Corporate Speech Amendment - squaring rights of corporations with rights of natural persons?

[Cubo de Sangre]

Nope. Take for instance this little app called "Gab.ai" which bills itself as a free speech social media platform, similar to Twitter or Facebook but without the partisan moderation. I'd love to download it, but I haven't been able to since Apple won't allow it in the App Store. On top of that Google banned it from their "Play Store." Now Microsoft is threatening to shaft Gab as well. Basically a handful of giant corporations colluded for the purposes of eliminating an alternative media platform altogether. Why? Because Gab apparently isn't censoring its users to Apple's / Google's / Microsoft's liking. Don't tell me that market forces are at work here.

That's pretty shitty. Are those the only way to get apps on your phone?

 

[panamaican]

That's pretty shitty. Are those the only way to get apps on your phone?

It's not shitty at all. Every time you buy a phone, you do it knowing that they're controlling the ecosystem.

My brother had a stock trading app on iTunes for a couple of years. They're very specific about what they want. IF he wanted to go to Android, he could have but they have their own criteria. Google too.

The thing is that just because you can't download an app doesn't mean that you can't access the websites on your phone. And there are other phone platforms other than Google and Apple.

Free market gives these guys plenty of options to get their product out. These complaints are more like when people get upset that Wal-Mart won't carry their favorite brand of X or that Barnes and Noble doesn't have their favorite novel for sale.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

It's not shitty at all.

That's your opinion. Cheers.

 

[JamesRussler]

That's pretty shitty. Are those the only way to get apps on your phone?

I suppose I could look into jailbreaking it (if that's still a thing). Or I could try to find a phone company that doesn't actively censor the views of its end users.

It's not shitty at all. Every time you buy a phone, you do it knowing that they're controlling the ecosystem.

My brother had a stock trading app on iTunes for a couple of years. They're very specific about what they want. IF he wanted to go to Android, he could have but they have their own criteria. Google too.

The thing is that just because you can't download an app doesn't mean that you can't access the websites on your phone. And there are other phone platforms other than Google and Apple.

Free market gives these guys plenty of options to get their product out. These complaints are more like when people get upset that Wal-Mart won't carry their favorite brand of X or that Barnes and Noble doesn't have their favorite novel for sale.

^^^ See, @Cubo de Sangre, this what we're dealing with here. Big tech caters to a highly illiberal mob of SJW activists, and they're perfectly happy to censor dissidents with no fucks given. Ideally, the "free market" would allow for alternative platforms, but there are more than mere market forces at work. That's the sort of situation that requires coercive intervention.

 

[panamaican]

^^^ See, @Cubo de Sangre, this what we're dealing with here. Big tech caters to a highly illiberal mob of SJW activists, and they're perfectly happy to censor dissidents with no fucks given. Ideally, the "free market" would allow for alternative platforms, but there are more than mere market forces at work. That's the sort of situation that requires coercive intervention.

It's always amusing when arguing for less government is labeled illiberal or activism by people who want to hand over more individual freedom to the government for partisan reasons.

There is nothing more than market forces in work. There are plenty of phones that run Linux and anyone can design for them. This is basically free market losers trying to force the market to support their products by leaning on the government for assistance. A healthy helping of government welfare!!!

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Or I could try to find a phone company that doesn't actively censor the views of its end users.

I'm an advocate of voting with the dollar.

 

[JamesRussler]

I'm an advocate of voting with the dollar.

Is there any point at which you'd say government intervention is warranted to preempt or counteract corporate malfeasance?

 

[JamesRussler]

It's always amusing when arguing for less government is labeled illiberal or activism by people who want to hand over more individual freedom to the government for partisan reasons.

There is nothing more than market forces in work. There are plenty of phones that run Linux and anyone can design for them. This is basically free market losers trying to force the market to support their products by leaning on the government for assistance. A healthy helping of government welfare!!!

You dodged a point I made in the other thread regarding government intervention for socially progressive purposes. So It's try this again. Civil Rights Act of 1964 – good or bad? It forced people to associate against their will, diminished the ability of businesses to refuse service, and otherwise intervened where the free market wasn't adequately addressing a social ill. There were plenty of restaurants that served all races, so why couldn't the "free market losers" (to borrow your term) take their business elsewhere?

Now we have this problem of giant tech corporations censoring people for political reasons. You apparently don't appreciate the problem, but I'm 100% sure you'd sing differently if it were your speech at issue and not someone else's. Tell me why shouldn't the government intervene (via Constitutional Amendment or something else) to elbow drop these tech firms into submission?

 

[panamaican]

You dodged a point I made in the other thread regarding government intervention for socially progressive purposes. So It's try this again. Civil Rights Act of 1964 – good or bad? It forced people to associate against their will, diminished the ability of businesses to refuse service, and otherwise intervened where the free market wasn't adequately addressing a social ill. There were plenty of restaurants that served all races, so why couldn't the "free market losers" (to borrow your term) take their business elsewhere?

Now we have this problem of giant tech corporations censoring people for political reasons. You apparently don't appreciate the problem, but I'm 100% sure you'd sing differently if it were your speech at issue and not someone else's. Tell me why shouldn't the government intervene (via Constitutional Amendment or something else) to elbow drop these tech firms into submission?

I didn't dodge any points, I haven't been back to many threads.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - good. Only forced those operating in the public square to associate against their will. Private organizations are still free to discriminate without consequence, so long as they don't run an open door policy.

These social media companies don't run an open door policy. They have rules and contracts that you must acquiesce to prior to accessing their product. They also make the final determination on who gets an account and who doesn't. Lastly, non-account holders are not allowed to post content on their platforms. They are not open to the public. They are a very large private club.

Think about this parallel. You want to go to Walmart. So long as it's during operating hours, anyone can walk into Walmart and peruse the products. Contrast with Costco/BJ's, you cannot go into those stores just because you want to. You have to get prior approval from the corporation and be designated a member.

 

[MiniCraque]

Amending the Constitution because Alex Jones got put in his place seems like an overreaction.

 

[Trotsky]

It's always amusing when arguing for less government is labeled illiberal or activism by people who want to hand over more individual freedom to the government for partisan reasons.

There is nothing more than market forces in work. There are plenty of phones that run Linux and anyone can design for them. This is basically free market losers trying to force the market to support their products by leaning on the government for assistance. A healthy helping of government welfare!!!

Yeah, the irony of this "free market" argument is pretty, pretty thick. And I personally don't have any ideological reverence for the free market and only regard it as a tool for efficient distribution to be amended wherever its efficiency is outweighed by an even marginally greater public interest.

 

[panamaican]

Yeah, the irony of this "free market" argument is pretty, pretty thick. And I personally don't have any ideological reverence for the free market and only regard it as a tool for efficient distribution to be amended wherever its efficiency is outweighed by an even marginally greater public interest.

Which is how good government and capitalism should intersect.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Amending the Constitution because Alex Jones got put in his place seems like an overreaction.

lol

the free market should just be fully embraced rather than the OP. everyone would love a social media platform where alex jones and the antifa can battle it out, say crazy shit, and try to sell us all dick pills. a goldmine im sure.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Is there any point at which you'd say government intervention is warranted to preempt or counteract corporate malfeasance?

Environmental damage and the oversight of publicly traded companies.

 

[JamesRussler]

I didn't dodge any points, I haven't been back to many threads.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - good. Only forced those operating in the public square to associate against their will. Private organizations are still free to discriminate without consequence, so long as they don't run an open door policy.

Those businesses were not actually "in the public square." They were private businesses on private property. The government came in and told them that they don't have the right to refuse service to black people, among other things.

But let's run with this "public square" idea anyway. Explain to me how social media is not a "public square" for First Amendment purposes?

These social media companies don't run an open door policy. They have rules and contracts that you must acquiesce to prior to accessing their product. They also make the final determination on who gets an account and who doesn't. Lastly, non-account holders are not allowed to post content on their platforms. They are not open to the public. They are a very large private club.

Oh, but they do run an open door policy. Anyone can sign up. The only disqualifying factor that I can think of (at least for some sites) is age. There are some which require some qualification, but those aren't the ones I'm concerned with. Rather, I'm concerned with these large, ambitious social media tech companies which have carved out such an essential spot in public discourse. The TOS have been problematic in part because they're not administered fairly. Forums which purport to be neutral have all sorts of rules regarding "hate speech" (which, as you surely know, the SCOTUS has repeatedly declined to recognize as a category of unprotected speech). Site administrators use "hate speech" and other vague TOS to pre textually censor opinions they disagree with. You might not see the problem with a "hate speech" classification, but in reality there appears to be no level of dissent shallow enough to escape being branded a Nazi by the loony Left. I've been infracted here for "advocating genocide" (full disclosure: I'm park Black AND Jewish, and have an interracial family, but whatever – I must be Hitler).

This is something Conservatives have to tolerate on a daily basis, i.e. oppression from giant tech firms at the behest of political opposition. This is the problem which my proposed Amendment seeks to remedy. Slimy tech firms would not be able to weasel their way around the Amendment using sneaky TOS, because the Amendment provides that "The government must not allow a for-profit corporation, which has availed the public of a medium and which hosts content from the public upon that medium, to censor, dissuade, or otherwise abridge the freedom of speech exercised by private persons in content hosted on the corporation's medium."

 

[JamesRussler]

Environmental damage and the oversight of publicly traded companies.

What about monopolies and anti-trust stuff?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

What about monopolies and anti-trust stuff?

Of course governments should mitigate the damage they do. But thanks for reminding me of public utilities (where infrastructure logistics necessarily constrain the market).

 

[Prokofievian]

Nope. Take for instance this little app called "Gab.ai" which bills itself as a free speech social media platform, similar to Twitter or Facebook but without the partisan moderation. I'd love to download it, but I haven't been able to since Apple won't allow it in the App Store. On top of that Google banned it from their "Play Store." Now Microsoft is threatening to shaft Gab as well. Basically a handful of giant corporations colluded for the purposes of eliminating an alternative media platform altogether. Why? Because Gab apparently isn't censoring its users to Apple's / Google's / Microsoft's liking. Don't tell me that market forces are at work here.

That's actually a good point. It seems a little anti-trusty. Instead of a ''tied-purchase'' it's like, a tied-anti-purchase.

Because the corporations must specify if their medium is limited to a certain class. If it's not, they must abide by the First Amendment. And if they pull shenanigans like the ones I referenced above, they will get their dicks chopped off. Figuratively speaking. So yeah, it's a little bit different.

What I mean is what's to stop a ''classical liberal'' platform from saying ''lol jk, we're really a pinko commie socialist one and SPEECH IS VIOLENCE'' before ban hammering some people? Is that any less capricious than it is now?

A conclusory declaration that your site is "liberal" would be enough to exempt you. Assuming Yerterb is a for-profit corporation, just specify in your articles of incorporation that your company exists to serve a liberal user base. But if you want to serve the public at large, you will be subject to regulation, because "the government must not allow" you to censor users (keep in mind, this basically only applies to social media companies). This is actually not such a novel proposition – companies that decide to "go public" get access to the benefit$$$ of being publicly traded on stock exchanges, but they must submit to SEC regulation. It's a trade-off, but many companies decide it's worth it.

Likewise, if you want Yerterb to be (1) open to the public and (2) benefit from the public's user-created content, then you must submit to regulation. Thankfully, the regulation is simple: don't censor anyone unless the offending speech is not protected under the First Amendment.

You just have to say you're ''Liberal'' or do you have to specify the exact limits of what that entails?

 

[JamesRussler]

That's actually a good point. It seems a little anti-trusty. Instead of a ''tied-purchase'' it's like, a tied-anti-purchase.



What I mean is what's to stop a ''classical liberal'' platform from saying ''lol jk, we're really a pinko commie socialist one and SPEECH IS VIOLENCE'' before ban hammering some people? Is that any less capricious than it is now?



You just have to say you're ''Liberal'' or do you have to specify the exact limits of what that entails?

If a corporation opts to serve the public discourse, but then violates the rights of its users, it will be fined, possibly enjoined from further activity. Limiting the customer base would be easy in the first instance, but switching back and forth would not be easy. After all, if you’ve enticed all these users to join and invest their time (and possibly money) creating content, it’s not fair to switch the rules on them.

Consider Elon Musk’s recent tweet about taking Tesla private. If the company were already private, nobody would care if he said “we’re thinking of going public.” Since it’s a publicly traded company, he needed to comply with SEC filing requirements, duties to his shareholders, etc. Because Tesla is public, Musks can’t use the corporation as a vessel for his personal whims. The ol public/private switcheroo won’t fly.

I propose the same concept apply to social media companies that host the public’s content. Being private is easy. Going public is a little harder, but the benefits are greater. Going public to acquire a user base then going private to skirt the law is a no-no.

 

[Prokofievian]

If a corporation opts to serve the public discourse, but then violates the rights of its users, it will be fined, possibly enjoined from further activity. Limiting the customer base would be easy in the first instance, but switching back and forth would not be easy. After all, if you’ve enticed all these users to join and invest their time (and possibly money) creating content, it’s not fair to switch the rules on them.

Consider Elon Musk’s recent tweet about taking Tesla private. If the company were already private, nobody would care if he said “we’re thinking of going public.” Since it’s a publicly traded company, he needed to comply with SEC filing requirements, duties to his shareholders, etc. Because Tesla is public, Musks can’t use the corporation as a vessel for his personal whims. The ol public/private switcheroo won’t fly.

I propose the same concept apply to social media companies that host the public’s content. Being private is easy. Going public is a little harder, but the benefits are greater. Going public to acquire a user base then going private to skirt the law is a no-no.

I think you're on to something with the market comparison moreso than with the amendment. I just don't think that you could make a format as large as youtube have the first amendment as its terms and services agreement without some sort of a draconian policy (like being unable to change their declaration whenever they feel like it). However, it's not so much that these platforms have the ability to shut people down willy nilly that's problematic, it's the fact that they or their parent companies control the market.

I'm a leftist who actually thinks this issue can be solved by the free market, it's just that there might not be a market as such, currently. The SEC regulations are particularly on the nose: the SEC exists so that the stock market functions. Without it there'd be too many Bernie Madoffs and Enrons to make it worth investing. Which would be bad. Google and Apple being the market for competing apps is a bit like Amazon owning the NYSE. That would be bad.

Greenwald was making a point like this on the intercept. That it's the vertical integration of these platforms that is potentially problematic, not really their size. I really can't be persuaded to give a shit how big youtube is, and how capriciously they ban people from their services: provided you can just go ahead and download a competitor's app.