[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 3 yearsMay 23, 2022 20:33:15 ago (+1/-0)
Niggers never learn.
Yes. A private company can ban whomever the fuck they want for whatever reason they want except for reasons that would violate the CRA. HOWEVER, where politicians are the issue, banning one politician or a group of politicians based on their political views, could lead to violations of the b Federal Elections Commissions rules for donations in kind.
Also, some states, like CA, forbid companies from discrimination based on political affiliation, but it's unlikely that these states will care if you violate these laws if used against right wing extermism.
Compelled speech - forcing someone to perform an action, either banning or preventing from banning, is unconstitutional.
The "public square" stance would be a different issue entirely, and I think faceberg and twatter would lose those cases if the algorithms banned only politicians of a specific party.
The "public square" stance is retarded. These platforms are not a public square. Twitter banned the former president of the United States. They can ban whomever they want. They don't want to ban "the right". Eye Patch McCain is the same as Hillary Clinton.
"Public square" is very much like public domain and trademark.
If a trademark becomes common usage - without the company fervently fighting every infringement - then the trademark can be voided. One example is xerox. "I'll xerox that"
One company working hard to keep their trademark is Velcro.
If a judge were to deem that most of the public were using twatter or faceberg for activities that used to be part of the public square, and accumulated x% of typical information distribution - then it could be conceivable that anyone being banned would have to follow set rules, and politicians in particular would then receive some protection against unjust banning.
Just because something is private at the start doesn't mean that it can't do everything it pleases - think environmental laws and regulations. If it is in the public good, a company may lose many commonly accepted protections.
You cannot force a private company to spend money and risk its brand name and business model to accommodate someone's "right" to say nigger, question the holocaust, and post cartoon drawings of naked children.
And that aint got shit to do with trade marks like velcro.
Twitter is not a "public square". They are an internet platform and don't owe you shit. You don't even pay to use their service and you agree to their terms when you sign up and/or login.
You do realize that societies tend to shift in how laws work right?
You do realize that governments have the ability to take private physical property for the "common good" with eminent domain, right?
If a physical property can be legally stolen from the owner, what makes the digital realm different?
Governments steal trademarks if they fall into the common vernacular - that is proven.
The government steals domains all the time.
The government stole small businesses for 2 years with lockdowns.
The only thing keeping the government from seriously looking into forcing digital domains from becoming public goods is the libtards and kikes that reeeeee way too much.
Enough examples for you? I can also throw in squatters rights - where the government actually forces someone to cede their legal property to someone else due to "possession".
Governments have overreaching powers against individuals, and should have even more power over corporations - since corporations are an entirely government created entity.
If twatter doesn't like being considered for the "public square" they can move to another country, right? That's how it works, right?
You're an idiot. If the government wants to eminent domain twitter, they can take twitter from the investors and run twitter themselves. What government can't do is make twitter take financial risks that the investors are unwilling to take. The government cannot force twitter to allow you to post nigger posts, deny the holocaust, or post drawings of naked children AND expect twitters investors to continue to invest in twitter or force twitters advertisers to continue to pay for twitters ad space.
And the constitution is the written rule of law and unless you amend it, the constitution will continue to be the rule of law, ya fukin,' commie.
And yes, I understand that judges can ignore the rule of law at will, and give lip service, but that isn't the point.
As long as they quit operating on the information super highway that my tax dollars developed, I think they can ban whomever they want. If they are going to continue to use the Information Interstate, then they need to abide by the Constitution.
If they don't like that, they should develop their own system.
[ + ] Tallest_Skil
[ - ] Tallest_Skil 3 points 3 yearsMay 23, 2022 19:26:10 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] Thyhorrorcosmic103
[ - ] Thyhorrorcosmic103 1 point 3 yearsMay 23, 2022 19:20:04 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 3 yearsMay 23, 2022 20:33:15 ago (+1/-0)
Yes. A private company can ban whomever the fuck they want for whatever reason they want except for reasons that would violate the CRA. HOWEVER, where politicians are the issue, banning one politician or a group of politicians based on their political views, could lead to violations of the b Federal Elections Commissions rules for donations in kind.
Also, some states, like CA, forbid companies from discrimination based on political affiliation, but it's unlikely that these states will care if you violate these laws if used against right wing extermism.
[ + ] gaybeeye
[ - ] gaybeeye 0 points 3 yearsMay 23, 2022 20:24:36 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 0 points 3 yearsMay 23, 2022 20:24:54 ago (+0/-0)
Compelled speech - forcing someone to perform an action, either banning or preventing from banning, is unconstitutional.
The "public square" stance would be a different issue entirely, and I think faceberg and twatter would lose those cases if the algorithms banned only politicians of a specific party.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 3 yearsMay 23, 2022 20:36:37 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 0 points 3 yearsMay 23, 2022 21:32:59 ago (+0/-0)
If a trademark becomes common usage - without the company fervently fighting every infringement - then the trademark can be voided. One example is xerox. "I'll xerox that"
One company working hard to keep their trademark is Velcro.
If a judge were to deem that most of the public were using twatter or faceberg for activities that used to be part of the public square, and accumulated x% of typical information distribution - then it could be conceivable that anyone being banned would have to follow set rules, and politicians in particular would then receive some protection against unjust banning.
Just because something is private at the start doesn't mean that it can't do everything it pleases - think environmental laws and regulations. If it is in the public good, a company may lose many commonly accepted protections.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 3 yearsMay 24, 2022 06:21:56 ago (+0/-0)
You cannot force a private company to spend money and risk its brand name and business model to accommodate someone's "right" to say nigger, question the holocaust, and post cartoon drawings of naked children.
And that aint got shit to do with trade marks like velcro.
Twitter is not a "public square". They are an internet platform and don't owe you shit. You don't even pay to use their service and you agree to their terms when you sign up and/or login.
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 0 points 3 yearsMay 24, 2022 08:59:50 ago (+0/-0)
You do realize that societies tend to shift in how laws work right?
You do realize that governments have the ability to take private physical property for the "common good" with eminent domain, right?
If a physical property can be legally stolen from the owner, what makes the digital realm different?
Governments steal trademarks if they fall into the common vernacular - that is proven.
The government steals domains all the time.
The government stole small businesses for 2 years with lockdowns.
The only thing keeping the government from seriously looking into forcing digital domains from becoming public goods is the libtards and kikes that reeeeee way too much.
Enough examples for you? I can also throw in squatters rights - where the government actually forces someone to cede their legal property to someone else due to "possession".
Governments have overreaching powers against individuals, and should have even more power over corporations - since corporations are an entirely government created entity.
If twatter doesn't like being considered for the "public square" they can move to another country, right? That's how it works, right?
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 3 yearsMay 24, 2022 10:47:03 ago (+0/-0)
And the constitution is the written rule of law and unless you amend it, the constitution will continue to be the rule of law, ya fukin,' commie.
And yes, I understand that judges can ignore the rule of law at will, and give lip service, but that isn't the point.
[ + ] Reawakened
[ - ] Reawakened 0 points 3 yearsMay 23, 2022 22:18:49 ago (+0/-0)
If they don't like that, they should develop their own system.
[ + ] Typhoon8
[ - ] Typhoon8 0 points 3 yearsMay 25, 2022 23:48:57 ago (+0/-0)