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

  • Thread starter Deleted member 499399
  • Start date
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.
I agree with what you said except the last paragraph. I do not think it’s reasonable to allow the government to take control over social media content just because Twitter took a pro trans stance with their language policy. There are plenty of websites people can go to to spew hateful garbage freely to one another. The freedoms we would be giving up are not justified.
 
So you think the government should be entrusted with this authority? I’m just having a hard time thinking you would support the idea of the FCC overseeing your face book account if Biden was President.
Why? It would be the same as if Trump were president. You know the president isn’t going to be censoring them himself right? The government really doesn’t censor much. They censor a hell of a lot less than those platforms do right now
 
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.
That’s not actually true. The government does censor certain things when it comes to being out in public. What they won’t do is censor people because they don’t like their opinions

I’m beginning to understand the TS now. He doesn’t want some people to be able to share their opinions and is pro censorship. Cool...

If I had my way most social media platforms would be erased from the Earth. They’re a god damned blight on humanity
 
Why doesn't the government just create its own twitter?
 
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.

They got 50 million active users in the United States.
 
I agree with what you said except the last paragraph. I do not think it’s reasonable to allow the government to take control over social media content just because Twitter took a pro trans stance with their language policy. There are plenty of websites people can go to to spew hateful garbage freely to one another. The freedoms we would be giving up are not justified.
Let's frame it a different way.

Let's pretend Twitter was created by the government. Ask yourself, what restrictions would be placed on the government in how they managed Twitter, and censored content?

Rogan's point is that actual Twitter should be subject to those same restrictions on how they censor content.
 
Social media like FaceBook, twitter and instagram have just given the morons of the world a voice and given media corps an even bigger amount of influence.

Rogan obviously has a point BUT seeing as I live in China I can tell you you absolutely need to be careful what you say, gov controlling social media completely is a recipe for massive loss of freedom.
 
Joe Rogan is a Dumbass. Not sure why anyone cares about the stupid shit he says.
The problem is that now there is another dumbass talking about it .
Let's frame it a different way.

Let's pretend Twitter was created by the government. Ask yourself, what restrictions would be placed on the government in how they managed Twitter, and censored content?

Rogan's point is that actual Twitter should be subject to those same restrictions on how they censor content.
We can’t pretend our way out of this. The fact is that Twitter was created by the private sector. They are a publicly traded company. They have a right to exist and to allow or deny any speech they want on their platform.
 
Honestly, the government wouldn't be half as bad at politicalcensorship as the twitter people. The government is at least bound by the first amendment and can't ban and censor users by claiming "private company, build your own internet".

Lol the government isn't bound by amendments or the Patriot act wouldn't exist.
 
We can’t pretend our way out of this. The fact is that Twitter was created by the private sector. They are a publicly traded company. They have a right to exist and to allow or deny any speech they want on their platform.
AT&T is publicly traded too. Should AT&T be able to shut off people's phones who say things that AT&T finds disagreeable? Can't those people just use a different phone carrier?
 
I don't think there should be any more government control over anything, but can't see it as a bad thing if giant social media companies are held accountable for their stifling of free speech.
 
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.
This is an interesting take. You got me thinking.
 
This is an interesting take. You got me thinking.
Further thinking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

"Adrian has a negative right to x against Clay if and only if Clay is prohibited from acting upon Adrian in some way regarding x. In contrast, Adrian has a positive right to x against Clay if and only if Clay is obliged to act upon Adrian in some way regarding x. A case in point, if Adrian has a negative right to life against Clay, then Clay is required to refrain from killing Adrian; while if Adrian has a positive right to life against Clay, then Clay is required to act as necessary to preserve the life of Adrian."
 
So you don't think there's anything wrong with the big social media platforms censoring certain political viewpoints and using their massive influence to promote others? They're developing a significant amount of power.

I just think there should be more free speech and less censorship.

So I guess the free market doesn't work anymore?

I mean if these platforms are so bad then why don't the great conservative investors get some engineers together and make a competing platform and watch the money pile up as the people rush to their superior product?
 
Gov't to control what speech is allowed? There are such countries already. He could move there and risk forfeiture of his $100 mil if he wants.
 
Back
Top