And the Internet was created by the US government, so it's also a public resource.
Ok, it's been privatized, but can the government abdicate it's responsibility to protect freedom of speech by privatizing?
Edit because I'm "posting too fast": Paying for most of the infrastructure didn't make TV stations or phone companies exempt from similar regulation. I don't see why it would make social networks exempt.
To your edit: broadcast TV wasn’t under FCC jurisdiction because they paid to broadcast. The public over the air spectrum are considered to be owned by the government and licensed to the broadcast networks
I agree it's not an exact match for many reasons (including because TV didn't let many people broadcast). Phones are a much closer precedent - both phones and social media are tools for person to person communication.
The cell network also operates by having a license to the spectrum to the public airways and spectrum suitable for cellular service is limited because of physics and therefore is a natural monopoly.
There is no such limitation in someone setting up servers and connecting it to the internet and creating an alternate social media platform. Are there not enough conservatives with the finances and knowledge to create a Twitter alternative? I’ll gladly over charge them and lead the effort if they pay enough. Leading infrastructure and back end development is kind of my thing.
I'm not talking about cell networks. Common carrier also applied to POTS (i.e., copper wire), a system that (unlike the airwaves) was built entirely by private companies.
And once again, it's not about having alternative walled gardens (which already exist). It's about promoting open debate on all platforms. What's wrong with that? If censorship is the only way your ideas can win, your ideas suck.
Incidentally, this also protects the far left if Elon Musk ends up buying Twitter.
If the government wants to provide a place for open debate, it is free to create a taxpayer funded service to do so. If a Christian organization sets up social media website, should it be forced to host a forum to allow open debate about the existence of God?
Again, conservatives love “limited government” and the free markets until neither work in their favor.
Truth Social is an existence proof that the free market is working as it should.
They can also force a 11 year old to have a baby after she has been raped and leave a pregnant lady bleeding because the doctor is afraid to terminate the pregnancy. That doesn’t mean it’s right…
It's truly bizarre to see liberals argue that corporation have a right not to be raped, ergo we must let them decide what is and isn't acceptable speech.
There are many reasons why that won't work for a lot of people:
What if friends who have a variety of opinions just want to be able to communicate with each other?
Or what if someone wants to hear all the facts without censorship? Maybe the Hunter Biden's laptop story was true, but you wouldn't hear that on Twitter. Maybe Trump was very wrong about Invermectin, but you wouldn't hear that on Truth Social.
What if someone believes that open debate is better for democracy than a few alternative echo chambers?
Can I come to your private residence with a group of friends and spout any type of none sense? Isn’t it telling that conservatives can’t come up with a successful social media platform?
I don't have 50 million users, so no the law would not apply to my private residence.
The law instead applies to large social media companies. And the law is allowed by the court system.
If I get 50 million users at some point, running a multi-billion dollar company, then yes the law would apply to me.
> until it is overturned.
I'd recommend that you read up on the supreme court opinions on this. They have already made some statements, that is looking like they are not going to overturn the law.
So it’s only after you are a certain size that the government can take control over a private corporation? I thought conservatives were against “socialism”?
> So it’s only after you are a certain size that the government
We have all sorts of laws that only apply to large companies yes.
For example, a random example would be anti-trust laws. Literally they only start applying if you have a large enough effect on the market.
It is an established precedent in many parts of the law.
And similarly, common carrier laws haven't been that controversial. Parties from all sides of the political spectrum support our existing common carrier laws.
So Twitter of all things are a monopoly? Truth Social is proof that anyone can build a social network platform. It being a failure is an example of the free market at work.
Landline phones and the internet infrastructure and the cell network are all examples of natural monopolies, a website is not a natural monopoly.
This isn't actually true, in the US anti-trust laws don't take into account company size at all. A small company can engage in anti-competitive practices, and a monopoly isn't inherently in violation of anti-trust laws.
There are laws that only apply if a company has enough employees, and tax stuff that applies only above certain revenue, but I'm not actually aware of any other regulations that apply if a company has too many customers.
> in the US anti-trust laws don't take into account company size at all.
It takes into account market power.
> and a monopoly isn't inherently in violation of anti-trust laws.
Good thing that I didn't say that every single monopoly, ever, is in violation of anti-trust law then.
> A small company can engage in anti-competitive practices
It can, yes. But the law is much more likely to make these practices illegal if the company has a large amount of market power.
So yes, the more market power, or larger influence, that a company has, the more likely that some, but not all, laws will apply to them and regulate their behavior.
Some laws DO "only" apply if a company has a large enough market power, yes.
The point of the statement, is the general concept of a company being "large", having an effect on if the law applies or not.
> That's what I thought.
Actually, my previous statement is correct, you just mis-interpreted it. Because I was referring to this general concept of a company being large, and how some laws include this factor as a metric that is relevant to if the law applies.
So I was correct the entire time, you just made up a different idea to attack because you were not able to understand what I was saying.
Yes. I’m sure conservatives would love it if the government also forced everyone to believe in the one true God and go to church every Sunday. They would also love the good old days when “America was great”, interracial marriage was illegal, women couldn’t vote, a President could claim by fiat that he won an election that he actually lost, and those durn colored people couldn’t drink out of the same water fountain.
If Texas was just blocked from posting to Twitter, nothing of value would be lost.
Ok, it's been privatized, but can the government abdicate it's responsibility to protect freedom of speech by privatizing?
Edit because I'm "posting too fast": Paying for most of the infrastructure didn't make TV stations or phone companies exempt from similar regulation. I don't see why it would make social networks exempt.