[stokesjokes]

I don't know why we keep talking about French. I mean, he seems like a good guy and all, but he's not exactly an authority on any subject.

He’s an attorney specializing in first amendment cases lol

He’s an expert in this exact subject

From his Wikipedia bio:

“French has served as a senior counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice and the Alliance Defending Freedom, has lectured at Cornell Law School and spent much of his career working on religious-rights issues. He served as president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). “

Only knock against him is he’s a Lipscomb alum. Gross.

[stokesjokes]

My point(and his) is that a private company banning someone is exercising liberty, not limiting it.

And I think the monopoly conversation is moot. There’s plenty of alternatives. Just because they aren’t as popular doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

[LUminary]

I think that I heard something to the effect of Google (android) shutting down Parler and Apple threatening to do so.

It’s happening.
I get that a private company has the right to do it, but this mass censorship of a point of view by big tech ought to scare everybody. It’s wrong.

[stokesjokes]

I think that I heard something to the effect of Google (android) shutting down Parler and Apple threatening to do so.

What’s happening is Google and Apple are removing it from their stores. Parler would still exist online.

It’s like if I had a bookstore and I didn’t want to sell the Kama Sutra. I’m sure you’d still be able to find it somewhere else .

[stokesjokes]

The issue is that Parker doesn’t enforce any kind of standards. It’s all free game, which is admirable in a sense. In another sense, if I’m Apple and Google, I don’t know if I would carry a product that allows its users to incite violence without repercussions.

Of course, the question is, if Parler enforced some rules against inciting violence, would Apple and Google keep it or is this more about a “certain point of view.”

[paradox]

Orwell said something to the effect that Fascists do a good job of branding the opposition as Fascist.

[Jonathan Carone]

I think the social media thing has a few different angles:

1) Due to my dislike of Trump, I find it a bit hilarious his favorite outlet kicked him off. That’s just funny.

2) It’s severely hypocritical of these companies to kick Trump off but still allow the Chinese and other foreign accounts that are problematic in their own ways.

3) These companies have every right to do this. If we truly believe in free market capitalism, we have to believe the market will bear it out and punish them for making these decisions. If the baker should be able to deny service to the gay couple, these services should be able to deny service to Trump.

4) The timing is more than suspicious. The first time they did this was on the day it was confirmed democrats would have both chambers and the presidency. Democrats have been the most outspoken about breaking up and limiting the reach and power of Facebook. Was this a true moral stand or was it trying to appease who would lead the subcommittees of the next two years?

5) Facebook Inc is the worst and they are quite possibly as much to blame as Trump for the rise of extremist groups in America. "Facebook’s own research revealed that 64 percent of the time a person joins an extremist Facebook Group, they do so because the platform recommended it." (source)

[thepostman]

My biggest issue, aside from the hypocrisy, is the timing. There is so much anger right now as seen this past week, this will only help enrage those people. If they wanted to do it they could've waited. This just helps feed the beast.

They have the right to do it. So such is life.

[Jonathan Carone]

That timing is why I point out #4. These things have been happening the last six months. He’s been laying the groundwork for this week the entire election. Why do something now and not before? Self-preservation and lobbying the people in power is the best explanation I can come up with. It’s certainly not a moral compass.

[stokesjokes]

When you get as large as these companies, every decision you make is a business decision. There are no moral or ethical decision. It is “what do I do to make the most amount of money for the longest time.” Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Apple have decided that these choices will make them more money than not making them, it’s as simple as that.

[rtb72]

I think the social media thing has a few different angles:

1) Due to my dislike of Trump, I find it a bit hilarious his favorite outlet kicked him off. That’s just funny.

2) It’s severely hypocritical of these companies to kick Trump off but still allow the Chinese and other foreign accounts that are problematic in their own ways.

3) These companies have every right to do this. If we truly believe in free market capitalism, we have to believe the market will bear it out and punish them for making these decisions. If the baker should be able to deny service to the gay couple, these services should be able to deny service to Trump.

4) The timing is more than suspicious. The first time they did this was on the day it was confirmed democrats would have both chambers and the presidency. Democrats have been the most outspoken about breaking up and limiting the reach and power of Facebook. Was this a true moral stand or was it trying to appease who would lead the subcommittees of the next two years?

5) Facebook Inc is the worst and they are quite possibly as much to blame as Trump for the rise of extremist groups in America. "Facebook’s own research revealed that 64 percent of the time a person joins an extremist Facebook Group, they do so because the platform recommended it." (source)

I think this is a fair assessment....except maybe for #1 (lol) The folks on the right need to read #3. I did not know about #5.

[paradox]

When you get as large as these companies, every decision you make is a business decision. There are no moral or ethical decision. It is “what do I do to make the most amount of money for the longest time.” Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Apple have decided that these choices will make them more money than not making them, it’s as simple as that.

Did their social-justice customers really care that much? So much so that they would end their addictions to iPhones and social media? That can't be it. In fact, most people don't even know about Parler. This can't be a bottom-line money decision. People are simply not disposing of their devices or platforms, no matter what they do or don't do. These tech giants do what they want because they can.

[rtb72]

My biggest issue, aside from the hypocrisy, is the timing. There is so much anger right now as seen this past week, this will only help enrage those people. If they wanted to do it they could've waited. This just helps feed the beast.

They have the right to do it. So such is life.

I think the hate is so strong...they want to "finish him off" while he's down. However, like you and Jon...I think the time will raise eyebrows, and perhaps even be viewed as negative on the left by those citizens who are more middle of the road. I would guess it's simply theater since they will not get 2/3 majority in the Senate....and possibly the House.

[Purple Haize]

But those are different arguments. Platforms and publishers are free to decide who does and doesn't get a voice using their medium.

The monopoly piece is an interesting one but that is an area I am not as familiar with. I don't think either qualifies as one but Facebook is much closer to one than Twitter.

They all blend together. I’m not intimately familiar with all the arguments but there’s a difference between a Platform and Publisher. One has more legal protection than the other. Then you run into the monopoly piece. Where if the Government is going to legally protect you, especially from charges of monopoly, then you are obligated to allow a lot more free reign. Kicking off the President of the US because you think he’s dangerous but keeping on those literally committing Genocide is not part of that deal. It’s now an arbitrary standard and wrong.

[Jonathan Carone]

I’d argue right now the publisher is the platform and vise versa. We’ve allowed those companies to accumulate way too much power. No 5-6 companies should have this much influence.

[olldflame]

Right now, they enjoy legal protection based on the premise that they are "open platforms", when in fact they are exercising publisher-like editorial control. Add to that the monopoly aspects, and some things clearly need to change.

[Purple Haize]

Right now, they enjoy legal protection based on the premise that they are "open platforms", when in fact they are exercising publisher-like editorial control. Add to that the monopoly aspects, and some things clearly need to change.

Yeah. That’s what I meant.

[stokesjokes]

I think a publisher has more liability than a platform.

I don’t think the comparison to other leaders holds up under scrutiny here either. Twitter’s concern is what happens on their platform. If Kim Jong Un goes on Twitter to post selfies at the golf course, he’s not violating their terms.

[thepostman]

I don't completely disagree that there needs to be reform in the big tech world. There absolutely does but that is more about their business practices than this.

Section 230 protections needs to stay in place. Removing those protections would do way more harm than good.

[Jonathan Carone]

Section 230 is good and needs to stay. The tech companies, however, need to be broken up so they can’t take advantage of loopholes within that.

[stokesjokes]

How do you break up something like Facebook or Twitter without further silo-ing people into echo chambers?

[Jonathan Carone]

How do you break up something like Facebook or Twitter without further silo-ing people into echo chambers?

Facebook owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. They control the advertising across all three of those platforms. Those are three of the top five used social media platforms in the world. The amount of data they’re able to compile because of that is what allows them to push people into extremist groups and bring that content to the top of the algorithm. Splitting those into three separate companies is a start.

Twitter probably can’t be broken up because I don’t think they own anything else.

Amazon being in so many lanes is a problem. They need to break up the AWS side with the Amazon shopping. I don’t even know what else they have on their portfolio because there’s so much.

Google/Alphabet are in just as many places as Amazon between the search engine and Google Cloud Services. Between AWS and Google, they control probably 50-75% of the internet.

Again - I don’t have the exact solutions. That’s above my pay grade. I can just point out the problems and hold the people accountable who are in charge of the solutions.

[thepostman]

Yeah, to me it seems like that is the larger problem here. These companies are huge. Especially Facebook inc, Google and Amazon. But it is happening in the entertainment industry as well. Look at how much Disney owns. It is insane.

I certianly am not smart enough in this area to speak on it in depth but it is a huge problem.

As always, the focus seems to be on the low hanging fuit and not the actual root of the problem.

[paradox]

Ironically, the Trump administration enabled many of these behaviors because big tech is largely responsible for the most recent stock market boom. He wanted to play that to his political advantage.

Spotify is a good example. They are by far the most advanced and most innovative with what they do. All of this to the ire of Apple, Amazon, and Google. All three have been in collusion against them. Nothing happens. Nothing gets regulated. Spotify still thrives, nonetheless. But they are the exception. There are numerous cases of innovative little guys getting squeezed-out and pummeled by these three.

[Purple Haize]

How do you break up something like Facebook or Twitter without further silo-ing people into echo chambers?

How about just require the platforms to allow free speech? Police direct personal threats. Seems like a low cost hands off solution.