Should Social Media Platforms such as RallyPoint be treated as a Public Utility?

2019-05-05T12:21:35-04:00

One side of the Argument is to treat Facebook, YouTube, Google, etc as a public utility and therefore protect free speech.
For Clarification here is a CRAZY regulation called the first amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made May 5 at 2019 12:24 PM

2019-05-05T12:24:58-04:00

A reasonable question. Easy to answer. No. A public utility is a monopoly which makes it subject to regulation. Internet forums (social media) abound. No regulation necessary. If you don't like what you see and hear, try another...

Response by SGT Ben Keen made May 5 at 2019 12:27 PM

2019-05-05T12:27:14-04:00

Read any terms and conditions for any social media site, the content that you publish on whatever system is not "owned" by you. Most sites, including RallyPoint reserves the right to control what content is shared. It has nothing to do with the first amendment, it's all about quality control. As a senior user admin on RallyPoint one of my tasks is to monitor what is posted. If something is shared that doesn't comply with the terms and conditions agreed upon when creating an account, that post is removed.

Response by SGT Thomas Heinold made May 5 at 2019 12:30 PM

2019-05-05T12:30:11-04:00

That rest solely upon its creator

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made May 5 at 2019 12:40 PM

2019-05-05T12:40:54-04:00

One of the appalling aspects of this forum is broaching a subject, and it melts down to name calling or ridiculing.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2019 12:50 PM

2019-05-05T12:50:02-04:00

No. Private companies have the right to be private companies. I would never vote to have the government take and control the labor of a private company. Also, the have the right to refuse service. Now if they refuse service to people of a certain political view more than others the companies have to be aware that there could be economic implications.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2019 2:20 PM

2019-05-05T14:20:11-04:00

it’s a good question. I agree with the Government regulating social media only for the mere fact that admin shows a clear bias towards one ideology. If the admin did not show a favoritism toward a particular political identity then they should be allowed to operate free from. Government oversight.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2019 3:50 PM

2019-05-05T15:50:17-04:00

No. Hell no. Any attempt to regulate political speech by government is a violation of the Constitution.
I don't care that people who disagree with fans of Trump work at Google or Facebook or any other social media outlet. I don't care that private sector firms (such as Facebook, Twitter, and so forth) may favor one political viewpoint over another. They are private entities. They may do that if they wish. Fans of Trump are free to launch their own enterprises and run them as they see fit.

Trump is not a conservative. Trump is not a fan of our system of government. Trump is not the messiah.

Response by SGT James Murphy made May 5 at 2019 4:29 PM

2019-05-05T16:29:21-04:00

I guess i need to post something by Ted Cruz as an example of the "problem".
Ted Cruz
@tedcruz
How is it that @RealJamesWoods is currently being banned on Twitter, but
@JimCarrey is not?
It’s certainly not any standard based on “hate.” Carrey’s latest Twitter “art” shows Bill Barr drowning in a sea of vomit.

Response by LCDR Joshua Gillespie made May 6 at 2019 8:57 AM

2019-05-06T08:57:26-04:00

"Social Media" (a category RP falls into) is almost like a conversation... you can say what you like, but there's no guarantee everyone's going to like hearing it. However, it's different from a true conversation for many reasons...not the least of which is that administrators can (and I presume do) control some of the content being presented for discussion. I think this "control" is for the best, so long as the intent is to prevent dialogues from spiraling into pointless "keyboard wars" which neither serve RP's original purpose (networking/exchange of professional information, etc.)... nor really get anywhere in resolving the spawning conflicts.

People tend to be a bit more free with their opinion when there's little to no chance of seeing each other face-to-face...so I take some comments for what they are, and always remember that I can end a useless debate by logging off.

Response by PO1 Don Gulizia made May 6 at 2019 9:32 AM

2019-05-06T09:32:52-04:00

I'm very conflicted on this topic. One one hand, I believe that private companies should be able to manage their companies the way they see fit. If they have rules/guidelines, then either we adhere to them or we go somewhere else. One the other hand, I hate the hypocrisy. Imagine that FB, Twitter, Instagram were created/owned by an evangelical Christian and they prohibited LGBT, Democratic Socialism, or any other "left of center" content...what would the reaction be by the government, traditional media, academia??? There's really no good answer...just varying levels of bad ones.

Response by MSgt Michael Smith made May 6 at 2019 1:19 PM

2019-05-06T13:19:42-04:00

Funny how conservatives are all about keeping government out of everything, deregulation, privatization, etc. UNTIL private companies start banning hateful, nationalistic, BS information. And then they want the government to run in and regulate everything. Can you say hypocritical??? Also, what makes you think the government would allow that garbage on a government-controlled public utility? You ever listen to NPR? Do you hear a lot of Alex Jones on there? Face it --intelligent, objective, fair-minded Americans don't want any part of this garbage.