I think so they it could be taken audience away from news stations.
Big TECH gets away with way to much that needs to be addressed.
Under states rights-
Every state should pass laws or regulations that require providers of any communications for the general public with or without membership requirements to sign an agreement that in orde…
I think so they it could be taken audience away from news stations.
Big TECH gets away with way to much that needs to be addressed.
Under states rights-
Every state should pass laws or regulations that require providers of any communications for the general public with or without membership requirements to sign an agreement that in order to conduct business in the state they will be required to abide by and protect free speech as defined in our Constitution and only censor a citizen when breaking a law and must site the law when censoring. Require state Attorney General be notified of every incident when censoring a citizen and reason.
Our rights or not subject to approval by billionaires and do not cease at the door of some building.
Ken, what would you say to those who argue: (1) that the constitutional protections of free speech only apply to what the government can do. Not private companies; (2) that the rules you place on "big tech" will also apply to your favorite conservative sources of news which means, for example, that FoxNews.com will have to publish op-eds from liberal authors, etc.; (3) that what these companies do -- curated content -- is inherently biased towards your preferences (e.g., YouTube is highlighting content based on YOUR viewing and is therefore "biasing" its results for your preferences); and that (4) what you're actually arguing is that the government should tell private companies how they can and cannot conduct their business. If one believes, for example, that a cake baker should not be forced to make a cake for someone, it seems that same person would not want the government to force private companies to carry content they do not want to host?
Define their market so that they have the same market share as Fox News and the same responsibilities. Would require busting them up to have only ~15% of the market. They could spin off some to Parler and create new companies such that none has a monopoly.
1. The rights granted in the Bill of Rights or granted to the people and if Congress is forbidden to abridge our rights then no one else can assume the authority forbidden Congress. To assume a company can ignore the rights of the people would in effect take them away and provide others the right to censor you, tell you if or which protests you can attend and terminate your employment for simply expressing views not supported by the boss. When a company is granted the right to take away your livelihood for your political opinions, you will end up with company leaders determining what your rights are. Almost all our communications travel over lines or air today and through equipment and systems owned by companies, texts, phone calls, emails and FaceTime imagine everyone of those equipped with AI that censors your speech based on what some company decides you can or can not say, use the wrong word and your shut off.
2. My proposal is to enforce the rights granted in the Constitution and our laws passed by Congress or State laws, nothing more than that. Allowing free speech on systems designed to allow the general public to communicate freely puts no requirement on anything else nor should it.
3. One can assume just about anything if one seeks too, but allowing lawful speech in accordance to our Constitution and existing laws does not intrude on other rights or impose other requirements.
Separate from free speech I do think the power of the media to influence opinions using selective reporting and censoring what does not support the political objectives of the owners or top boss must be addressed, but I also see that is a slippery slope to government control. Opinion shows should be clearly identified, news outlets have an obligation to report the new. How can any media endorse a candidate and be expected to report the news without being biased?
4. If you are going to provide a method for the general public to communicate and use it to profit from in my opinion you have no right to censor lawful speech.
If you wish to control what people are allowed to post based on the opinions of a select number of people you need to change from being a communication site for the public to a private site for members only and the members must be advised what is or is not acceptable on the site.
I would advocate that the existing companies who wish to control speech be split into with one becoming a members only who’s members agree to the terms controlling speech and the other a free speech outlet.
I think so they it could be taken audience away from news stations.
Big TECH gets away with way to much that needs to be addressed.
Under states rights-
Every state should pass laws or regulations that require providers of any communications for the general public with or without membership requirements to sign an agreement that in order to conduct business in the state they will be required to abide by and protect free speech as defined in our Constitution and only censor a citizen when breaking a law and must site the law when censoring. Require state Attorney General be notified of every incident when censoring a citizen and reason.
Our rights or not subject to approval by billionaires and do not cease at the door of some building.
Ken, what would you say to those who argue: (1) that the constitutional protections of free speech only apply to what the government can do. Not private companies; (2) that the rules you place on "big tech" will also apply to your favorite conservative sources of news which means, for example, that FoxNews.com will have to publish op-eds from liberal authors, etc.; (3) that what these companies do -- curated content -- is inherently biased towards your preferences (e.g., YouTube is highlighting content based on YOUR viewing and is therefore "biasing" its results for your preferences); and that (4) what you're actually arguing is that the government should tell private companies how they can and cannot conduct their business. If one believes, for example, that a cake baker should not be forced to make a cake for someone, it seems that same person would not want the government to force private companies to carry content they do not want to host?
Thanks for your insights on this!
Define their market so that they have the same market share as Fox News and the same responsibilities. Would require busting them up to have only ~15% of the market. They could spin off some to Parler and create new companies such that none has a monopoly.
1. The rights granted in the Bill of Rights or granted to the people and if Congress is forbidden to abridge our rights then no one else can assume the authority forbidden Congress. To assume a company can ignore the rights of the people would in effect take them away and provide others the right to censor you, tell you if or which protests you can attend and terminate your employment for simply expressing views not supported by the boss. When a company is granted the right to take away your livelihood for your political opinions, you will end up with company leaders determining what your rights are. Almost all our communications travel over lines or air today and through equipment and systems owned by companies, texts, phone calls, emails and FaceTime imagine everyone of those equipped with AI that censors your speech based on what some company decides you can or can not say, use the wrong word and your shut off.
2. My proposal is to enforce the rights granted in the Constitution and our laws passed by Congress or State laws, nothing more than that. Allowing free speech on systems designed to allow the general public to communicate freely puts no requirement on anything else nor should it.
3. One can assume just about anything if one seeks too, but allowing lawful speech in accordance to our Constitution and existing laws does not intrude on other rights or impose other requirements.
Separate from free speech I do think the power of the media to influence opinions using selective reporting and censoring what does not support the political objectives of the owners or top boss must be addressed, but I also see that is a slippery slope to government control. Opinion shows should be clearly identified, news outlets have an obligation to report the new. How can any media endorse a candidate and be expected to report the news without being biased?
4. If you are going to provide a method for the general public to communicate and use it to profit from in my opinion you have no right to censor lawful speech.
If you wish to control what people are allowed to post based on the opinions of a select number of people you need to change from being a communication site for the public to a private site for members only and the members must be advised what is or is not acceptable on the site.
I would advocate that the existing companies who wish to control speech be split into with one becoming a members only who’s members agree to the terms controlling speech and the other a free speech outlet.