Social Media and the Trump Ban

[deadheadskier]

Short of a self described conservative nominee, there isn't a chance Mitch would have listened to an Obama selection and you know it Moose.

[easyrider16]

Which part of "Advise and consent" are you missing?

How about the part that says the President must seek the advise and consent of the SENATE, not just the Senate majority leader? It should have been brought up for a vote. The failure to do so seems to me like a violation of the Constitution and the framer's intent.

So technically the Senate majority leader under the rules gets to decide what to bring to the Senate floor for a vote. Does that mean a senate majority leader can simply refuse to hold a vote on Supreme Court nominees for the entire four years of a President's term? How would that be different from what Mitch did with Garland?

[throbster]

Remember when Big Tech shut down Parler? Who the hell made them the arbiter of truth? Unelected oligarchs deciding what we can and cannot view? This should disgust all of you.

[deadheadskier]

Remember when Big Tech shut down Parler? Who the hell made them the arbiter of truth? Unelected oligarchs deciding what we can and cannot view? This should disgust all of you.

There are many web hosting services the world over that Parler could partner with. Why don't they?

Should Isis be allowed a comfy spot on Amazon web hosting services to plan their violent activities?

[easyrider16]

Remember when Big Tech shut down Parler? Who the hell made them the arbiter of truth? Unelected oligarchs deciding what we can and cannot view? This should disgust all of you.

Parler was back up in a month. Why should Parler be able to force companies to work with it? A private company deciding not to do business with another private company doesn't bother me one bit. I'll tell you what disgusts me. When a President of the United States lies about election fraud, over and over, until people riot and storm Capitol Hill based on the lie.

[Fancypants]

Parler was back up in a month. Why should Parler be able to force companies to work with it? A private company deciding not to do business with another private company doesn't bother me one bit.

So I guess then you were supportive of the baker in Colorado who was sued because he refused to work with another private entity?

[easyrider16]

Nah I'm not into bigotry.

You into supporting a president who lies to you about election fraud?

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[throbster]

Nah I'm not into bigotry.

You into supporting a president who lies to you about election fraud?

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

Typical spineless lefty with selective outrage. Pathetic.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Nah I'm not into bigotry.

You into supporting a president who lies to you about election fraud?

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

Should the baker be compelled by the state to make any/all themed cakes a customer might request? If not, who is accountable for deciding what the baker does / doesn't make ... if not the private business? I think the baker has the freedom to refuse themed cakes as they see fit. Just like Facebook / KZone has the freedom to refuse access to members as they see fit.

[easyrider16]

Pretty easy answer, here. In Massachusetts there's a law that says a company can't discriminate against someone on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Apart from what's proscribed in the law, sure, a private company can refuse to make a Nazi cake or a Jihaad cake or whatever. They can even refuse to make a Republican or a Democrat cake. But refuse to provide someone service because of their sexual orientation? No-go, that's against the law, and something we should all see as immoral. Obviously this isn't the law in all 50 states, but frankly, it should be.

If Kzone started banning people based on sexual orientation, I think we could all agree that's a problem. I'm not sure it's illegal, because the law distinguishes between private clubs and places where the general public is invited (like shopping malls or restaurants or bakeries). But if you have a private club with private membership, arguably what Kzone is, then you are actually legally allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Pretty easy answer, here. In Massachusetts there's a law that says a company can't discriminate against someone on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Apart from what's proscribed in the law, sure, a private company can refuse to make a Nazi cake or a Jihaad cake or whatever. They can even refuse to make a Republican or a Democrat cake. But refuse to provide someone service because of their sexual orientation? No-go, that's against the law, and something we should all see as immoral. Obviously this isn't the law in all 50 states, but frankly, it should be.

If Kzone started banning people based on sexual orientation, I think we could all agree that's a problem. I'm not sure it's illegal, because the law distinguishes between private clubs and places where the general public is invited (like shopping malls or restaurants or bakeries). But if you have a private club with private membership, arguably what Kzone is, then you are actually legally allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

I'm not intimately familiar with the Denver baker, but my understanding is he didn't refuse to provide them service ... he refused to deliver the theme they requested. I assume, had they asked for an elephant cake ... the baker would have delivered.

[easyrider16]

That's a tough one. Probably depends on the circumstances. I'm not familiar enough with them to opine.

A further thought - there's a difference between a company doing the right/wrong thing and a company doing something illegal. If facebook started banning all Republicans, I don't think it would be illegal. I do think it would be wrong, and I think the free market would see that and punish facebook for it. But right now, I don't think facebook is doing anything wrong by banning Trump. They banned him for a good reason, because he keeps pushing total misinformation that has led to violence in the past. I think the free market is actually rewarding Facebook for the move.

[XtremeJibber2001]

That's a tough one. Probably depends on the circumstances. I'm not familiar enough with them to opine.

A further thought - there's a difference between a company doing the right/wrong thing and a company doing something illegal. If facebook started banning all Republicans, I don't think it would be illegal. I do think it would be wrong, and I think the free market would see that and punish facebook for it. But right now, I don't think facebook is doing anything wrong by banning Trump. They banned him for a good reason, because he keeps pushing total misinformation that has led to violence in the past. I think the free market is actually rewarding Facebook for the move.

I think doing the right/wrong thing is subjective so, in your scenario, who plays arbiter? The private business is arbiter, $02

I say leaving your shopping cart in the parking lot instead of returning it is wrong, but many think it's not wrong

[easyrider16]

I think there's a role for government and a role for each of us as individuals to make choices. Not everything that is "wrong" should be illegal, because sometimes the interests of free choice outweighs doing the right thing. Thus being a Nazi is not a crime, even though it's deplorable. I think the dividing line is this - if someone does something that harms another person, the government should step in. In all other cases, the government should butt out. It's not always an easy line to navigate, as in the Bakery case, circumstances matter. But it's an important line nonetheless. A true conservative doesn't want the government dictating what people can and can't do with their businesses, unless what that business is doing is clearly causing harm to someone. I see government's chief job as to prevent people from injuring one another, but otherwise leaving people free to do as they please.

In Trump's case, I think you have to balance the harm against freedom of choice. Should companies like Facebook be subjected to some sort of common-carrier of information law? I think it's an arguable point. I happen to think that given the low barriers to entry and presence of so much competition, it doesn't make sense to impose that kind of restriction on internet companies. There are so, so many other ways for Trump to get his message out digitally that the harm he suffered from a Facebook ban has to be negligible. I mean look at the results - he seems to be raising more money than ever and has no trouble wielding influence over the Republican party. Seems like the ban didn't hurt him at all. Maybe it even helped him.

Nonetheless I do think there's room for some type of common carrier of information law. Apply it say to internet service providers who simply provide a connection to the internet. Thus the big companies aren't forced to host your content on their servers, but they can't refuse to carry your content across their IP infrastructure. Something like that might make a lot of sense. But the legislation has to be carefully crafted by people who understand the technology, because there are lots of legitimate reasons for ISPs to filter traffic (DDoS attacks, cybersecurity, spam, bittorent, etc).

[throbster]

Remember when Big Tech shut down Parler? Who the hell made them the arbiter of truth? Unelected oligarchs deciding what we can and cannot view? This should disgust all of you.

Parler was back up in a month. Why should Parler be able to force companies to work with it? A private company deciding not to do business with another private company doesn't bother me one bit. I'll tell you what disgusts me. When a President of the United States lies about election fraud, over and over, until people riot and storm Capitol Hill based on the lie.

You can't have it both ways cupcake...

https://babylonbee.com/news/study-finds ... -foolproof