It sounds like many on the right are calling for what seems to be a right-wing version of the Fairness Doctrine. Their rhetoric against "Big Tech" is hard to distinguish from that of hard leftists who harbor animosity towards big oil, big Pharma, and other big corporations. The common belief among these right-populists and leftists is that they think they entitled to the goods and services of these companies, on their terms. If we don't like the decisions of social media firms or other corporations, we can vote with our feet via the free market and patronize another firm. Companies always pay attention to the bottom line, so if their decisions create enough dissatisfaction to the point where they lose business, they will be forced to adjust. And in other cases, if there isn't yet an alternative for the goods and services provided by one company, enough demand for them can result new competition being created. Using the heavy hand of the government to punish companies because we don't like their policies removes any incentive for the company to economize and provide the best value proposition for us as the consumer. Choice and competition via a free market make that possible.
If anything, instead of using the government as a bludgeoning tool against companies whose decisions we don't like, as conservatives we should advocate for policies that promote and allow for a healthy free market. Competition and choice is what does and will keep companies in check.
Too many "conservatives" have internalized the lesson that Trump taught: Building something new and competitive is more trouble (and work!) than it's worth, so you might as well whine loudly to get your way when someone folds to make the screeching go away.
"'I do whine because I want to win and I’m not happy about not winning and I am a whiner and I keep whining and whining until I win,' Trump told CNN’s Chris Cuomo on Tuesday." [1]
You should be careful about using a dictionary definition in today's world. It might have been changed in the last few hours by someone who agrees with Mazie Hirono or some other idiot. I do think that all content protections enjoyed by social media should be voided. If they censor the content, they own the information on their platform. A better system would be a media that allows all legal content and makes the poster responsible for his posts.
Should a private business be able to have someone removed from their premises for trespassing (which happens often if someone is belligerent)? How is removal of content posted in a private business's website (in this example Facebook) fundamentally any different?
Private businesses are only responsible for things they inherently control, like water on the floor that can cause a fall or other such items. They should not be responsible if, for example, someone comes into their premises and physically attacks another patron without warning.
Or maybe like a customer spilling hot coffee on himself? There are examples to the contrary but this is where the analogy between words and action is imperfect. Who knows what will trigger someone to do something stupid? Maybe clapping instead.of finger wiggling or using the wrong pronoun will cause someone to snap. Sane people can deal with varying opinions.
What about denial of services to protected classes or classes who think they are protected. What if it's a baker who says his terms of service don't include creative work for queer weddings. There are no private rights anymore. All rules are for the greater good.
It sounds like many on the right are calling for what seems to be a right-wing version of the Fairness Doctrine. Their rhetoric against "Big Tech" is hard to distinguish from that of hard leftists who harbor animosity towards big oil, big Pharma, and other big corporations. The common belief among these right-populists and leftists is that they think they entitled to the goods and services of these companies, on their terms. If we don't like the decisions of social media firms or other corporations, we can vote with our feet via the free market and patronize another firm. Companies always pay attention to the bottom line, so if their decisions create enough dissatisfaction to the point where they lose business, they will be forced to adjust. And in other cases, if there isn't yet an alternative for the goods and services provided by one company, enough demand for them can result new competition being created. Using the heavy hand of the government to punish companies because we don't like their policies removes any incentive for the company to economize and provide the best value proposition for us as the consumer. Choice and competition via a free market make that possible.
If anything, instead of using the government as a bludgeoning tool against companies whose decisions we don't like, as conservatives we should advocate for policies that promote and allow for a healthy free market. Competition and choice is what does and will keep companies in check.
Too many "conservatives" have internalized the lesson that Trump taught: Building something new and competitive is more trouble (and work!) than it's worth, so you might as well whine loudly to get your way when someone folds to make the screeching go away.
"'I do whine because I want to win and I’m not happy about not winning and I am a whiner and I keep whining and whining until I win,' Trump told CNN’s Chris Cuomo on Tuesday." [1]
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2015/08/11/politics/donald-trump-refutes-third-party-run-report
You should be careful about using a dictionary definition in today's world. It might have been changed in the last few hours by someone who agrees with Mazie Hirono or some other idiot. I do think that all content protections enjoyed by social media should be voided. If they censor the content, they own the information on their platform. A better system would be a media that allows all legal content and makes the poster responsible for his posts.
I agree there. I’ve a hard copy dictions from the 80s and some of the changes are astounding.
Should a private business be able to have someone removed from their premises for trespassing (which happens often if someone is belligerent)? How is removal of content posted in a private business's website (in this example Facebook) fundamentally any different?
I think the private business should have that right so long as it assumes responsibility for whatever happens on the premises.
Private businesses are only responsible for things they inherently control, like water on the floor that can cause a fall or other such items. They should not be responsible if, for example, someone comes into their premises and physically attacks another patron without warning.
Or maybe like a customer spilling hot coffee on himself? There are examples to the contrary but this is where the analogy between words and action is imperfect. Who knows what will trigger someone to do something stupid? Maybe clapping instead.of finger wiggling or using the wrong pronoun will cause someone to snap. Sane people can deal with varying opinions.
That still doesn't give one the right to someone else's platform/property.
Facebook belongs to their shareholders, not the users.
And: users effectively sign a contract stating they will abide by the terms of use or else.
What about denial of services to protected classes or classes who think they are protected. What if it's a baker who says his terms of service don't include creative work for queer weddings. There are no private rights anymore. All rules are for the greater good.