• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Should social media be nationalized?

Belz... said:
That's like saying "Don't like Walmart? There's Jerry's on the side of the street."

There's competition, but the competition is far from being as large as the most popular site, and has much, much less content.
Click to expand...

So?

Vimeo will still host most of what Youtube will, minus the extremes like Alex Jones. Gab is mostly for the white supremacists who are so far gone that even Twitter wants nothing to do with them - and given how Twitter still features Alex Jones and Richard Spencer, it's basically violent gangs like the Proud Boys, people like Sargon that send unsolicited gay porn around, and the like. Oddly, since everyone knows this, everyone else avoids that wasteland, and so the people there keep trying to recruit people to torment.

Of course, given their brazen white supremacism, we know that Dolt 45 would still let Twitter/YT ban LGBT people, people who oppose racism like Rev. Talbert Swan, and the like, if not outright demand it.
 
uke2se said:
Every government for their own country. That's already happening. As an example, Belgium has decided that certain types of downloadable content in games constitute gambling and are banned. Companies now has to take that into account when serving Belgian customers.
Click to expand...

We're talking about something far different to if certain games or game play options are available in a specific country.

We're talking about how a social media platform should be run, and how it should be allowed to determine whether a person should be prevented from saying something, or even having access to the platform itself.

How would having individual countries making up these rules for their own country even work? Would Facebook have to ban someone who is in Britain for violating their Hate speech laws, but allow someone from the US to say the exact same thing without punishment? How fair is that?

You run into the same issues if the platforms are regulated by the laws of the country that they are hosted in. Just take this forum for example. It was originally created in the US, it has Head Admin from the UK, and I believe that its server is currently located in Sweden. What rules does it have to follow? If a platform was hosted in China, then should US citizens on it have to obey China's laws on speech? How about what happens when the company is in head-quartered in one country, but has its platform on servers that are hosting it worldwide. What about companies that have multiple HQs and servers worldwide?

This isn't really such an easy question to answer is it?
 
LSSBB said:
For those of you looking for a benchmark, China has a government run social media.

Very efficient, like the Interstate!
Click to expand...

China doesn't have a bill of rights.

The Atlantic Council and similar Machiavellian think tanks (Matt Taibbi described them as the current "government in exile" since Trump won and brought in a new policy crew) are now being given the task of moderating facebook, so it's like the worst element of government doing it, but users/citizens have no "free speech" arguments to make, because it's a private company "choosing" to outsource it to technically non-governmental organizations.

eta: link to excellent Taibbi interview on the subject:
https://therealnews.com/stories/facebook-google-play-the-censor-are-our-civil-liberties-endangered

MATT TAIBBI: Yeah, I think the really, the wakeup call for me was the news that Facebook announced a partnership with a group called the Atlantic Council. Which is essentially sort of a NATO-backed think tank. If you look at its board it’s packed with ex-security state officials; people like Henry Kissinger and Michael Morrell, the former acting CIA Director Michael Hayden. It’s a quasi-governmental agency that sees itself essentially as a sort of government in exile. It imagines itself as the sort of watchdog that would have existed had Hillary Clinton won the presidency.
Click to expand...

I highly suggest reading or watching the whole interview.
 
Last edited:
Seems like we are talking around the central issue. That certain people are being banned from these platforms for bullying/harassing behavior and Trump wants to stop the companies from being able to ban said people. Should Trump be able to tell them who can and cannot be banned?
 
Travis said:
Seems like we are talking around the central issue. That certain people are being banned from these platforms for bullying/harassing behavior and Trump wants to stop the companies from being able to ban said people. Should Trump be able to tell them who can and cannot be banned?
Click to expand...

It's Trump, do you really need to ask that question?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
It's Trump, do you really need to ask that question?
Click to expand...

But as it stand now, it's Zuck getting Henry Kissinger to be the mod, and he's banned Telesure and a leftwing gov page from Venezuela.

https://btlonline.org/fear-of-russi...legitimate-left-and-right-political-websites/


ETA: and from the Taibbi interview:

he problem with this is that they’re now starting to review not just for obscenity or pornography, but also for political content. And you know, we saw the beginnings of what could be a problem a couple of years ago when they deleted the iconic image of the napalm girl in Vietnam. And now we’re seeing wholesale deletions of political accounts in countries all over the world. You know, 10,000 accounts got wiped out ahead of Mexican elections on July 1. We have hundreds of accounts in Brazil wiped out. And we don’t know exactly what criteria they’re using to delete some of these accounts, and I think that’s the problem, is that it’s not transparent. So yeah, we’ve never had a media regulator, and that’s one problem. But we’ve also always had transparency in the courts when we punish people for that speech. We don’t have that either, now.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Travis said:
Seems like we are talking around the central issue. That certain people are being banned from these platforms for bullying/harassing behavior and Trump wants to stop the companies from being able to ban said people. Should Trump be able to tell them who can and cannot be banned?
Click to expand...

It seems like if the central issue involved what Trump wants he would have been mentioned in your original post.
 
Travis said:
Seems like we are talking around the central issue. That certain people are being banned from these platforms for bullying/harassing behavior and Trump wants to stop the companies from being able to ban said people. Should Trump be able to tell them who can and cannot be banned?
Click to expand...

Strong emphasis on *certain* people - ie. Dolt 45's supporters, often using made up controversies (Facebook is suppressing us! Twitter Shadowbanned all my tweets, here's my tweet with thousands of likes and retweets that says so!)

People who get banned for being LGBT, or for calling out ethnonationalists? No, they're fine with that - and so are many (mostly white in my experience) liberals, usually the same folks that keep giving platforms to Steve Bannon and other white supremacists I am looking at you New Yorker.
 
Social media nationalized as in a socialistic way or nationalized in the current fascist way?
 
I'd love to hear someone explain the logistics on just how, exactly, any one singular country could "nationalize" (read: regulate, restrict, and dictate) the rest of the planet's social media usage.

Someone in Trump's camp care to step up onto their soapbox and lay it all out for the rest of us ?

Thanks in advance.

Yours truly,
The Rest of the World
 
AnonyMoose said:
I'd love to hear someone explain the logistics on just how, exactly, any one singular country could "nationalize" (read: regulate, restrict, and dictate) the rest of the planet's social media usage.

Someone in Trump's camp care to step up onto their soapbox and lay it all out for the rest of us ?

Thanks in advance.

Yours truly,
The Rest of the World
Click to expand...

Land the 101st airborne on the Facebook campus and the 82nd at alphabet. Take all employees hostage mid day. At gun point direct them to transfer all assets over to the officers.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Land the 101st airborne on the Facebook campus and the 82nd at alphabet. Take all employees hostage mid day. At gun point direct them to transfer all assets over to the officers.
Click to expand...

That sounds like something I'd enjoy watching over the tv. Not fun for those poor employees, but fun for the rest of us watching from a distance... witnessing the fall of Rome in real time and all that.

I missed the fall of the first Roman Empire way back when, I'll be damned if I'm going to miss another one.

:p



Mental note to self:

Load up on beer and popcorn beforehand, the stores might be closed that day.
 
AnonyMoose said:
That sounds like something I'd enjoy watching over the tv. Not fun for those poor employees, but fun for the rest of us watching from a distance... witnessing the fall of Rome in real time and all that.

I missed the fall of the first Roman Empire way back when, I'll be damned if I'm going to miss another one.

:p



Mental note to self:

Load up on beer and popcorn beforehand, the stores might be closed that day.
Click to expand...

Did I sufficiently answer your question regarding logistics of a nationalization scheme?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom