Florida Concealed Carry banner

41 - 60 of 62 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,673 Posts
Facebook and Twitter are publicly-owned companies, traded on the stock exchanges.
They are not private companies.

My opinion is that companies like these should be treated (and regulated) as common carriers. ...just like electric and water utilities, rail service, telecommunications, etc...

They offer their services to the public, often for a fee, and should not be able to deny service except for things like failure to pay, etc... Not for content.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Facebook or Twitter user, so I'm not really sure how their financial models operate.
It could be the service is free, and is supported by data-harvesting and targeted advertising.
Either way, there is consideration for use of the platform, which, to my mind, would still fit inside the confines of a common carrier. The SHOULD NOT get special protection against liability, unless they truly separate themselves from the content.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,673 Posts
[snip]... FPL is a private company, but they cannot deny you electrical service on the basis of your political ideology; why should Facebook or Twitter be allowed to do so?
[snip]
FPL is also a publicly-owned company.
It's traded under NextEra Energy, its parent company.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
Thoughts?

Flame away.

YMMV
It may be worth entertaining the notion that Twitter, Facebook, etc. is useful for the United States'(not necessarily it's citizens) goal of exporting it's values to the world(Uganda? Really?) That the Government could corral the world wide web with the help of some 'Patriotic' Americans(tech CEOs) and willing yet unwitting users is bordering on tinfoil hat, but hey, why not? Amazon hosts the DOD.

That doesn't make it right, and closer relationships between corporations and the Federal Government should be spooky, but we tend to spend a lot of time on WW2, and just about nothing else growing up like say, the State taking over means of production, and entangling itself with private corporations in lefty disaster countries that murdered lots of their own citizens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,594 Posts
Tim, you make a good point. In a perfect world you would think that should be treated more fairly. Since they are private businesses they do tend to have more latitude. We can’t tell radio stations what songs to play except for the request line. I like listening to Cardi B and her song ‘WAP” but some don’t. These outfits are big business and I guess the government has a shot at them regarding being a monopoly. Again, my feeling is it’s all about the money.

Let’s just hope that Martin Castillo doesn’t come after you for not giving him enough air time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,148 Posts
You'd be the first one to start screaming bloody murder if all the major social media sites started silencing liberal voices in the manner that they currently stifle conservative ones.

Like it or not, social media has become the defacto public square of our society and it's time they be regulated like public utilities. FPL is a private company, but they cannot deny you electrical service on the basis of your political ideology; why should Facebook or Twitter be allowed to do so?

If our laws can compel a baker to perform a service for someone he doesn't want to serve, they can be crafted to prohibit Big Tech from censoring the marketplace of ideas.
That is correct but FPL does not actually carry messages (data) from you and that is the difference. Twitter has rules (like this forum) and can ban you for violating them.
(I should know). I you say on this forum to go shoot up the FL capitol you would be banned for posting a suggestion to commit an illegal act.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,673 Posts
Tim, you make a good point. In a perfect world you would think that should be treated more fairly. Since they are private businesses they do tend to have more latitude. We can’t tell radio stations what songs to play except for the request line. I like listening to Cardi B and her song ‘WAP” but some don’t. These outfits are big business and I guess the government has a shot at them regarding being a monopoly. Again, my feeling is it’s all about the money.

Let’s just hope that Martin Castillo doesn’t come after you for not giving him enough air time.
Actually, we (the Federal Communications Commission) very much tells radio and TV stations what to play, (or at least, what NOT to play). There are numerous decency laws which prohibit profane or indecent content on broadcast TV and radio between 6AM and 10 PM, when (presumably) there is a risk of children in the audience. Obscene content (and this is defined in the rules) is prohibited outright.

There are also laws against having too much commercial advertising during program content aimed at younger age groups.

I forget the exact wording of the rules, but it will be in 47CFR Part-73 (Broadcast rules).

Cardi B, huh? Really??!
Wow. :cry:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,673 Posts
That is correct but FPL does not actually carry messages (data) from you and that is the difference. Twitter has rules (like this forum) and can ban you for violating them.
(I should know). I you say on this forum to go shoot up the FL capitol you would be banned for posting a suggestion to commit an illegal act.
Again, not true.

FPL provides data fiber on their utility poles and rights-of-way.
Up until recently (2017?), they ran FPL FiberNet, which indeed provided message data, video, and voice on their fiber networks to businesses and residential customers. They have since sold that business to Crown Castle - which is one of the large cellular / radio / TV tower owners in the country (landlord).

Its parent, NextEra FiberNet was still running in areas outside Florida the last time I checked. But perhaps FPL has since exited the business entirely.

THAT SAID, I'm unaware of ANY instance in which FPL moderated content on its fiber communications networks. They sold the "pipe" (i.e., the fiber circuit), or in some cases, shared bandwidth on a pipe with others, and couldn't care less what was in that pipe. (This is the same for satellite uplink companies too, by the way.)

And separately, there is also a technology called "Broadband over Power Lines", or "BPL", which isn't used much, but I wouldn't be surprised to see FPL or other utilities using it in under-served rural areas.

Care to try again? :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,673 Posts
Actually, we (the Federal Communications Commission) very much tells radio and TV stations what to play,
...[snip]
The takeaway from the below is that radio & TV DO NOT have free reign.

And the reason is simple: Not everyone can own a radio or TV station.
There are only so many that can "fit' within the radio spectrum allocated for their use.
As such, First Amendment law as it relates to radio & TV is markedly different that what we laypersons believe is "First Amendment". (IANAL, but there is precious little analysis in what follows.)

Anyway....

Wow. I went looking for the exact rule citations (for Shark), and left a bunch of stuff out (that I had forgotten). :)
  • Children's advertising (47CFR73.4050)
  • obscene language (47CFR73.4165)
  • obscene broadcasts (47CFR73.4170)

And add to the list:
  • no broadcasting of telephone conversations without permission (47CFR73.1206)
  • no broadcasting about lotteries (47CFR73.1211)
  • no broadcasting of taped, filmed or recorded materials without reference to time created (47CFR73.1208)
  • no broadcasting of hoaxes (47CFR1217), and rules for contests (47CFR73.1216)
  • mandated equal opportunity (equal time) for legally qualified candidates for political office (47CFR73.1941)
  • advertising (refusing to sell). (47CFR73.4005), and US Supreme Court 412 US 94 (1973)
  • cigarette advertising (47CFR73.4055)
  • loud commercials (47CFR73.4075)
  • drug lyrics (47CFR73.4095)
  • Emergency Broadcast System content rules (47CFR73.4097)
  • payment disclosure ("payola, plugola, kickbacks) (47CFR73.4180)
  • program matter, supplier identification (47CFR73.4215)
  • program sponsorship (47CFR73.4215)
  • subliminal perception (47CFR73.4250)
  • tone clusters, audio attention-getting devices (47CFR73.4275)
  • sponsorship notice for political ads (47CFR73.4190)

And for non-commercial / educational stations, a whole slew of rules relating to content and program sponsorship.

And just to throw in:
Not so much a "what" to play, but "who" can play, see the station ownership rules (47CFR73.3555)
and limits to how many stations can be owned by a single entity in a given geographical market, even including newspaper cross-ownership!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,625 Posts
...Let’s just hope that Martin Castillo doesn’t come after you for not giving him enough air time.
Castillo would just give me that “glare”, the one that makes your sphincter reflexively tighten up. :oops:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,977 Posts
The New World Order either owns or controls """ALL""" Media including social media.
Ronnie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
This is only "MY" opinion and nothing more.
It is "NOT" about $$$$$$
It is about "POWER" and "CONTROL:"
The New World Order aka One World organization of billionaires from all over this planet is now owning the Democratic Party and the elected Politicians are made to do the bidding of the N/W.O. puppet called Nancy P. ( her Billionaire husband is a N.W.O. member and probably a leader)
They are intimated by the fact that a hell of a lot of dissenting, Non-conforming people in politics and high offices committed suicide, Died in accidents or totally just disappeared all through the Clinton and Biden administrations.
Just think about Creepy Joe picking the LAUGHING HYENA as a running mate. (((THEY ACTUALLY HATE EACH OTHER AND SHE viciously LIED ABOUT HIM during the democrat debate circus. That should tell everybody that some one is pulling the Biden Strings.
Have any of you actually listened to the Media lies about Trump and the Protest? He may have called for a peaceful event but he never told anyone to be armed or break into the building. Now they call it an armed terrorist attack on America led by Donald Trump. And they keep saying this lie over & over drumming it into the SHEEPS HEADS.
They went after the N.R.A. and did a great job of getting the members pi$$ed off enough to stop paying dues or supporting the organization.
They will go after the gun owning citizen of America and will more then likely disarm enough people to not be a problem anymore for them.
This New World Order aka One World has been around and infiltrating for 70 PLUS years and back in the fifty's Senator Joseph McCarthy tried to do something about the threat and was shot down at every turn.
HE WAS RIGHT AND ON TO WHAT WAS GOING ON
Creepy Joe and his Laughing hyena are only puppets and will pass to Nasty Nancy the orders from the N.W.O. probably through Nasty Nancy's billionaire husband.
Dis arming America is important because they know that they will have problems controlling an armed population. .
Like I said at the beginning, This is only what I think and at 78 years old should not really care, I love my country and hate to see it gone to hell
Ronnie
Love your opine and it's so right on, stay the course Ronnie!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,986 Posts
Joecarry, no flames from me. I'm in agreement that the major social media companies have become too large and too arrogant.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
28,444 Posts
Joecarry, no flames from me. I'm in agreement that the major social media companies have become too large and too arrogant.
Yeah, "too big to fail" was just as wrong for economic reasons as it is for 1A and Individual Liberty reasons! 🤬
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
952 Posts
I note that some here have always wanted to have me permanently banned for my posts which never advocated violence. People have approved the fact that this forum is privately owned and can control who comes in.
Now some are complaining about POTUS/POS being banned from Twitter.
Good for goose/good for turd!!!!!!
But you did pretty much say that you were happy that what happened at the capitol happened. I guess you can still say you don't advocate violence but you do applaud it because you think it furthers your liberal cause and your hate for the president.

I don't know how to quote something from another thread but here is copy and pasted:

Denver; sort of a "what about"' defense.
Windows WERE broken to gain entry. A session of the Congress of The USA was interrupted. Private offices WERE invaded. AND; this is our nations capitol.
As bad as this was,I am not unhappy because seeing this on TV will erode some of the remaining support for POTUS (POS).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,148 Posts
But you did pretty much say that you were happy that what happened at the capitol happened. I guess you can still say you don't advocate violence but you do applaud it because you think it furthers your liberal cause and your hate for the president.

I don't know how to quote something from another thread but here is copy and pasted:

Denver; sort of a "what about"' defense.
Windows WERE broken to gain entry. A session of the Congress of The USA was interrupted. Private offices WERE invaded. AND; this is our nations capitol.
As bad as this was,I am not unhappy because seeing this on TV will erode some of the remaining support for POTUS (POS).
AND??????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,588 Posts
If it were the private companies acting on their own behest, I could give a rat's ass about what they did. The problem we have here is crony capitalism at it's finest. Big Tech is acting on behalf of the administrative state, and the incoming regime. Which makes it quite wrong. Expect Big Tech to basically craft their own laws with their pet Congresscritters and bureaucrats. It's like after Prohibition got repealed, Big Booze basically wrote the regulations to freeze everyone else out.

If Twitter, independently wants to ban Trump? OK, fine. If he violated their TOS, then toss him.

However, it's a double standard. Routinely, Democrats, statists, and other garden-variety morons issue all manner of fatwas and death threats towards anyone they don't like, and Twitter turns a blind eye to the tomfoolery. Again, if this were done independently, that's fine. But it's not.

Also, why have a TOS if it's going to be selectively enforced. I owned and ran a forum once (not gun related) and outside of rules against brute force threats we had no TOS. Why? Because we extended preferential treatment to those who paid us. And we didn't make any secret of it. No one bitched because we were honest.

It's all a long-form game - Big Tech on the move agains the Second Amendment and the Capitol incident was their Reichstag fire.

Oh consider this too while we're here. This very site is owned and operated by foreign interests who don't share our support of freedom and fun.
 
41 - 60 of 62 Posts
Top