off all are rescinded then and only then will you object. This is a rights issue, nothing more, nothing less.

You should be thankful we are looking after your rights and ours!

But you are an “onion head” so you just don’t get it! So Sad!

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

Wrong again. If OPP administration dissed me, I'd go where I was wanted. Why would I scream? It's their site. I have no right to dictate admin's policies.

There may be reasons to break up some of the big tech firms, but the 1st Amendment isn't one of them. I also don't need you to defend my rights as I'm quite capable of defending them myself, especially the imaginary right that I have right to dictate to OPP admin how they run their site.

Just like you have no right to tell FB, Twitter, Tic Tok, and all the other sites I ignore how to run their site.
Here are some sites that are alternatives:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/alternative-social-media-sites-parler-gab

They flog all the latest conspiracy theories, all without 'censorship' (or fact checkers). You should feel right at home on some of them.
And then there's this:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/26/censorship-conservatives-social-media-432643
which debunks your claim of censorship on the most popular platforms.

tbutkovich

I don’t need to tell big Tech Socisl Media how to run their sites, the government will do it for me. They already subpoenaed the CEO’s to come to Washington for questioning. You seem to think it’s not a problem because you don’t see it as a problem. That’s pretty narrow minded thinking. You think the world revolves you. Not so!