Re: "Free speech"

[trotsky]

On 11/4/22 4:40 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> "trotsky" wrote:
>> On 11/4/22 9:54 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Ed Stasiak <edstas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I'd say the fix for mega-bazillion dollar Wall Street social media sites
>>>> is to properly consider them the communication corporations that they
>>>> are and mandate no censorship of their users (outside of illegal stuff).
>>>
>>> They're not common carriers. If it's your Web site, then you are the
>>> publisher. If you are using somebody else's, then they are the publisher
>>> and can allow or disallow what they like. Freedom of the press is
>>> guaranteed only to those who own one, as the cliche says.
>>>
>>>> Twitter has almost 400 million daily users while Facebook has over
>>>> 1.6 BILLION daily global users. These are no longer "just websites"
>>>> they're substantially larger then phone companies, which cannot
>>>> censor their users and nor should social media sites.
>>>
>>> Your argument has never been the least persuassive. btw, the phone
>>> company wasn't just a common carrier but a public utility, and yeah, the
>>> subscriber only received telephone service if he complied with the
>>> tariff and paid his bill. That's not the case with Twitter nor Facebook.
>>>
>>> You keep ignoring that one aspect of being a common carrier is
>>> publishing the tariff first and then accepting all traffic that complies
>>> with the tariff and that the subscriber or customer or shipper must pay
>>> for the service in order to benefit from it.
>>>
>>> I suppose a social media company could be set up as a common carrier but
>>> none of them are despite your constant handwaiving.
>>
>> "Handwaiving?" What the fuck does that mean?
>
> "spelling" "flame" noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.


Well Pubie'd and anonyshitted.