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

Zyphlin said:

Absolutely not. Targeting individual companies and having the government telling them how they may govern themselves with regards to their terms of service and content on their sites is not appropriate. The notion of free speech on the internet isn't whether or not facebook or youtube or google allows for something but whether or not a competitor can legitimately utilize the infrastructure to put forth a competitor. A combination of killing net neutrality while putting government crackdown on the remaining large popular sites would be a tag team approach to absolutely ****ing over the open internet.

Click to expand...

Well then maybe it's time for antitrust laws to catch up with the technology. It's hard to claim that if an idea was banned from Google, Facebook and Twitter that it wouldn't have a chilling effect on free speech.

Hmmm, the profundity of the Declaration of Independence only carrying 30% of the meaning of free speech, and not even saying that is what it is doing, which is all but proven to reasonable people, seems to mean nothing here.

The Greater Meaning of Free Speech leads to an understanding that can create;
foregiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I guess I should not be surprised the the only discussion here is about how hate speech or unpopular subjects should not be restricted, we've forgotten that there is positive speech that should be supported. No wonder we have forgot promoting that which is good and can only refrain from stopping that which is bad.

Wow! American dumbing down? Is that an understatement? Any wonder why the country is a mess? Spiritually bankrupt.