Right, assume all you want. Let me know when you decide to read up on the discussion to get a bit more informed.
YouTube bans Alex Jones
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
Right, assume all you want. Let me know when you decide to read up on the discussion to get a bit more informed.
You'll have to ask the U.S. government and the SEC that question, but I think the main difference centers around disclosure. Public companies have to publicly disclose far more than private. Presumably there are good reasons. One rule that is apparently the same though is that if you are open to the public to do business then you can't discriminate among your customers on the basis of certain customer characteristics specifically defined in law. And that rule holds for both privately held businesses and publicly held ones. It's been the basis of a number of disputes in recent years. Suppose you're a devote fundamentalist Christian and you own a barbershop lock stock and barrel. A guy walks into your shop wearing a Tee Shirt that says "I'm an Proud Infidel". According to the law you have to find some other, legal, basis to kick him out other than his Tee Shirt Message. Or, as a practical solution to your dilemma, you can cut his hair, but give him an unasked for Mohawk. These laws are hard to enforce.
Added in edit later:
I guess my point that I was so ineptly attempting to make when Tsing posted: "Youtube is a private company, and should be able to do ban whomever they please, for whatever they please" ... and I pointed out that they are not a private company, was that they had to follow certain rules regardless of whether they were a private company or not. (a point I cleverly failed to properly make.) These would be the rules that all businesses, regardless of whether they are public or private, are supposed to follow if they do business with the general public. Ergo, Facebook can not do as the like in every instance. But Tsing said "should" not "can", and so he was expressing his personal opinion, which in this case is at odds with the government's position, and incidentally with my own too. I don't think private companies should be able to do whatever they want if they do business with the general public. And in fact, they can't legally. Said yet another way, there are certain matters with regard to how a company does business with the general public that do not hinge on whether the company is private or public.
Last edited:
Yes, well the US Government is notoriously behind the curve in proper enforcement of such activity. But there are discussions to make the social media giants a utility. Doubt that will ever occur, but it should help prevent the biased bullshit a bit. Although there's always the IRS, so there goes that theory.
I don't have a problem with Facebook with banning Alex Jones. However whatever their criteria is for the banning needs to be enforced consistently across the social media platform. If there is one set of rules for conservatives and another set of rules for liberals due to bias by Facebook employees then we have a problem which requires government regulation. In the same way that the government regulates that businesses cannot discriminate based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. -- there is a need in this era of social media to not regulate content differently based on political opinions.
Similarly the NFL can regulate what their employees do in terms of policies for promoting their social causes -- as long as the NFL applies the policy consistently for all the types of protest. Meaning that if they allow a BLM protest but not allow another type of protest -- then there is a problem. Of course, the NFL customers can boycott the games if they customers do not like the protest. The NFL's best path is not allow any "protests" by their players as a policy.
Similarly the NFL can regulate what their employees do in terms of policies for promoting their social causes -- as long as the NFL applies the policy consistently for all the types of protest. Meaning that if they allow a BLM protest but not allow another type of protest -- then there is a problem. Of course, the NFL customers can boycott the games if they customers do not like the protest. The NFL's best path is not allow any "protests" by their players as a policy.
That is the problem. Dems want the law to be applied unequally. For example, using the measuring stick the social media companies used for Jones, how in the hell is MSNBC on the various social platforms. They spew hate all day everyday.
Ok, you post one clip from MSNBC that you consider 'hate' and I will post one from Alex Jones.
Then let others decide how they compare.
Put up or stop whining.
MSNBC? I think you mean Fox.
No, he is dumb enough to believe his own bullshit.
If you cannot see the hatred and bigotry on MSNBC all day everyday, you are blind. This is a perfect example of what I just mentioned.