The (Current year) General Political/Salma Hayek discussion Thread Part V

[BugI02]

So you think political candidates have a right to use social media? I can understand having platforms post their rules before banning someone, but no way in hell do I think govt should tell businesses that politicians MUST have access to their platform.

You will when that capability is used against the candidates you favor. You'll probably cry racism, too

Too many people who think no need to be nice to people on the way up because you're never coming down

Hows that 'Emereging Democratic Majority' working out

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't see massive mega corporations as private entities as so many of your persuasion seem to.

If I stop paying my bills and go bankrupt, I have to deal with the consequences; they don't. They give themselves a few million dollars or more and go live on a private island as the tax payers eat up their financial failure.

If you see them as govt entities then, while being incorrect, your reasons are consistent.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Does changing the demographic make any difference?

Nope. I long held that discrimination should be legal unless life or limb is at risk.

 

[jamil]

So you think political candidates have a right to use social media? I can understand having platforms post their rules before banning someone, but no way in hell do I think govt should tell businesses that politicians MUST have access to their platform.

When a social media platform acts as the the public square, in a way that gives a great benefit to those allowed on the platform, that complicates things. Removing a candidate from their platform should be considered at least a campaign contribution to the opponents.

 

[Tombs]

If you see them as govt entities then, while being incorrect, your reasons are consistent.

They occupy a place between the private sector and government.

Any time you detach personal risk and responsibility and apply it to a legal construct, I think a line has been crossed and it's no longer an individual.

Many businesses do this yet still have some degree of personal liability for their failures. These gigantic corporations have entirely detached any personal risk or liability for anything, and should not be afforded the same liberties. The government is solely responsible for their existence, as without the laws and legalese to create and protect such a thing, it wouldn't exist.

 

[jamil]

It's about time people stop worshiping corporations and start celebrating the bill of rights.

Bill of rights governs what the government can do, not what companies can do. But I’m quite alright with limiting how media companies can control the conversation by using their power to drive the politics they want. I don’t even give a **** about the 230 arguments. And like I said, at least consider their meddling as a campaign contribution, and subject to all the laws governing that.

 

[Kutnupe14]

When a social media platform acts as the the public square, in a way that gives a great benefit to those allowed on the platform, that complicates things. Removing a candidate from their platform should be considered at least a campaign contribution to the opponents.

Newspapers and television broadcasts are also considered in the public square. Do you believe that they too should be compelled to abide by such rules?

 

[Tombs]

Bill of rights governs what the government can do, not what companies can do. But I’m quite alright with limiting how media companies can control the conversation by using their power to drive the politics they want. I don’t even give a **** about the 230 arguments. And like I said, at least consider their meddling as a campaign contribution, and subject to all the laws governing that.

See what I said above.

 

[jamil]

Nope. I long held that discrimination should be legal unless life or limb is at risk.

What’s special about life or limb that changes the the principle? If you can carve that out why can’t someone else carve out something else.

 

[jamil]

Newspapers and television broadcasts are also considered in the public square. Do you believe that they too should be compelled to abide by such rules?

I think the fairness doctrine should be reinstated for that kind of media. It’s a different kind of public square anyway. Anyway. Certainly if a newspaper uses their reach to promote a candidate over another that should be considered a campaign contribution.

 

[Kutnupe14]

What’s special about life or limb that changes the the principle? If you can carve that out why can’t someone else carve out something else.

Not sure if srs? or don’t understand what “life and limb” implies.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I think the fairness doctrine should be reinstated for that kind of media. It’s a different kind of public square anyway. Anyway. Certainly if a newspaper uses their reach to promote a candidate over another that should be considered a campaign contribution.

And who decides which candidates get precedence over another?
Here’s a list of the 2020 presidential candidates...

List of registered 2020 presidential candidates

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

 

[actaeon277]

“You have no right to stop us from silencing people!”

My solution would probably be frowned upon.

 

[actaeon277]

The courts decided politicians couldn't ban people on social media.
Seems like the case is made.

 

[jamil]

And who decides which candidates get precedence over another?
Here’s a list of the 2020 presidential candidates...

List of registered 2020 presidential candidates

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

All or none. If a media company wants to promote a candidate it's a campaign contribution. Be up front about that ****.

 

[bwframe]

MyPillow CEO flew Kristi Noem to GOP governors conference on his private jet

Mike Lindell was then kicked out of the RGA event after threatening to confront certain governors.

www.politico.com

 

[KLB]

Newspapers and television broadcasts are also considered in the public square. Do you believe that they too should be compelled to abide by such rules?

Are they allowed to deny access to a candidate?

"We're only going to allow Democrat advertising!"

 

[Kutnupe14]

Are they allowed to deny access to a candidate?

"We're only going to allow Democrat advertising!"

They should be

 

[COOPADUP]

 

[buckwacker]

Nope. I long held that discrimination should be legal unless life or limb is at risk.

Well if you're being honest, at least you're being consistent. IF you're being honest.