Could you please explain why you said entire nation as patrons?
So your position is that the government (courts) should tell privately owned businesses who their customers ought to be.
Are you one of those conservatives who think the role of government is to impose regulations on free enterprise?
1 Like
Looks that way
1 Like
You do realize that on media, there are a lot of rules and regulations that MUST be follwed right?
Twitter has been ruled a media of sort (when it was ruled that Trump can not block people).
Twitter wants to be under the rules and regulations . . . then they need to follow them.
1 Like
Because Twitter has millions of Americans as members, across the entire nation. Twitter is also a major communications platform. To compare that with a local bar is ridiculous. better analogy would be if some public utility denied you service because they donât like you, the electric company or water company. That would be unthinkable.
Twitter and Facebook are such huge parts of communications and providers of news these days that they are essentially public utilities. Again: To compare that with a local bar is ridiculous.
Thatâs the thing about power⌠when you obtain it you want to use it⌠and principles like small government or minimal regulation go by the board.
1 Like
In Seattle the electric company is privately owned: Seattle City Light. Can they choose not to provide electricity to selected households simply because they donât like them?
And what rule did they violate again? Does this forum violate those same rules when it issues timeouts and bans?
edit: If I said the things she said on here I would be banned.
1 Like
So your contention is that twitter et al has taken the decision based on the personâs personal beliefs and that is not appropriate?
Categorizing them as utilities goes too far. However, if they ban someone for political reasons they would be exercising editorial control and should be regarded as a publisher and held to those legal standards as opposed to the neutral public communications platform status they currently enjoy.
Who says it was hateful? You? That is the first step towards Fascism. First someone appoints themselves the arbiter of what is acceptable and unacceptable then imposes their person beliefs on everyone else.
Gee, that sounds awful familiar. Its exactly what the Left has done to bakeries, entertainers, schools, and more
1 Like
Where do bakeries come into this discussion?
Not at all. Not when so many people around the world depend on it for global communication.
Twitter for one as is their right. She would be banned here too for saying the same exact things
We donât have any political candidates on here â and if we were a media outlet (instead of a forum) we would have to follow the FEC rules and regulations.
Some of the rules and regulations alow for blocking of content, but not the person. But you block content, they can object and file complaints aginast the media outlet.
This is actually a pretty complex subject in my mind. Social media platforms have become enormously important sources of news and communication for most Americans. These are privately owned companies that have rules around conduct, hate speech, etc.
Conservatives are mad because they think companies like Twitter are too draconian when it comes to defining âhate speechâ. Liberals are mad because companies like Facebook allow foreign countries to purchase massive ad buys to promote false and misleading stories that favor their candidates.
Do these issues require congressional and judicial involvement to decide? Maybe so. But this is a thorny and slippery slope if private companies like these are regulated heavily. By the way, I see no compelling case for Loomer as she has repeatedly engaged in hate speech in multiple platforms. Thats just a no-brainer in my mind.
1 Like
On political candidates?
They donât.
She wasnt a candidate when she received her permanent ban nor am I aware of any law that makes them exempt
Utilities are monopolies and their holding the monopoly comes with the presumption of serving all people (who pay). How does the apply to the Twitter example?
Coming back to businesses that are not monopolies, do you believe wedding businesses should be required to serve all customers regardless of sexual orientation?
I think it is fair to say that there is some obvious hypocrisy on sites like twitter. They ban Loomer for things that Trump says almost daily. Twitter has stated that it it is in the national interest to allow Trump to continue to tweet (plus great for their bottom line) but its an obvious case of hypocrisy in mind.
