zlacker

It's long past time to regulate social media like a phone company, natural monopoly, or common carrier. The DOJ needs to break them up for violating the public trust, then limit their ability to refuse service to law abiding citizens moving into the future. Government has every right to force companies to be neutral platforms through regulation. It's time to revoke/enforce section 230, especially the "good faith" clause.

Anyone who says that "Twitter is a private company that can refuse anyone" has never ran an actual company. There are plenty of rules against companies discriminating. That argument is the same argument used by Democrats against the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 which a Republican majority congress passed (82% of republicans voted yes).

Remember when this forum was up in arms about NET NEUTRALITY? Remember when the big bad ISP was going to censor you? Remember when all the sites went black because thats what the ISPs would do? Now the sites that went black are all committing the censoring. All the sites that went black track every movement you make online. Who needs DNS when you have outgoing link tracking and like buttons on every page.

Social media is about to be regulated. Its about time.

>>peacel+(OP)
> The DOJ needs to break them up for violating the public trust...

Twitter, Facebook, et al are entertainment. There's not trust to violate.

>>peacel+(OP)
I feel you almost were able to lawyer your way to something coherent, but ultimately, you are advocating for government regulation of speech, IMHO.

>>peacel+(OP)
Section 230 lets providers like social media companies publish user-generated content without having to review the content first. For example, if you libel someone on Twitter, that is your problem, not Twitter's problem. If you take away Section 230 protections, social media as we know it probably dies. Instead of a real-time pulse on what people are thinking, you'll just get what looks like the letters to the editor section of a newspaper. People who are already celebrities will not be censored, but you will be because you're too small to be worth the risk of being liable for. That means any grassroots political movement, no matter what side of the ideology spectrum it falls on, has no place to start. Be careful what you wish for.

I'll also point out that if Section 230 protections are removed, Donald Trump loses more than anyone. Nobody is going to carry his messages if they can be sued for their content. He'll have to make his own Twitter. His press conferences won't be broadcast live because the liability is too high. It is hilarious to me that Donald Trump is probably the largest beneficiary of Section 230 and he's the one that wants to remove it.

Section 230 is what lets the little guy exercise his or her right to free expression. It gives them a platform where they have an opportunity to let their opinion rise to the top. It saves them from having to buy their own printing press and build their own audience. Nobody is going to buy you a printing press if they're liable for everything you say. So what happens is you don't get to talk anymore.

>>choose+l1
Even if they were an informational service having the DOJ "break them up" would be way more illegal than anything they could directly publish.

>>Nasrud+Ma
You can have a monopoly and not abuse your power, or you can have your monopoly broken up. The Sherman Antitrust act still exists. Law still exists. There are already multiple anti-trust investigations underway by the states, and the DOJ.

There is bipartisan support to break them up. Ask Warren.

What is illegal about enforcing the law?

>>peacel+(OP)
> regulate social media like a phone company, natural monopoly, or common carrier.

Twitter is not a public utility.