So if you want these firms to collapse altogether or be replaced by better ones, then treating them like utilities isn't the way to go. Things like electricity companies are typically static and unchanging.

I'm against Regulations and for adding Internet Bill of Rights. Rather have the corporations being liable for violating the internet bill of rights, but I don't want the corporations backed by the government as a utility corporation.

That isn't to say that some sort of regulation can't exist that doesn't enshrine Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc as utilities. This petition might be one approach, another is the changing of legislation to clarify the line between platform and publisher and how they are or are not responsible for the content on their sites.

One way this petition's argument could lead to unintended consequences is spam. Is spam freedom of speech? Do I have the first amendment right to stand on a soapbox in the public square and hock dick pills? How about standing there and blasting a Vuvuzela using compressed air?

There would probably be local laws or ordinances covering such, but would these options be available to internet platforms? What would they look like?

We will still have freedom of speech, but those actions could have social consequences. In other words, their social life destroyed for doing those things, but they won't be silenced and unperson by large mega corporations.

How would they have social consequences if I'm some pseudo-anonymous scam artist from Ukraine?

"The President should request that Congress pass legislation prohibiting social media platforms from banning users for First Amendment-protected speech. The power to block lawful content should be in the hands of individual users – not Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey."

Leaving the option for people to manually block or mute people.

Does "First Amendment protected speech" include sales pitches? What about twitter botnets spamming gibberish?

No Shadow Banning (Remove Feature) or Straight Up Banning without a reason.

So this will be the era of the blocklist.

If company bans you without a legitimate reason, they could face legal punishment by the law for infringing upon Bill of Rights.

Yeah, but you need to think of the unintended consequences here.

What is a "legitimate reason"

Corporations shouldn't be able to determine who you see or hear, only you should have that power.

Period.

Okay. You are now aware that corporations are blocking 99% of all emails sent without your knowledge or consent. Because those emails are trying to sell you dick pills, etc.

Only the tiniest fraction of total email volume is from human beings.

If you have to deal with that personally, you would stop using email.

(which might not be a bad thing)

I'm not advocating anything here. I don't know what the right solution is. But I do know that we often make sweeping changes without realizing the second and third order consequences.

If Twitter, for example, can't ban anyone who hasn't violated the law, then what will happen is that the existing blocklist networks will expand in power because people don't want to be drowned in spam/porn/trolls. People will voluntarily give control of what they see to other organizations. *Voluntarily* - so there's no legal issue. You'll either have to use a blocklist or drown in ads for viagra and HORNEY SLUTS IN YOUR AREA NOW!

I feel like only treating them like utilities if they are a certain size may be something to consider, to try and keep alternatives within the realm of ability to thrive and grow.

And trating them LIKE utilities doesn't mean MAKING them utilities

I think Chamberlain had the right idea in his Periscope about the petition in that this petition and asking for regulation is just one tactic out of a plethora of tactics that can be used to put pressure on companies to reform internally. Anti-trust action is another tactic, funding alternatives is another tactic, dragging the CEOs before congress is another tactic. Anything to convince their corporate hierarchy that they have to change what they're doing - that whatever their political affiliations it's not worth it to use big tech for political suppression.

Basically there needs to be a full-court press on all possible avenues of attack simultaneously.

I fear congress or government in general trying to drum up some kind of regulation and due to bureaucracy and bi partisanship it looking and acting like a flaccid dick. We need some good attorneys and tech experts to brain storm on this and come up with some kind of action that fully supports free speech and is anti-1984 authoritarian.

IMO at least, which on this topic is not very comprehensive

I used to actually be afraid to call large groups of people 'guys' because there might be girls in there

These days, I know for absolute sure SJWs would hate that

So now I'm not even afraid to do that.

It's really liberating, to hate bad people that way.

They can push your brain into completely rational decisions you were a bit afraid of.

Guys if i call a ship , a car , or a whale 🐳, she , Im not misgendering it am i ?

E;R needs to finish his content

mother fucker

@Rabbi Shekels did you get consent to call them "she"? Did you get consent to even talk to them?

Breaking PC conditioning is hard, but worth it.

@Dan V thank you can I had forgotten that it can be a microaggression to even say hi if your a male talking to a female thank you for helping me change my bigotry

'How are you doing?'
STOP OPPRESSING ME!

@RyeNorth I had a friend who was like a brother to me and one day I laughed when he told me what a microaggression was and he stopped talking to me out right. Shit sucks

Pc indoctrination is the worst

"509th BN, how can I help you Sir?"

"Did you call me sir?"

"Yes I did, i figured I would try to be as quick and curtious as possible to get on with the conversation but if you want I could just call you A-hole."

Next day I got to talk to the commander

Jeeze, did you get punished?

The commander at the time was cool with me.

We ended up making a Nuts and Squirel Joke infront of the incoming chaplian

https://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/09/25/blond-cheerful-families-dangerous-right/
Don't be inconspicuous, cheerful, or blond or you're right wing @Timcast

@tmg copper any time, xir

@Dan V i didnt but i never asked either so its ok 👍 👌

@Rabbi Shekels I'm pretty sure that's what "don't ask, don't tell" was referring to and everyone seemed to like that

Lmao , well they didn’t file a police report yet som im good

http://robertreich.org/post/177349093095

"His presidency should be annulled."

Ignoring of course that there is no provision for such in the constitution.

It’s Tumblr

No surprises

Worth pointing out that there is no evidence that he rigged anything.

Tbh it’s funny when the commies and capitalists meet in the tumblr sphere

No, it's the former Secretary of Labor and current Professor of Public Policy at UC.

So this can't be dismissed as some tumblrina having a bitchfit.

If there was any at all, Muller would have more than finance charges on someone after several years.

Than what’s the tumblr thing about?

Famous people can have tumblrs too

His site is just hosted by tumblr.

yea sure

Just look at MundaneMatt.....oh wait

That’s true

"robertreich.org" just redirects to tumblr

Robert Reich, to be henceforth referred to as the Turd Reich.

I just wouldn’t expect someone like them to use it as a host

Loool

Clearly he doesn't have the best judgement.

But yea pretty sure the constitution doesn’t have provisions of annulment on offices of power

But I'm wondering if they're going to push 'annulment' as if it's a real option that wouldn't require a constitutional amendment.

Well I got a Bill of Rights guide recently I can see if any of the first 10 have anything

Watch for that word being repeated from other sources.

When I get home lol

Hmm

This sort of stuff isn't in the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights doesn't outline what the government can do

It explicitly says things the government CANNOT do.

Ah

True

Impeachment of the president would be a government act against the government, therefore not outlined in the bill of rights

Just figured it might be worth a look

It's worth knowing, anyway.

Yea

But don't read it for that - you won't find it.

Also the Equal Rights Amendment is up for ratification in Virginia

Yea I got it for other stuff anyway lol

The constitution lays out precisely the method by which presidents are elected and removed from office. There is no constitutionally valid path that removes Trump and installs Hillary.

Also it would likely call for another election or risk being undemocratic

Trump might conceivably be impeached (unlikely as that may be) but if so Pence takes over. Doesn't matter how many people in the line of succession get impeached and removed, there is no point at which Hillary ascends the throne.

And thus violating our foundations

No, there is no provision for a special election.

None at all.