"This isn’t a question of property rights. This is a question of fraud. In this modern era, social media networks are the new public square." - Hallo friend USA IN NEWS, In the article you read this time with the title "This isn’t a question of property rights. This is a question of fraud. In this modern era, social media networks are the new public square.", we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article HOT, Article NEWS, we write this you can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title : "This isn’t a question of property rights. This is a question of fraud. In this modern era, social media networks are the new public square."
link : "This isn’t a question of property rights. This is a question of fraud. In this modern era, social media networks are the new public square."

"This isn’t a question of property rights. This is a question of fraud. In this modern era, social media networks are the new public square."

"Banning – and worse, secretly banning while deceiving the user into believing their content is being shared equally – excludes individuals from public life.... Social media companies cannot eat their cake and have it too. They cannot enjoy the privileges of being a platform, such as immunity from liability for users’ content, while also enjoying the privileges of being a publisher to control what everyone may or may not say on their network."

Said John Reilly, a Republican in the Michigan legislature, about a new bill. He's quoted in "Michigan Bill Would Ban ‘Viewpoint Discrimination’ By Facebook, Google" (michigancapitolconfidential.com)(via Instapundit).

The legislation would amend the state Consumer Protection Act to explicitly prohibit “a provider of an interactive computer service” that represents itself as “viewpoint neutral, impartial, or nonbiased” from taking certain actions based on a user’s political views. It could not: “block a user's speech; censor a user's speech; ban a user; remove a user’s speech; shadow ban a user; deplatform a user; deboost a user; demonetize a user; otherwise restrict the speech of a user.”

Based on that language, I'm going to assume that Facebook/Google could maintain their independence and avoid endless litigation by making a clear statement that they retain the right to censor and minimize any speech that in their sole judgment violates their terms of service and that — because judgment is unavoidably subjective — they cannot and therefore do not promise to operate in a manner that is viewpoint neutral, impartial, or nonbiased.

If the law is premised on fraud, Facebook and Google could simply eliminate the what Reilly is characterizing as fraudulent. If what they want is to force the private companies to uphold freedom of speech, they run into the problems of the free speech rights that the companies themselves can claim.

Thus articles "This isn’t a question of property rights. This is a question of fraud. In this modern era, social media networks are the new public square."

that is all articles "This isn’t a question of property rights. This is a question of fraud. In this modern era, social media networks are the new public square." This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.

You now read the article "This isn’t a question of property rights. This is a question of fraud. In this modern era, social media networks are the new public square." with the link address https://usainnew.blogspot.com/2019/07/this-isnt-question-of-property-rights.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: