Sign out
Bimmerpost
Login
BMW E39 5-Series Forum | 5Post.com
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read  
Go Back   BMW E39 5-Series Forum | 5Post.com > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      09-15-2019, 08:14 PM   #1
NormanConquest
Colonel
1508
Rep
2,339
Posts

 
Drives: 340i
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Earth

iTrader: (0)

Prager U vs Alphabet (Googel)

https://www.prageru.com/press-releas...iscrimination/

I really hope this puts pressure to resolve the platform/publisher issue which social media sites enjoy the protections of being a platform but are running their sites as a publisher. That or deem these areas as public space like central park where a private company can't prevent people from having open dialogue with one another.
Appreciate 0
      09-15-2019, 09:22 PM   #2
Welcome to NBA Jam
Is it the shoes!?
Welcome to NBA Jam's Avatar
1664
Rep
3,411
Posts

 
Drives: 2011 E92 335i ZMP 6MT
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Cary, NC

iTrader: (0)

YouTube and Social Media sites aren't like Central Park. They are technology invented by these companies that are popular and effective in delivering various types of media. They own, run, and maintain their product.

You are not required to use them. There are many, many alternative places you can post media. A private company cannot stop you from doing that, but a private company has every right to dictate what is allowed on their platform. The fact that it is a popular and effective platform doesn't change that fact.

The internet is a public space. A website on the internet is not. Entering a website on the internet is akin to entering a business. When you enter that business, you abide by their rules.

Most places in which you decide to post things are owned by private companies who can choose to allow what they please, so long as it is legal. If you don't like them censoring you, you can use another website. You can even create your own competing platform - nothing is stopping you. Take a look at how far DuckDuckGo has come.

It would be a poor precedent to legally force anyone who makes a website or platform to allow any and all speech on it.

Last edited by Welcome to NBA Jam; 09-15-2019 at 09:38 PM..
Appreciate 2
MKSixer15527.50

      09-15-2019, 09:55 PM   #3
NormanConquest
Colonel
1508
Rep
2,339
Posts

 
Drives: 340i
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Earth

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Welcome to NBA Jam View Post
YouTube and Social Media sites aren't like Central Park. They are technology invented by these companies that are popular and effective in delivering various types of media. They own, run, and maintain their product.

You are not required to use them. There are many, many alternative places you can post media. A private company cannot stop you from doing that, but a private company has every right to dictate what is allowed on their platform. The fact that it is a popular and effective platform doesn't change that fact.

The internet is a public space. A website on the internet is not. Entering a website on the internet is akin to entering a business. When you enter that business, you abide by their rules.

Most places in which you decide to post things are owned by private companies who can choose to allow what they please, so long as it is legal. If you don't like them censoring you, you can use another website. You can even create your own competing platform - nothing is stopping you. Take a look at how far DuckDuckGo has come.

It would be a poor precedent to legally force anyone who makes a website or platform to allow any and all speech on it.
Well first off the internet was develope by the government, the regulation that prevent those media not being sued are from the government, all the major social media company till this day get subsidize, and finally...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cent...rk_Conservancy

Look a private entity who maintaines, own and run the park yet no one would tolerate them controlling citizen speech while at the park.

Furtheremore you made my point they declare themselves as a platform meaning they must remain neutral on all moderation which they haven't which violates their status, if they want to censor biasly declare themselves as publisher and let people sue them if a user post some material that is slanderous or liable.
Appreciate 1
City Pig6102.00

      09-15-2019, 10:06 PM   #4
c1pher
Primo Generalissimo
United_States
1606
Rep
2,417
Posts

 
Drives: Porsche Macan Turbo
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: DC area

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
What is surprising to me is that there are no viable alternatives. There are obviously other similar sites, but nothing that markets as a champion of free speech. At least not that I am aware of.
Appreciate 0
      09-15-2019, 10:08 PM   #5
c1pher
Primo Generalissimo
United_States
1606
Rep
2,417
Posts

 
Drives: Porsche Macan Turbo
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: DC area

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welcome to NBA Jam View Post
YouTube and Social Media sites aren't like Central Park. They are technology invented by these companies that are popular and effective in delivering various types of media. They own, run, and maintain their product.

You are not required to use them. There are many, many alternative places you can post media. A private company cannot stop you from doing that, but a private company has every right to dictate what is allowed on their platform. The fact that it is a popular and effective platform doesn't change that fact.

The internet is a public space. A website on the internet is not. Entering a website on the internet is akin to entering a business. When you enter that business, you abide by their rules.

Most places in which you decide to post things are owned by private companies who can choose to allow what they please, so long as it is legal. If you don't like them censoring you, you can use another website. You can even create your own competing platform - nothing is stopping you. Take a look at how far DuckDuckGo has come.

It would be a poor precedent to legally force anyone who makes a website or platform to allow any and all speech on it.
If this were true, then why are there laws governing websites, how they conduct business and protect certain data?
Appreciate 1
      09-16-2019, 01:06 AM   #6
SoCalS2k
Captain
SoCalS2k's Avatar
343
Rep
892
Posts

 
Drives: S2K!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LA

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2001 Honda S2k  [0.00]
Only a republican can reconcile bakers who don't want to make cakes and this.

Like I said before republicans are the worlds experts on hypocrisy.
Appreciate 0
      09-16-2019, 10:51 AM   #7
NormanConquest
Colonel
1508
Rep
2,339
Posts

 
Drives: 340i
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Earth

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalS2k View Post
Only a republican can reconcile bakers who don't want to make cakes and this.

Like I said before republicans are the worlds experts on hypocrisy.
A bakery not a public space, central park is.

Google is not a private company it a publicly traded company.

Last edited by NormanConquest; 09-16-2019 at 01:53 PM..
Appreciate 3
City Pig6102.00
MKSixer15527.50

      09-16-2019, 05:58 PM   #8
Welcome to NBA Jam
Is it the shoes!?
Welcome to NBA Jam's Avatar
1664
Rep
3,411
Posts

 
Drives: 2011 E92 335i ZMP 6MT
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Cary, NC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by c1pher View Post
If this were true, then why are there laws governing websites, how they conduct business and protect certain data?
These are not laws related to speech, which is a different issue. These are laws related to protecting consumer data. Some sites ingest PII, and there are many rules about how you protect that PII from unauthorized access.

Laws about how business is conducted on a website also does not pertain to what users are allowed to say or post on their website. Those are consumer protections that don't differ much from consumer protections you would find in any business.

I do not believe the government should have any business in telling website owners what users are allowed to say or not say beyond the prededefined unprotected forms of speech, or force them to allow all speech regardless if it's related to the website. That is up to the owner to decide. Of course, you then get special situations where a government official uses a private platform to address the public and it is deemed a violation of freedom of speech if that official decides to actively block that user or the platform owner decides to ban that official (unsure about the rules on this one).

I do believe that websites should follow certain protocols to protect consumers from unauthorized access of their data. Laws and data protection standards help provide that protection. If I am providing a website with my credit card, I would like to know that I have consumer protections in-place for unauthorized use of it. Same with my social security number, name, address, etc.

Equating government-contracted Central Park to a popular, profitable, and effective IP that allows users to post and share information is not accurate. You may see it everywhere and you may use it a lot, but it is not a service owned by the government, fully contracted by the government, or paid for with your tax dollars. It's technology made by a company to make money, and technology you opt into using.

Last edited by Welcome to NBA Jam; 09-16-2019 at 06:36 PM..
Appreciate 0
      09-16-2019, 09:24 PM   #9
NormanConquest
Colonel
1508
Rep
2,339
Posts

 
Drives: 340i
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Earth

iTrader: (0)

So tell me, if those platform allow people to smear them by calling them racist, rapist, sexist and so on, and then the platform ban them indicting they agree or support those statements does that individual have a right to sue the platform for slander or liable statements? If not then why not? What protects them from that when any book company, radio, broadcast or newspaper will be expose to the same type of litigation.
Appreciate 2
City Pig6102.00
MKSixer15527.50

      09-17-2019, 05:29 PM   #10
Welcome to NBA Jam
Is it the shoes!?
Welcome to NBA Jam's Avatar
1664
Rep
3,411
Posts

 
Drives: 2011 E92 335i ZMP 6MT
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Cary, NC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NormanConquest View Post
So tell me, if those platform allow people to smear them by calling them racist, rapist, sexist and so on, and then the platform ban them indicting they agree or support those statements does that individual have a right to sue the platform for slander or liable statements? If not then why not? What protects them from that when any book company, radio, broadcast or newspaper will be expose to the same type of litigation.
No, because the platform didn't smear them. The individuals on the website did. They would sue the individuals. The platform has the right to ban anyone they want under conditions met in the EULA. Every user agrees to an EULA when they join a social media site. It's their house, their rules. If I go make a website directly smearing an individual with unfounded sexist and racist claims, are you going to sue the hosting company?

Banning someone doesn't constitute "smearing" them, nor does it directly indicate they agree with one side or another. You can make any conclusion you like over why they might ban someone, but that's only your opinion. If you don't like the way a company handles things, you probably should avoid them.

You cannot force someone or a company to display omething. That is their right to decide what to allow.

Television and radio broadcasts are also governed by completely different and, in my opinion, antiquated rules that dictate what people are allowed to say over the air. There's a fair amount of freedom there, but it is still limited in language and what you are allowed to show - which, I think, is stupid. The internet should absolutely not be governed by those same rules. Allow individuals to decide what they want on their sites.

Last edited by Welcome to NBA Jam; 09-17-2019 at 05:41 PM..
Appreciate 0
      09-17-2019, 06:00 PM   #11
NormanConquest
Colonel
1508
Rep
2,339
Posts

 
Drives: 340i
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Earth

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Welcome to NBA Jam View Post
No, because the platform didn't smear them. The individuals on the website did. They would sue the individuals. The platform has the right to ban anyone they want under conditions met in the EULA. Every user agrees to an EULA when they join a social media site. It's their house, their rules. If I go make a website directly smearing an individual with unfounded sexist and racist claims, are you going to sue the hosting company?

Banning someone doesn't constitute "smearing" them, nor does it directly indicate they agree with one side or another. You can make any conclusion you like over why they might ban someone, but that's only your opinion. If you don't like the way a company handles things, you probably should avoid them.

You cannot force someone or a company to display omething. That is their right to decide what to allow.

Television and radio broadcasts are also governed by completely different and, in my opinion, antiquated rules that dictate what people are allowed to say over the air. There's a fair amount of freedom there, but it is still limited in language and what you are allowed to show - which, I think, is stupid. The internet should absolutely not be governed by those same rules. Allow individuals to decide what they want on their sites.
But your mistaken, a person can sue to network, publisher, radio station and so on because they host the individuals or individuals who sprew that, and the same party activitly preventing the person coming on to clear their name makes them more complacent

Furthermore if the EULA is vague, arbitrary, or selectively enforce that can not be used as a defense in a legal case. Which many of the social media companies and websites have had example of bias and arbitrary enforcement demostrating the company is in breach of their own contract.
Appreciate 0
      09-20-2019, 07:42 AM   #12
NormanConquest
Colonel
1508
Rep
2,339
Posts

 
Drives: 340i
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Earth

iTrader: (0)

Further proof of social media selectively deciding what they are when it convenient

Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:17 PM.




5post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST