SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Monday October 29 2018, @08:15AM
from the social-commentary-on-social-media dept.
from the social-commentary-on-social-media dept.
The social network gab.com is apparently going down on Monday, October 29th at 09:00 ET. Their ISP has terminated their services, ostensibly because Robert Bowers, the Pittsburgh mass shooting suspect, had made offensive posts on Gab.
To get this out of the way: I have mixed feelings about Gab, more specifically, about the founders. However, the idea that some social network somewhere should refuse to censor anything that is not outright illegal? This is good. Social media has become the modern "market square", and free speech should be guaranteed, even if the platforms are technically private.
If you want free speech, you apparently don't want to be in the U.S.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Social Media and the Pittsburgh Shooter: Gab.com Going Down
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 116 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The last time I saw him he was walking down Lover's Lane holding his own hand.
-- Fred Allen
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday October 29 2018, @11:14AM (6 children)
And you think this overrides the right to property?
TMB has a word to name those who feel entitled to use other people's money, mind if you ask him what that word is?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Monday October 29 2018, @11:20AM (4 children)
They waived that intentionally and with premeditation by presenting their service as a public service and building their marketshare upon that claim. If they had stayed a private, members-only club behind some kind of paywall or other obstruction then of course they can behave in whatever way they want, within the law. However, they have not done that. Again, if ISPs want common carrier protections, they have to act as common carriers instead of opening the floodgates for lawsuits from anyone over anything.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday October 29 2018, @11:28AM (3 children)
Really now.
Show me where they did so or the law that stipulate this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Monday October 29 2018, @11:30AM (2 children)
Re-read the links two levels up. One is from the EFF the other from The Atlantic.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Monday October 29 2018, @11:58AM (1 child)
Ok. The Atlantic
So... nope.
EEF
Nope again. Trump cannot ban Tweeter users.
Tweeter is still free to kick-out anyone it likes (or actually doesn't like) - unless you can show a breech of contract, Tweeter is still owned by... whoever owns Tweet. 1st amendment does not apply to private entity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Monday October 29 2018, @04:31PM
... Tweeter is still owned by... whoever owns Tweet. 1st amendment does not apply to private entity.
That would be the Saudis, in part. Just like with Faux News.
However, regardless of who owns what, the tricks going on are rather transparent. Politicians are trying (and partially succeeding) in doing an end run around the First Ammendment of the US Constitution by outsourcing censorship while squawking about private companies. I see that it is the activity which is governed by the 1st, not the medium. So if protected activity moves to a new medium, then the medium is also governed by the 1st: social media, ISPs, and payment systems. With the court decision against Der Apfelsine we can see things heading that direction. Whether full 1st Ammendment support can be achieved, indpedendent of medium, will continue to be a matter of intense and expensive political fights.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 29 2018, @11:06PM
I'm on the left and I've always been extremely skeptical of corporations. Maybe instead of suddenly shilling for the "free market" when it comes to censorship of people you don't like, you should try to be principled.
It never ceases to amaze me when people who are otherwise critical of corporate control of our societies suddenly come out in favor of corporate control in a select few instances. Why would you want corporations to have this much control over information? Especially since they often work with governments to decide what type of speech should be restricted on their platforms, meaning that the restrictions can hardly be considered "private."