Joe Rogan argues the government should own Twitter to control what speech is allowed

[brackis1]

Tell me more about the alleged cheating...

There was a whole Schaub leaking thing.

 

[Hollywood Jack]

There was a whole Schaub leaking thing.

You talking about this shit?

 

[dissectingaorticaneurysm]

You're misunderstanding and misstating his position. What Joe and I support is Twitter and similar companies being taxed and regulated as utilities and users having 1st Amendment protections on their platform.

So are you proposing that the government buy out Twitter? Its current market cap is $27 billion- sound like a good use of tax dollars to you?

 

[djacobox372]

This guy wants to give the government the authority to decide which speech is allowable on the internet. He is literally out of his mind! Also some anti vax shit he heard from Alex Jones.
.

You completely missed the point, it's illegal for the government to decide which speech is allowed on the internet, which is why Joe wants the government to provide a twitter and youtube-like platform.

Of course any government run platform would be full of porn, racist propaganda, and fake news--because all of those are protected under the 1st amendment.

 

[Deleted member 499399]

You're misunderstanding and misstating his position. What Joe and I support is Twitter and similar companies being taxed and regulated as utilities and users having 1st Amendment protections on their platform.

Do you mean Twitter or all social media? I don’t see how you can pick and choose once you give the government the authority.
Right wingers have long complained about the mainstream news outlets being biased. This is why we have Fox News. Do you think a better solution would be to only allow CNN to report news but have the governments in charge of the content? I can’t see how people are supporting this idea in the name of free speech.

 

[djacobox372]

Do you mean Twitter or all social media? I don’t see how you can pick and choose once you give the government the authority.
Right wingers have long complained about the mainstream news outlets being biased. This is why we have Fox News. Do you think a better solution would be to only allow CNN to report news but have the governments in charge of the content? I can’t see how people are supporting this idea in the name of free speech.

Forget about the private companies and, they should be allowed to do what they want, and censor what they want. Forcing them to allow content they disagree with would be like going to a children's book publisher and forcing them to also publish porn.

Just have a public alternative for vids and tweets. It will be an unpopular cesspool, but at least there will be an avenue for free speech.

 

[Hollywood Jack]

Do you mean Twitter or all social media? I don’t see how you can pick and choose once you give the government the authority.
Right wingers have long complained about the mainstream news outlets being biased. This is why we have Fox News. Do you think a better solution would be to only allow CNN to report news but have the governments in charge of the content? I can’t see how people are supporting this idea in the name of free speech.

I don't know how good faith you're engaging in this, but simply stated, I don't want the government to own Twitter or other social media sites, I want the government to tax and regulate them as public utilities and provide 1st Amendment protections on the platform. People have a right to engage with their leaders on social media. That's why public officials like President Donald Trump have been blocked from blocking people on Twitter. I don't think Twitter should be allowed to ban people for completely arbitrary reasons like saying "men are not women", especially when it's effectively become our modern day public square. You can agree or disagree with this position, but please make a good faith effort to understand it and state it correctly.

 

[Hollywood Jack]

So are you proposing that the government buy out Twitter? Its current market cap is $27 billion- sound like a good use of tax dollars to you?

I don't believe you're actually this dumb. Take that as a compliment, I guess. Read my last post.

 

[SalvadorAllende]

my technical computer skills are pretty close to maxed out every time I don’t put the mouse in my mouth.

LOL

Haven't heard that. What episode is it?

I love the podcast, Joes a real awesome dude. I don’t really care to listen to other people’s political opinions or their random ramblings in a 1-way conversation all that often though. So I pick and choose which episodes to listen to. I generally only listen to the experts or people I’ve never heard of in fields that interest me. I get the odd one I can’t make it through but it’s a lot more hits than misses.

Agree. Joe is a good guy who speaks his mind despite being open about himself knowing nothing about anything and call himself a dummy.

So I'm cool with him expressing his opinions. He does not strikes me a someone with bad intentions.

Is interesting how people criticize him but if we are honest if any of us record thousands of hours talking about random stuff would have a shit ton of stupid quotes and controversial ideas.

 

[dissectingaorticaneurysm]

I don't believe you're actually this dumb. Take that as a compliment, I guess. Read my last post.

And by which mechanism will the government transform a media platform into a utility? There's no precedent for this and undoubtedly violates countless laws.

Twitter is just glorified texting at its core. Its real worth is in the name and userbase. What you're proposing is a public alternative that won't ban users. You don't need to seize existing companies for that.

 

[Hollywood Jack]

And by which mechanism will the government transform a media platform into a utility? There's no precedent for this and undoubtedly violates countless laws.

Twitter is just glorified texting at its core. Its real worth is in the name and userbase. What you're proposing is a public alternative that won't ban users. You don't need to seize existing companies for that.

You're either A LOT dumber than I thought you were, or you're intentionally misstating my position to try to discredit me (I highly suspect the latter). Not a good look either way.

Let me put it like this. Just like the local power company can't cut my power because they don't like my sociopolitical views, Twitter shouldn't be able to ban me from the modern day public square where my political leaders make major announcements. The government wouldn't buy or control the day-to-day operations of Twitter anymore than the power company, they would simply tax and regulate, as they should ALL businesses. Quite simple concept for anyone who wants to understand to understand. And yes, obviously power companies are a more essential service than Twitter. Still important enough in this era for government regulations and protections. Agree or disagree with my position, but cut the shit already.

 

[EndlessCritic]

I’ll get to that in a minute but first,
Im a fan of the podcast. I enjoy the long format discussion nature of the show. Joe is a good conversationalist and I can listen for hours without getting bored. I like that the ads are at the front and not interrupting the conversation. But...
I do not share his politics and his recent emphasis on sharing his political opinions does not add to my enjoyment of the show. I think Joe is best when he is neutral on political matters. I think of him as a mix of Larry King and an Oprah for men.

Anyways I was listening today and Pac-Man says something along the lines “ so you want to socialize Twitter ?” and Joe says yes. This guy wants to give the government the authority to decide which speech is allowable on the internet. He is literally out of his mind! Also some anti vax shit he heard from Alex Jones.

Sorry I didn't add the video timestamped but my technical computer skills are pretty close to maxed out every time I don’t put the mouse in my mouth.

Did you not understand Joe's point?

Joe's point is that the government is at least bound by the Constitution in terms of what they are allowed to censor. Twitter and Facebook have a monopoly on communication, and are therefore pseudo-government. Yet, despite having immense power with respect to the flow of information, they are not bound by the Constitution.

His point is not that government control is good, it's that government control would be less restrictive than what we currently have.

 

[Drain Bamage]

Lol hella people not comprehending things right in this thread looool

This is why progress is so slow

 

[dissectingaorticaneurysm]

You're either A LOT dumber than I thought you were, or you're intentionally misstating my position to try to discredit me (I highly suspect the latter). Not a good look either way.

Let me put it like this. Just like the local power company can't cut my power because they don't like my sociopolitical views, Twitter shouldn't be able to ban me from the modern day public square where my political leaders make major announcements. The government wouldn't buy or control the day-to-day operations of Twitter anymore than the power company, they would simply tax and regulate, as they should ALL businesses. Quite simple concept for anyone who wants to understand to understand. And yes, obviously power companies are a more essential service than Twitter. Still important enough in this era for government regulations and protections. Agree or disagree with my position, but cut the shit already.

Again, that would be best resolved by the creation of a government media platform for public officials to broadcast to. A Twitter.gov if you will. Should we seize Amazon too once everyone relies on daily Prime deliveries for all their consumption needs?

Also, I lean towards dumber.

 

[Hollywood Jack]

Again, that would be best resolved by the creation of a government media platform for public officials to broadcast to. A Twitter.gov if you will. Should we seize Amazon too once everyone relies on daily Prime deliveries for all their consumption needs?

Also, I lean towards dumber.

Yeah, you're not worth engaging further with on this. Have a nice day. I often agree with you and like your posts, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[nostradumbass]

This was my line of thinking as well. Don't understand why the government needs to take control of something like twitter though barely anyone uses it.

No reason the government should commandeerexisting twitter, but having something of their own that's similar would be interesting to see, with complaints, petitions etc sent to the politicians in public view.

Once Trump and his ilk are out of the White House.......maybe it could work.

And this guy is an example of who would ruin it. Any legitimate grievance or concern from adults would be drowned out by 10,000 of these children with TDS sending threats and complaining that fat bad orange man should be imprisoned for that 2nd scoop of ice cream.

 

[Mondo Freaks]

Fuck Rogan on this. We actually need more privatization in this country.

 

[Deleted member 499399]

I have a hard time believing joe actually said this. Id like to see the video. Censorship goes against joes beliefs and its one of the reasons hes moving off youtube.

Got a clip?

I updated the op with a clip

 

[Deleted member 499399]

Did you not understand Joe's point?

Joe's point is that the government is at least bound by the Constitution in terms of what they are allowed to censor. Twitter and Facebook have a monopoly on communication, and are therefore pseudo-government. Yet, despite having immense power with respect to the flow of information, they are not bound by the Constitution.

His point is not that government control is good, it's that government control would be less restrictive than what we currently have.

Do you think Fox News is being overly restrictive if they won’t allow me to air a 3 hour discussion on the benefits of exposing school children to trans people? Are they violating my rights of free expression? Shouldn’t I just find another medium to express my views? The internet is big. There is room for everyone and we don’t need the government poking around in it.

 

[EndlessCritic]

Do you think Fox News is being overly restrictive if they won’t allow me to air a 3 hour discussion on the benefits of exposing school children to trans people? Are they violating my rights of free expression?

The quoted portion highlights your misunderstanding of rights.

A right conveys a corollary duty. Welfare is a right. If you ask for welfare, the state has a positive obligation to provide you with it.

Free speech is not a right. It is a liberty. Liberties do not convey corollary duties. Nobody has an obligation to give you free speech. The state is simply not permitted to take an action which infringes on your ability to express yourself.

Non-state actors, by definition, cannot violate your "rights of free expression", since no such rights exist. Only the government is limited in the manner in which it can infringe on your ability to express yourself.

The above highlights Rogan's central concern. Facebook and Google are large and powerful like government, yet lack the same restrictions of government. You say the internet is big, and that "Shouldn’t I just find another medium to express my views?", but I'm going to suggest to you that reasonable people can disagree about this point.