Posted on Jan 14, 2021
SGT Ben Keen
325
21
9
9
9
0
Freedom of Speech vs. Customer Terms and Conditions

This is a post I've been wanting to share for some time and the recent events surrounding the attack on the Captial and moves made by other social media platforms has driven me to post this.

Let's start with the 1st Amendment and social media. The First Amendment reads that CONGRESS shall not make any LAW respecting an establishment of a religion of its free exercise. It also states that NO LAW should be passed limiting what we can and cannot say. Social media platforms, including RallyPoint are a privatly held company just like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and whatever other sites you may use to express yourself. Each of these services have terms and conditions that you agree to adhere to in trade to use their platform. A lot fo these sites use a third-party site hosting application like Amazon Web Services (AWS). These hosting partners hold their clients to a certain standard in order to be allowed to be hosted. RallyPoint, for example, is hosted on AWS. RallyPoint is also a monitored forum made up of selected user admins who monitor what is posted and take appropriate action when needed.

Now, I know a lot of users have taken issue with what the admins do or have not done. Some of you have asked me or blamed me for taking action(s) on the post. Facebook and Twitter differ because they use more compute learning to have this process automated. Neither way is 100% perfect. Yes, certain things slip through the cracks. As one of the admins, I can tell you it is very hard for a handful of admins to see every single post as they go up. We do this on a volunteer basis because we want to see this platform be successful. And while I may not personally agree with what is being posted, as long as the post isn't violating the terms and conditions I normally lean to letting it stand unless comments and other activity deem it necessary to remove some content. This is not infringing on your rights; this ensures all users are held to the same standard. Some things are pretty cut and dry. Using racist terms, threatening someone's life; posting private personal information, and other things will get noticed. RallyPoint reserves the right to remove any content with or without warning to the author.

Now, I'm sure some people here will point out how President Trump is being singled out because other people have posted some awful things and are still allowed to access the different platforms. And I agree with you. Personally, I feel that Facebook and Twitter went about things the wrong way but in the light of the attack a few weeks ago, I feel tempers were raised and people looked for a faster reaction rather than the best reaction. But it still can't be ignored that he used these platforms to get some of his supporters worked up to the point where they felt they had no choice but to do what they did. I do not condone their actions. I feel their actions will have a lasting effect on this country and it saddened me. But at the same time, if someone was on RallyPoint doing the same thing; I would see it as the same as posting a threat and I would remove the account immediately as well.

We all have to remember, there are rules in place and no one person is above those rules. As an admin, my actions are monitored and if it is seen that I am abusing my role, then I answer directly to the staff. But at the end of the day, I think we are all here for the same reason; to help each other.
Avatar feed
Responses: 3
SFC Michael Hasbun
5
5
0
3dd327f3
(5)
Comment
(0)
SGT James Murphy
SGT James Murphy
>1 y
Again Many of these "social media" companies are really COMMON CARRIERS and need to be recognized and regulated as such.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Michael Hasbun
3
3
0
As for the Capitol incident, it's not really a matter of opinion any more.
The President was just impeached for inciting a failed insurrection in an attempt to overturn the democratic process. This is not an opinion, this is a statement of fact.
This has been declared an act of domestic terrorism, sedition and insurrection by the FBI, The House, the Senate, the President Elect, the SECDEF, the SECARMY, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Department of Justice. That is a fact, not a discussion point.
Any servicemember or retiree still receiving pay who is advocating, either verbally or in writing, support for this effort or its instigators needs to be VERY careful, or they will very quickly find themselves with the FBI knocking on their door. You are no longer persons with differing political opinions, you are now supporters of domestic terrorism via a failed attempt at treason.
(3)
Comment
(0)
Sgt Print Journalist
Sgt (Join to see)
>1 y
The insurrection started along time ago when the Left started their ambitious multiple endeavors to remove a duly elected President with copious false accusations, anon “witnesses”, false evidence, collusion w foreign entities, etc. while many Dems were (are) thriving in China, Russia, Iran $$$deals. Then came the Stolen Election/ convoluted impeachment. Comeuppance will come at the right time for the AntiAmerican traitors; also Pres Trump not disappearing into the sunset. I won’t argue on this, M Hasbun, things will become evident in time.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SGT James Murphy
SGT James Murphy
>1 y
LOL What a Total Crock of Shit Mike.. Do you REALLY Believe that?
(0)
Reply
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
SFC Michael Hasbun
>1 y
SGT James Murphy none of this is objectively debatable.
His inciting of the riot was done live on TV, for all to see, his impeachment for that incitement was done on live tv, for all to see, and the official designation of the incident as domestic terrorism was done on multiple platforms, from email, press conference, memorandum and interviews.
There's no ambiguity here.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SGT James Murphy
1
1
0
I'm pretty sure many of these "private companies" need to be re-classified as COMMON CARRIERS and be subject to the same regulations.
(1)
Comment
(0)
SGT Ben Keen
SGT Ben Keen
>1 y
I think if that move was made, they would then have to call under the Federal Communications Commission and to me, would be a higher concern of sharing free thoughts and ideas. That's just my personal point of view with my brief understanding of what it means to have them classified as "common carriers".
(2)
Reply
(0)
SGT James Murphy
SGT James Murphy
>1 y
Also their 230 "protection" from being sued needs to be removed. Other carriers can be sued. Should be equal.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close