• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you or would you ever support Trump having the power to shut down the media/press?

Do you or would you ever support Trump having the power to shut down the media/press?

  • Total voters
    71
X Factor said:
Mainly asking righties here because supposedly about half of us support this. Let’s just say for the sake of the argument that it was actually even possible to shut down the press/media in its entirety, would you support Trump having the power? Attaching poll.
Click to expand...

Where did this issue come from?
 
Waddy said:
There is no shortage of retail outlets for that merchandise. There is no virtual monopoly. Let's take the cake baking case that went to the Supreme Court. If that were the ONLY bakery in the city, then I do think they are obligated to bake those gay guys a cake. But if the gay guys could simply go across the street and get a nice cake baked for them then I don't see a problem if one bakery doesn't want to bake them a cake. If there were dozens of social outlets like Utube and Facebook, then I have no problem with any kind of banning. But since they're really the only game in town they should be open to everyone, regardless of opinion.
Click to expand...

Those are the major ones, just as Facebook and YouTube are the major sites but not the only sites of their kind. Additionally, the Internet is open to everyone with a connection and I can ping all three sites Jones owns, no issues. His sites are working just fine. He has no right to have others host him as well.

And many people live in small towns or rural areas where there is only one place to buy things like cakes. There isn't just "one across the street". Hell, the only place close to my house to buy already made cakes is the Food Lion. Otherwise you have to drive at least 15 minutes to get one from somewhere else. In the place we got married at, the drive would have been further because it was so far out and such a small town.
 
roguenuke said:
Those are the major ones, just as Facebook and YouTube are the major sites but not the only sites of their kind. Additionally, the Internet is open to everyone with a connection and I can ping all three sites Jones owns, no issues. His sites are working just fine. He has no right to have others host him as well.

And many people live in small towns or rural areas where there is only one place to buy things like cakes. There isn't just "one across the street". Hell, the only place close to my house to buy already made cakes is the Food Lion. Otherwise you have to drive at least 15 minutes to get one from somewhere else. In the place we got married at, the drive would have been further because it was so far out and such a small town.
Click to expand...

There is nothing 'comparable" to Facebook or Utube. They are virtual monopolies, and should give everyone access, even commies and Nazi's. Even ANTIFA. And yes, if there is only one bakery in your little town, that bakery should bake cakes for everyone who wants one. However, driving 15 minutes means there is another bakery close by. Unless your 95 years old, driving 15 minutes is nothing.
 
Captain Adverse said:
No. :no:

But I do support his right to decide who has access to him and who does not. Who he will respond to when in public, and who he does not.

Those who don't have access or who don't get responses are still free to publish whatever news they can get; they remain a "free press." :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

That would be the executive branch of our government dictating who in the free press is free. It makes it too easy for the President to control the free press.
 
Waddy said:
There is nothing 'comparable" to Facebook or Utube. They are virtual monopolies, and should give everyone access, even commies and Nazi's. Even ANTIFA. And yes, if there is only one bakery in your little town, that bakery should bake cakes for everyone who wants one. However, driving 15 minutes means there is another bakery close by. Unless your 95 years old, driving 15 minutes is nothing.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are plenty of sites comparable, for what they do, to both Facebook and YouTube.

https://www.marketing91.com/top-14-youtube-competitors/

https://www.marketing91.com/13-facebook-competitors/

Just as people who are prevented from selling their goods at WalMart and Target (and the more upscale department stores refuse to sell that sort of goods) cannot demand that they must sell their merchandise because of being the biggest stores, neither can people who violate the terms of service or User Agreements claim that they have an absolute right to use either Facebook or YouTube simply because they are the biggest platforms on the Internet. You have no right to demand a phone company provide you with phone service or an ISP/cable company provide you with Internet simply because you haven't paid your bill, which is a violation of their terms of service. Same thing goes with these sites. It's really simple, obey their posted rules that you agreed to.

Not everyone has a driver's license and/or car. They rely on things that are within walking distance. I didn't have a license until less than 2 years ago in fact.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If those "social media" sites decide to become publishers (want an editorial say in what gets presented) then they should be subject to the same standards as any other publisher: be held legally responsible (subject to lawsuits) for their approved content.
Click to expand...
It's their website. They were filtering out content from the beginning. They've never let people post whatever they want up on the site.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
roguenuke said:
Yes, there are plenty of sites comparable, for what they do, to both Facebook and YouTube.

https://www.marketing91.com/top-14-youtube-competitors/

https://www.marketing91.com/13-facebook-competitors/

Just as people who are prevented from selling their goods at WalMart and Target (and the more upscale department stores refuse to sell that sort of goods) cannot demand that they must sell their merchandise because of being the biggest stores, neither can people who violate the terms of service or User Agreements claim that they have an absolute right to use either Facebook or YouTube simply because they are the biggest platforms on the Internet. You have no right to demand a phone company provide you with phone service or an ISP/cable company provide you with Internet simply because you haven't paid your bill, which is a violation of their terms of service. Same thing goes with these sites. It's really simple, obey their posted rules that you agreed to.

Not everyone has a driver's license and/or car. They rely on things that are within walking distance. I didn't have a license until less than 2 years ago in fact.
Click to expand...

We'll just have to disagree. There are no comparable outlets to UTube and Facebook. They should not be picking winners and losers. Let the public decide if Alex Jones needs to go; by not patronizing him. Let advertisers decide; by not advertising. I don't like social media companies deciding for me what I should watch and what I shouldn't watch. I haven't needed a nanny for many decades now.
 
X Factor said:
Mainly asking righties here because supposedly about half of us support this. Let’s just say for the sake of the argument that it was actually even possible to shut down the press/media in its entirety, would you support Trump having the power? Attaching poll.
Click to expand...

No.

Silly question.

I assume it was prompted by all the silly accusations we see all day every day
 
Giving Trump that power gives it to future presidents as well. The question is really should presidents be allowed to control the media. I am not sure why anyone would say yes to this.
 
Waddy said:
We'll just have to disagree. There are no comparable outlets to UTube and Facebook. They should not be picking winners and losers. Let the public decide if Alex Jones needs to go; by not patronizing him. Let advertisers decide; by not advertising. I don't like social media companies deciding for me what I should watch and what I shouldn't watch. I haven't needed a nanny for many decades now.
Click to expand...

There are some. I posted them. Your personal bias is what is getting in the way of you recognizing that YouTube and Facebook both have competitors. They don't have to be at the same level of users to be competitors. If people really want to watch those like Jones, then he could post on those apps and advertise. His followers could even mention him on Facebook and YouTube and provide the info for where to find him. Or, they could simply go to his own websites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom