Law Texas social media anti-censorship law goes into effect

[Lead]

Twitter played this game with Vine and Periscope, but they certainly aren't the main offenders (Meta/Facebook takes that trophy), and like I say, it's pretty common practice in the current corporate environment, and no one really blinks.

How much did Twitter pay for vine? Cause that’s a huge fail on their part considering many see vine as the predecessor tiktok. They really fucked up there and that might be an example of how fast paced this industry is that a large player took out a rising competitor and the another one just generated and is taking a lot of the market share.

 

[Mr Holmes]

 

[Lead]

Correct reply was “aw shucks”

Will give a half point though for good gif choice

 

[jeremyemilio]

How much did Twitter pay for vine? Cause that’s a huge fail on their part considering many see vine as the predecessor tiktok. They really fucked up there and that might be an example of how fast paced this industry is that a large player took out a rising competitor and the another one just generated and is taking a lot of the market share.

Sure, but TikTok has CCP backing. There was/is no real path to an American company gobbling it up. If anything, its special status as a competitor that was able to become a big player precisely because it is backed by a nation with the world's largest population and the world's second largest economy only goes to underscore the power that rests in the hands of these very few big players.

 

[Lead]

Sure, but TikTok has CCP backing. There was/is no real path to an American company gobbling it up. If anything, its special status as a competitor that was able to become a big player precisely because it is backed by a nation with the world's largest population and the world's second largest economy only goes to underscore the power that rests in the hands of these very few big players.

Yea, fair enough. And furthermore, when Trump was trying to do that ban, it was with the premise of Microsoft immediately buying the US operations.

 

[Mack McMarkles]

I definitely didn't say that. As long as your rules are clear and enforced impartially. I hate the BS where they say you violated something but don't specifically say how. As someone right leaning I also can not stand societies general biased against conservatives. There should be no repercussions from simply being on the right and giving conservative takes.

And that has not been the case.

Right views are fine, but it is the defying of rules that are not.

Almost all the Righties who cry unfair have multiple warnings they are breaking the rules and they take a stance of defiance because it helps their brand. They get banned and people like you complain how unfair it is as you need to always feel like victims.

It would be like being on this forum, getting a warning and just saying "I will not change' and you keep posting the same thing and get banned.

it does not matter if you agree with the rule or the mod, as it is their forum to moderate.

 

[Halifax]

Forces private media companies to dedicate the platforms they built to host content they do not wish to.

This is like arguing Fox News now needs to open up its TV segments to any political content people wish to air because they are popular.

So like news was before Reagan did away with the FCC fairness doctrine which forced media companies to give both sides of the story airtime and air opposing views fairly?

Sounds good to me

 

[HereticBD]

And that has not been the case.

Right views are fine, but it is the defying of rules that are not.

They literally aren't fine on some of these platforms. See how long you last on Reddit for saying that men can't be women. Twitter has suspended accounts for the same reason. Not to mention that such a generic common sense statement such as that, has been labeled as "extreme right wing rhetoric" by some of these sites, in order to shut down such discussion.

Off-topic, but kudos to your IDGAF username. LOL. If I ever get banned, I'm coming back as BereticHD.

 

[pv3Hpv3p]

"Free speech" in this case means the exact opposite of free speech. It's forcing people to host comments they don't want to host.

So the company's freedom of speech trumps the individual civilians'?

 

[Jack V Savage]

So the company's freedom of speech trumps the individual civilians'?

What does that even mean? Freedom of speech isn't zero sum. Everyone should have it.

 

[Letssnuggle]

What does that even mean? Freedom of speech isn't zero sum. Everyone should have it.

Translation: Everyone should have it. Leftists should just have it more.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Translation: Everyone should have it. Leftists should just have it more.

No translation needed. I think the more you guys speak, the better it is for the left, actually.

 

[Two Crows]

So like news was before Reagan did away with the FCC fairness doctrine which forced media companies to give both sides of the story airtime and air opposing views fairly?

Sounds good to me

The Fairness Doctrine did not force media companies to give both sides of the story fair representation.

It applied only to the use of public airwaves, and would be 100% irrelevant today. Satellite, cable, streaming services, etc. would be exempt for the exact same reasons newspapers were deemed exempt. The democratic party loved it because the primary medium of the conservatives in the 80's was talk radio, which WAS subject.

I'm old enough to remember the news as an institution absolutely falling apart in the U.S., and it doesn't go back to 1987.

If anything brought us what we have today, it was the 1996 Telecommunications Act. That was the end.

 

[pv3Hpv3p]

What does that even mean? Freedom of speech isn't zero sum. Everyone should have it.

But you're taking that freedom away from certain social media users that don't share the same ideals... and giving a seemingly neutral source of information sharing the right to censor ideas they don't agree with.

You have to see a little bit of a catch 22 here, if not blatant hypocrisy

 

[IamStryker]

And that has not been the case.

Right views are fine, but it is the defying of rules that are not.

Almost all the Righties who cry unfair have multiple warnings they are breaking the rules and they take a stance of defiance because it helps their brand. They get banned and people like you complain how unfair it is as you need to always feel like victims.

It would be like being on this forum, getting a warning and just saying "I will not change' and you keep posting the same thing and get banned.

it does not matter if you agree with the rule or the mod, as it is their forum to moderate.

Wrong. Basic consertive takes make leftists cry and that's what I am talking about.

Funny you bring up the rules here because I recently had a mod remove some of my posts. I had to ask more than once exactly what the problem was and then when I was finally told I proved him wrong. His left wing biased in that thread was clearly part of why he targeted my post.

 

[Jack V Savage]

But you're taking that freedom away from certain social media users that don't share the same ideals... and giving a seemingly neutral source of information sharing the right to censor ideas they don't agree with.

You have to see a little bit of a catch 22 here, if not blatant hypocrisy

What? I'm not taking anything from anyone. Or giving anyone censorship rights. I think your point only works in a world in which any social media site has a monopoly on Internet content.

 

[Letssnuggle]

Wrong. Basic consertive takes make leftists cry and that's what I am talking about.

Funny you bring up the rules here because I recently had a mod remove some of my posts. I had to ask more than once exactly what the problem was and then when I was finally told I proved him wrong. His left wing biased in that thread was clearly part of why he targeted my post.

yep.

 

[jefferz]

So the company's freedom of speech trumps the individual civilians'?

So what part of Twitter not allowing you to post on their site is the government censoring individual citizens?
And companies are people. That ruling was brought to you by the right wing.

 

[Prefect]

The thing that is funny about this is that it would be a trivial task to create a conservative Twitter, Youtube, or Facebook. There might even be a market for it. The reason why that this isn't looked at as a solution because nutty republicans don't want to live in world where libs don't have to see my post.

 

[Prefect]

These social media companies need to decide whether or not they want to function as a common carrier like Verizon and AT&T, who can't shut off your phone due to your speech/political affiliation or as a media company who curates it's content and is responsible for what is posted on their site. They can't have it both ways.

Just move the headquarters outside the country, dumb dumb.