When platforms selectively police their terms of service to overlook progressive infringements but obliquely allege infringements by conservatives (or vice versa), there is clearly a legal and justice issue involved that the courts can easily weigh and make rulings on IMHO.
It’s also an unreported political donation in kind.
1 Like
If I live in Florida and I sign up for a Twitter account then access their server farm in California.
What product did I purchase and how much did it cost?
WW
1 Like
Not talking about having an account, I am talking about buying advertising from them
Ah, Got’Cha. Good point. Advertising would still be a “product”.
Then Twitter could black list geolocations in Florida from adverting on Twitter. Given the size of Twitter that would have more of a negative impact on businesses in Florida then it would against Twitters global market. So say Ford Motor Company based in Michigan buys advertising on Twitter for certain age demographics, that advertising appears in Florida, that would not be advertising being sold in Florida. If Florida business wanted to advertise on Twitter in Florida, they would have then have to use a 3rd party purchasing scheme like that.
WW
Again, it’s not just going to be Florida.
Correction on my part.
Twitter does have an office in Miami, FL. So due to that physical presence, ya the law applies. Unless they close the office.
WW
I am shocked at the support for this modern version of the fairness doctrine. \
Shocked
3 Likes
Conservatives looking to cent’gov to solve their problems.
Amazing isn’t it.
WW
2 Likes
All for a platform that is free to use.
Socialism.
1 Like
Florida isn’t cent’gov
Still thinks it’s free, too funny. Psst, you are the product.
1 Like
I know.
It is free for me to use or not use.
They charge me zero money for their product… which I don’t use.
What continues to baffle me is the position that ISP’s are not common carriers, even though money exchanges hands for access to what the user wants to access with the expectation that that traffic will be treated equally among all websites while simultaniously holding this idea that websites that offer their services for free to the user should be subject to common carrier rules because they are perceived to being unfair to the most put upon crybabies to exist in American history.
It is quite funny really.
Twitter or facebook gets no money from me.
Doesn’t understand giving something away to use it is a price. Would love to negotiate with you some time.
Here is the thing.
I don’t have to use these services. You know… the ones that are offered free to the users.
Modern life can exist with out them.
Access to the internet though…
Yet the thing that I don’t have to use for free is seen as a common carrier but the service that I actually pay money for access to be able to operate in the 21st century is not.
It is a really strange position.
1 Like
Wasn’t my access here supposed to be purposely slowed already? Tell you what, if ISP’s start cutting off people based on their political speech, I will happily see them designated as common carriers as well.
In my opinion, Twitter IS a product, along with FB and all the rest of them that depend on advertising to users. We may not yet have laws to define it as such, but I suspect we will in time.
We didn’t allow corporate towns to infringe on the first amendment rights of their employee’s or anyone else in their privately owned but otherwise public areas. Just saying.
It has nothing to do with getting what one pays for… you know a consumer advocacy issue… but on some fictitious grievance.
Super weird.
