Yuuuge

[Catdaddy]

I don't have a Twitter account.


I get me news from SCDimwitter.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

[Glenn]

I don't have a Twitter account.


I get me news from SCDimwitter.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

Hang on. So you DON'T have to go on their non government owned platform? You actually have a choice as to whether or not you use it?

Well that doesn't make any sense at all now does it.

[scbulldog]

Hang on. So you DON'T have to go on their non government owned platform? You actually have a choice as to whether or not you use it?

Well that doesn't make any sense at all now does it.

Still feel this way?

[2thDoc]

i hate to answer for glenn, but I'm pretty sure he still believes you dont have to use the Tweetter or the Facepage.

[JABIII]

Yes, I am on board with your level of certainty in this matter...

[scbulldog]

i hate to answer for glenn, but I'm pretty sure he still believes you dont have to use the Tweetter or the Facepage.

I still think five big tech companies should not have a lock on what information we are "allowed" to see. They are monopolies that should be broken up.

[FEETDOWN]

I still think five big tech companies should not have a lock on what information we are "allowed" to see. They are monopolies that should be broken up.

Or you could choose not to participate in the social media.....

[Glenn]

Still feel this way?

Yes. I have a facestagram account but don't tweet, snap, tick, or polo. My facepage has a thing called "unfollow" where I get to choose what I see and read. It's awesome. As for the others, I choose, repeat I choose to not participate in their PRIVATE business platform and could do the same with facebook.

i hate to answer for glenn, but I'm pretty sure he still believes you dont have to use the Tweetter or the Facepage.

Thanks.

Yes, I am on board with your level of certainty in this matter...

And thanks.

Or you could choose not to participate in the social media.....

Quit being logical. It's ironic so many who championed deregulation by the current administration and want less government also wants the government to regulate a private business for them. Strange times indeed.

[Black Bart]

Or you could choose not to participate in the social media.....

Holla at 'em, mang.

[scbulldog]

Or you could choose not to participate in the social media.....

I dont other than a facebook page.

[scbulldog]

Yes. I have a facestagram account but don't tweet, snap, tick, or polo. My facepage has a thing called "unfollow" where I get to choose what I see and read. It's awesome. As for the others, I choose, repeat I choose to not participate in their PRIVATE business platform and could do the same with facebook.



Thanks.



And thanks.



Quit being logical. It's ironic so many who championed deregulation by the current administration and want less government also wants the government to regulate a private business for them. Strange times indeed.

You have a valid point. But every other form of communication is regulated. These tech giants have an unfair advantage over other platforms in that they can not be sued over content, while Newspapers, TV news, magezines ect, can be sued over content.
If they have a platform that truly has a free flow of information and ideas for all sides, than they should be free from responsibility for what ever information is put out on their platform. However if they are going to censer some and not others, they should face the same liabilities as everyone else. Regulate everyone the same or do not regulate anyone.
Google, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, ect have way to much control over what information we receive. I do not believe the average user has any idea that they are filtering out information that these companies do not want them to see. Not to mention how much data they keep on every one who uses these products.
The amount of power that these big tech companies hold is flat out dangerous to our freedoms. For such an incredibly tiny portion of people to hold that much power could lead to tyranny

[YoungBuckTX]

If the Gov can require Christian businesses to bake cakes for homos, then it should mandate tech companies cannot suppress conservative views. Right now they are allowed to promote liberal agendas by extreme biased methods

[Glenn]

You have a valid point. But every other form of communication is regulated. These tech giants have an unfair advantage over other platforms in that they can not be sued over content, while Newspapers, TV news, magezines ect, can be sued over content.
If they have a platform that truly has a free flow of information and ideas for all sides, than they should be free from responsibility for what ever information is put out on their platform. However if they are going to censer some and not others, they should face the same liabilities as everyone else. Regulate everyone the same or do not regulate anyone.
Google, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, ect have way to much control over what information we receive. I do not believe the average user has any idea that they are filtering out information that these companies do not want them to see. Not to mention how much data they keep on every one who uses these products.
The amount of power that these big tech companies hold is flat out dangerous to our freedoms. For such an incredibly tiny portion of people to hold that much power could lead to tyranny

I don't remember anyone saying you can't sue 'em. Sue away. Calling for regulation is just asking for trouble. They are motivated by money. Advertisers don't spend money in places people aren't. Don't like the way they run their company then vote with your mouse and click off.

[Frank1]

Quit being logical. It's ironic so many who championed deregulation by the current administration and want less government also wants the government to regulate a private business for them. Strange times indeed.

Is it really regulating a private business if you are removing government protections from them?

[Glenn]

Is it really regulating a private business if you are removing government protections from them?

Expound, please. Not sure I know what special protections they have.

[SouthernWake]

They are motivated by money. Advertisers don't spend money in places people aren't.

This is the core, whether addressing social media or any type of media. If I can have a specific audience, I can sell that targeted marketing to advertisers at a higher rate than a random audience. Users are the product these companies are selling.

On another note the amount of data collected on users by these tech companies is pretty mind boggling.

[Frank1]

Expound, please. Not sure I know what special protections they have.

maybe I'm wrong but the protections from being sued for posts on thier sites. Either they are a free speech site that are not liable for what the public posts on thier site or they can cull what they dont like but have to be responsible for the content. From an earlier post

"Attorney General William Barr said the White House plans to push legislation to Congress that would seek to reinterpret Section 230 to counteract the sweeping protections granted to large technology companies.

Proponents of Section 230 say both social media platforms and sites like Wikipedia and the Internet Archive would not be able to exist in the same way without the law. If the sites were responsible for everything users posted, the cost of defending against a deluge of lawsuits could prove crippling, advocates of the law argue."

[Glenn]

Doesn't say you can't sue them for censorship if that's what you want to do. Just that they aren't liable for the dumb crap Karen says when she's 4 cabs deep in a wine bender.

[JABIII]

Asking to kill 230 is like asking to give up your ability to speak freely on the internet without everyone having to have their own personal website to do it on.

Just one more "Patriot Act" type loss of your freedom.