Yes we all know what they are, there’s no point to it anymore. As for fb, twitter, instagram, amazon don’t care about their rules just want them to implament them to everyone. Me & thee
Working for a company and the company has you sign a agreement that you will not talk to the news reporters or make public any internal actions, incident, or anything controversial. Are they in violation of the first amendment rights? or is that just with the government?
2 Likes
Agents of the Federal government have similar rules. See Hatch Act.
I guess I agree with the basis of what you’re saying @Denny_Crane . A private company should be able to dictate who & what they allow on their platform. In theory, I agree.
BUT, the prevailing issue is (in my opinion) not who is being put off but the ideaologies of those individuals. These censorships & bans seem to be overwhelmingly against right-wing/conservative views. There’s no balance. No counter-argument to the liberal avalanche. From my personal observations, both sides lie, name-call, & threaten violence. Yet it seems that only conservatives get the boot. Why is that? 
It’s very obvious what’s going on…
3 Likes
It is a contract you agree to. Theu are well within the law.
All these social media’s companies are private companies and when you join, you agree to be censored. The constitution does not apply since you decided to give up your rights to use them and can get your rights back by not using them.
I agree that Facebook, Twitter and all of the social media companies are private persons under the law. However, so are hotels, restaurants, grocery stores and the vast majority of businesses are or are owned by private persons. For the most part, they can choose their customers. But, there are exceptions. Many federal, state and local laws prohibit "public accommodations from discriminating based upon race, religion, age, gender, sexual identity, sexual orientation, national origin, ethnicity or disability.
I do not think anyone would disagree that communication services like Verizon, Sprint, ATT, Comcast, Xfinity, all private companies, are public accommodations and are subject to the same regulations against discrimination.
Social media companies have built themselves into the likes of ATT and, I my opinion, should be held to the same standards as any other public accommodation.
Then the question becomes whether a public accommodation is able to censor speech (or other Constitutionally protected activity) based upon its content? A hotel cannot not provide you a room because you are an evangelical Christian or a Muslim, however they can prohibit you from preaching the Gospel or getting prone on the floor for prayer in the hotel lobby.
At the same time, I have never heard of any communications company blocking or stopping someone’s service for the content of their communication unless there was evidence that it was illegal and at that point, law enforcement was involved.
Social media started as forums to find old friends nd to meet new people. It opened doors for what was once the free exchange of varying thoughts, ideas and ideals. It allowed groups of like minded people to join groups together but also those with differing opinions as well. And lets face it, even like minded people do not agree on everything.
I agree with others that as a private company, they have much leeway in setting rules. But, those rules should be enforced objectively and equally.
13 Likes
The leadrship of these tech giants apparently believes the relegating censorship to an algorithm will guarantee objectivity, as well as shield them from criticism. “The robot did it!”
3 Likes
Being an attorney, you said that better than I did. Thanks. It isn’t clear cut to either extreme, but it is fairly obvious to the casual observer that this ain’t okay. In the constitutional America, this would be sorted out by free market forces and the courts. Today, it will probably spawn a bunch of terrorism and what not prior to getting sorted out in a very heavy-handed, top-down way.
2 Likes
But again, I’m not saying the 1st Amendment guarantees that I can say whatever I want, wherever I want, however I want, no matter who’s paying for it. I’m just saying that the word “censorship” is not limited to government activity. Regardless of whether a private company’s censorship practices are legal, it’s good that Americans take notice.
To me, there’s very little difference between censorship and a “No Guns” sign on a business. Yes, they have the right to do it, but it’s understandable that it irritates us.
4 Likes
As always, great explanation @MikeBKY!
4 Likes
The former POTUS was shut down because he violated the terms of agreement to include----inciting riots, sedition and insurrection. nothing else matters
Oh, I disagree. A lot more matters.
If you read the text of President (for an hour still) Trump’s Jan 6 comments, you might come away with a different opinion. I did.
3 Likes
as long as there is a term of agreement nothing else matter. if you don’t agree don’t sign the contract. Phone companies are made of customer having private conversation, social media conversation is “public” especially with certain sites.
Playing Devil’s advocate:
What about terrorist organizations that use social media to organize? What about other politicians that have tweeted threatening/inciting tweets? How are they still on social media platforms?
6 Likes
@Dawn - excellent questions that seem to elicit nothing but crickets.
2 Likes
This is exactly why presidents need to avoid language that can be misinterpreted. Trump came across like he was cowboying his way through the presidency. I liked some of the things he accomplished. But I didn’t like the way he belittles people from the presidential seat. Joe is the devil in disguise in my opinion. He’s a threat to our freedoms.
3 Likes
They should have been yanked as soon as they started. I understand where everyone is coming from when it come to social media platforms and speech. Twitter could have changed the course of history if it decided to censor tRump earlier. However, its a private platform and that’s a risk you take when you use it. you might get stymied.
Don’t we all… 
Text is a hard medium for good conversation in the best of times. Throw in people who have an agenda or don’t like the person and words can be twisted to have different meanings.
2 Likes
We don’t have “civil rights” those kind are given and taken at government will through legislation. We have inalienable God given rights that are never taken but are freely and ignorantly given up by the end user.
2 Likes