Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

Thread: Too big to fail...perhaps too big for normal rules?

  1. #11
    Educator CletusWilbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    03-26-18 @ 05:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    845

    Re: Too big to fail...perhaps too big for normal rules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    During the last recession many businesses were deemed "too big to fail". IE: So big that if they were not bailed out it would constitute a crisis situation. Essentially requiring that special rules be made in order to save the country. Could the same be applied to Big businesses in regards to free speech? For example and more specifically sites that are more often than not are used for conveying speech and expression such as Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, Google etc etc.

    The reason that I ask this is because the idea and reasoning behind having free speech is so that things that the majority of people disagreed with can still be talked about with out interference by the government. An entity that, if left unchecked, could suppress things it didn't like because it has power. Power that the normal citizen by him or herself could not hope to defend against on their own. It seems to me that companies such as the above mentioned having the majority of users than most any other site could have the same chilling effect that the government could if left unchecked. Indeed being private companies they don't really have any checks and as such could suppress speech just as effectively as a generic government could. As such would it be unreasonable if such companies had the same free speech restrictions as the government? IE: Not able to censor or negatively affect speech that they do not like.

    Note that I am usually one that upholds free speech for individuals and companies so I do not ask this question lightly.

    Now I do know that some would be against this simply due to the fact that they think "hate speech" should be squashed and "hate speech is not free speech". I will simply ignore those platitudes because those people do not know what free speech is actually about. But I would like to hear from others on this.
    Interesting stuff. Previously we had newspapers which were easy to produce but not so easily distributed. With broadcast radio, and TV, production became harder but distribution became much easier. Rules were needed to separate broadcasts from each other. Now we are at a point that production and distribution are very easy, virtually unlimited for everybody who has access to the internet. It's a profound challenge for our time.

  2. #12
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:30 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,901

    Re: Too big to fail...perhaps too big for normal rules?

    The government that hankled "too big to fail" banks with ham-fisted ignorance to the benefit (corporate welfare) of those bands and detrimental to the taxpayer/citizen can be counted on to handle censorship with the same ham-fisted ignorance detrimental to the citizen/taxpayer.
    /

  3. #13
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,281

    Re: Too big to fail...perhaps too big for normal rules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    During the last recession many businesses were deemed "too big to fail". IE: So big that if they were not bailed out it would constitute a crisis situation. Essentially requiring that special rules be made in order to save the country. Could the same be applied to Big businesses in regards to free speech? For example and more specifically sites that are more often than not are used for conveying speech and expression such as Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, Google etc etc.

    The reason that I ask this is because the idea and reasoning behind having free speech is so that things that the majority of people disagreed with can still be talked about with out interference by the government. An entity that, if left unchecked, could suppress things it didn't like because it has power. Power that the normal citizen by him or herself could not hope to defend against on their own. It seems to me that companies such as the above mentioned having the majority of users than most any other site could have the same chilling effect that the government could if left unchecked. Indeed being private companies they don't really have any checks and as such could suppress speech just as effectively as a generic government could. As such would it be unreasonable if such companies had the same free speech restrictions as the government? IE: Not able to censor or negatively affect speech that they do not like.

    Note that I am usually one that upholds free speech for individuals and companies so I do not ask this question lightly.

    Now I do know that some would be against this simply due to the fact that they think "hate speech" should be squashed and "hate speech is not free speech". I will simply ignore those platitudes because those people do not know what free speech is actually about. But I would like to hear from others on this.
    I think the simpler solution is to stop regarding them as too big to fail.

    They aren't. And if they do, and we let them, society will survive. We've got some proofs of concept, and allowing them to do so ultimately benefits everyone, if they could not sustain themselves. It also tends to encourage those that survived to take more responsibility of their own practices and pay more attention to their customers, when they know they will not be bailed out.

    No corporation should have so much power that we are forced to pay for its existence whether we want to or not, no matter how badly they behave. The irony of that, in a country that supposedly champions capitalist markets and meritocracy.

  4. #14
    Guru
    MrWonka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    3,457

    Re: Too big to fail...perhaps too big for normal rules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    The reason that I ask this is because the idea and reasoning behind having free speech is so that things that the majority of people disagreed with can still be talked about with out interference by the government. An entity that, if left unchecked, could suppress things it didn't like because it has power.
    I assume therefore that you are in favor of Net Neutrality then right?

  5. #15
    Sage
    holbritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    NY
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    8,011

    Re: Too big to fail...perhaps too big for normal rules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    During the last recession many businesses were deemed "too big to fail". IE: So big that if they were not bailed out it would constitute a crisis situation. Essentially requiring that special rules be made in order to save the country. Could the same be applied to Big businesses in regards to free speech? For example and more specifically sites that are more often than not are used for conveying speech and expression such as Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, Google etc etc.

    The reason that I ask this is because the idea and reasoning behind having free speech is so that things that the majority of people disagreed with can still be talked about with out interference by the government. An entity that, if left unchecked, could suppress things it didn't like because it has power. Power that the normal citizen by him or herself could not hope to defend against on their own. It seems to me that companies such as the above mentioned having the majority of users than most any other site could have the same chilling effect that the government could if left unchecked. Indeed being private companies they don't really have any checks and as such could suppress speech just as effectively as a generic government could. As such would it be unreasonable if such companies had the same free speech restrictions as the government? IE: Not able to censor or negatively affect speech that they do not like.

    Note that I am usually one that upholds free speech for individuals and companies so I do not ask this question lightly.

    Now I do know that some would be against this simply due to the fact that they think "hate speech" should be squashed and "hate speech is not free speech". I will simply ignore those platitudes because those people do not know what free speech is actually about. But I would like to hear from others on this.
    I was wrong about Twitter

    Twitter Bias Continues: Blocks Anti-Amnesty ad Over 'Hate Speech' - Breitbart
    ~Words that can't be understood are useless~

    ~The best things in life aren't things~

  6. #16
    KING FROG KWOK!
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:09 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,780

    Re: Too big to fail...perhaps too big for normal rules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Could the same be applied to Big businesses in regards to free speech?
    Let me think about it NO.




    It seems to me that companies such as the above mentioned having the majority of users than most any other site could have the same chilling effect that the government could if left unchecked. Indeed being private companies they don't really have any checks and as such could suppress speech just as effectively as a generic government could. As such would it be unreasonable if such companies had the same free speech restrictions as the government? IE: Not able to censor or negatively affect speech that they do not like.
    And what solution do you recommend? That the government force them to allow anyone to use their platforms, no matter how many rules they break, no matter what laws they break, no matter what?

    That would basically turn the entire internet into 4Chan overnight. Screw that.

    Free speech does not mean that anyone is guaranteed a platform. Free speech doesn't just mean letting anyone say what they want, wherever they want, using someone else's resources. Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences. Free speech does not mean that you can harass, troll, insult and threaten, especially using someone else's platform and resources. Free speech, along with the freedom of association, includes the right of a platform to exercise editorial control.

    Should the government require the New York Times to let Richard Spencer write and publish as many columns as he wants, because the NYT is a major platform? Should the government force Fox News to show editorials by the Communist Party USA, because they're a top cable network?

    Freedom of speech means freedom from government interference. It does not mean using the power of government to force publishers to distribute content. Doing so violates the spirit and letter of the 1st Amendment.
    "Everyone should listen to me all the time about everything."
    - Rosa Diaz

  7. #17
    KING FROG KWOK!
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:09 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,780

    Re: Too big to fail...perhaps too big for normal rules?

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    I think the simpler solution is to stop regarding them as too big to fail.

    They aren't. And if they do, and we let them, society will survive.
    If more banks had failed in 2007, the entire global economy could have capsized, and we'd be looking at another global recession with 30%+ unemployment, and decades of slow recovery. Pass.

    The better answer is to force these financial institutions to pay for their own protection, and enforce basic common-sense regulations such as requiring specific capital requirements, isolating investment banking from other functions, requiring transparency and a clearinghouse for derivatives, setting up better ratings agencies, and so forth. That doesn't even require breaking up the big banks, other than isolating the risky investments from what should be the more vital, stable, boring banking segments.
    "Everyone should listen to me all the time about everything."
    - Rosa Diaz

  8. #18
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    21,487

    Re: Too big to fail...perhaps too big for normal rules?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    The government that hankled "too big to fail" banks with ham-fisted ignorance to the benefit (corporate welfare) of those bands and detrimental to the taxpayer/citizen can be counted on to handle censorship with the same ham-fisted ignorance detrimental to the citizen/taxpayer.
    /
    Today's news of FCC plans to eliminate net neutrality is closely allied to the OP regarding censorship.

    Censorship is bad, even though our colleges today seem to be very much in favor of it.

    Good conversation here.

  9. #19
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    35,312
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Too big to fail...perhaps too big for normal rules?

    Quote Originally Posted by holbritter View Post
    I think they certainly have the power in their hands to do that. It reminds me of the recent report of the travel site, Trip Advisor (I think it was) where they were deleting reviews that exposed certain hotels as hot spots for rape and sexual assaults.

    And I believe that Google can and does manipulate what comes up on search results, so yeah, it's kind of concerning to me. Twitter though is more instantaneous. Stuff can be deleted after it's out there, but we would know they were suppressing. Facebook too. I don't know how Youtube works.
    Quote Originally Posted by holbritter View Post
    Yeah, all of the ones that I mentioned have been known to censor or "favortise" certain forms of speech. By "favortise" I mean like what google has been known to do in purposely rating certain things to the top so as to bury things that they don't like or don't support. You Tube has been known to do this along with deleting accounts due to very broad and subjective use of their TOS. I know one Youtuber who had his account deleted simply for asking questions to people at rally's. He never cussed in them or threatened anyone and even had disclaimers in his video's which denounced violence when such was tentatively shown in his vids. Thankfully after 2 months of people hollering the right person was finally contacted he was able to get his account back. But that was 2 months of revenue that he lost. All because someone didn't like that he was questioning antifa.

    Anyways, I do agree that if something were to be done in regards to making sure free speech ideals are protected on these platforms it shouldn't be too restrictive. These companies should definitely be able to only allow certain things while disallowing other things (such as porn or use of vulgar words). I think that the main things that should be protected is political, religious and press speech. Those three things are the main things that are targeted most by governments when they're able to. And its those above any others that SHOULD be protected.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  10. #20
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    35,312
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Too big to fail...perhaps too big for normal rules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Let me think about it NO.





    And what solution do you recommend? That the government force them to allow anyone to use their platforms, no matter how many rules they break, no matter what laws they break, no matter what?

    That would basically turn the entire internet into 4Chan overnight. Screw that.

    Free speech does not mean that anyone is guaranteed a platform. Free speech doesn't just mean letting anyone say what they want, wherever they want, using someone else's resources. Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences. Free speech does not mean that you can harass, troll, insult and threaten, especially using someone else's platform and resources. Free speech, along with the freedom of association, includes the right of a platform to exercise editorial control.

    Should the government require the New York Times to let Richard Spencer write and publish as many columns as he wants, because the NYT is a major platform? Should the government force Fox News to show editorials by the Communist Party USA, because they're a top cable network?

    Freedom of speech means freedom from government interference. It does not mean using the power of government to force publishers to distribute content. Doing so violates the spirit and letter of the 1st Amendment.
    I'll get to your post later. Right now I've got to go.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •