Please do not make this political!

[SIDEWINDER]

I won't post the article as I don't want it turning political but you can find the article if you want. A former president is suing Facebook for being banned. This is a much larger issue then the former president or Facebook. My belief is as long is it was not because of race, religion, sexual orientation or age, a website such as Facebook or any other website including all the brothel boards had every right to ban anyone they did not want. Does this mean if Facebook loses, any type of internet board would have to take anyone? I've been kicked off a few boards in my life and always figured it was their board and if they didn't want me, that was their choice and their right. If this happens, I could see some boards just saying screw it and shutting down.

[Cobia]

I won't post the article as I don't want it turning political but you can find the article if you want. A former president is suing Facebook for being banned. This is a much larger issue then the former president or Facebook. My belief is as long is it was not because of race, religion, sexual orientation or age, a website such as Facebook or any other website including all the brothel boards had every right to ban anyone they did not want. Does this mean if Facebook loses, any type of internet board would have to take anyone? I've been kicked off a few boards in my life and always figured it was their board and if they didn't want me, that was their choice and their right. If this happens, I could see some boards just saying screw it and shutting down.

I think this is a lot different from a house board.

Hope he wins a truck load. Big tech has gone too far this time.

[Florida Couple]

Private companies have terms of service whenever a person or business joins. If you violate the TOS, you can and will be banned. The person in question is evoking the freedom of speech clause in the constitution. However, the person is not bring censored but, in violation of a private entity’s TOS.

It’s no different than sayin a person can protest or form a picket line on a sidewalk outside of a company or a persons home. However, no person has the right to protest or break rules on the company’s or persons private property. While in their domain, abide by their rules or leave.

[JimDiGriz]

Specifically, he's suing Facebook, Google and Twitter as part of a class action lawsuit and it looks like he's doing it on censorship grounds. I know Twitter blocks some content because they disagree with it, and not because it's illegal. That's why I don't use FB or TW. But even though I dislike the platforms, the government should not be allowed to force private entities to publish things they disagree with. This is especially true because all three of them are free.

(To play devil's advocate, I might see merit in a similar lawsuit. On YouTube, membership and video publishing is free (I think)and channel owners make money based on the number of subscribers. Some channel owners spent years developing their channels and now it's how they make their living. YouTube does block some videos because they disagree with the content even when it doesn't violate community guidelines. So I could see a lawsuit based on loss of income and not loss of free speech rights.)

[SIDEWINDER]

The way I've always thought about it was their board, their rules. Not much different then entering a store or a casino where they can have you trespassed which means if you come back, you can be arrested. I think this should be interesting to follow and thanks for everyone not making it political.

[rachelvarga]

They are private companies but they are abusive and far too powerful. They don't want to be considered media but they want to control the news. I am not commenting on the lawsuit but it's time we clamp down on these guys.

[SIDEWINDER]

I wonder if there's ever been such a lawsuit over being banned from Facebook? Case history? Control the news? I think the same could be said of both CNN and Fox news. Like I said it should be interesting and if it would go to trial, the decision might be far bigger then just Trump or Facebook with far reaching effects on other internet sites.

[Wildfire]

I won't post the article as I don't want it turning political but you can find the article if you want. A former president is suing Facebook for being banned. This is a much larger issue then the former president or Facebook. My belief is as long is it was not because of race, religion, sexual orientation or age, a website such as Facebook or any other website including all the brothel boards had every right to ban anyone they did not want. Does this mean if Facebook loses, any type of internet board would have to take anyone? I've been kicked off a few boards in my life and always figured it was their board and if they didn't want me, that was their choice and their right. If this happens, I could see some boards just saying screw it and shutting down.

Lol ! You posted it so you really want it to go political. Socialist-Communist Democrats love censorship when it goes against someone they hate.
Like President Trump.

[JimDiGriz]

I think the same could be said of both CNN and Fox news.

Here you're talking about two different things. It's true that CNN and Fox publish different kinds of stories and give them different spins and that each station blocks stories that the other runs. However, they originate the material that's broadcasted. That is, they write the stories and broadcast them and as such they're responsible for them. (This is why Nicholas Sandmann was able to sue - and win - over his treatment in the Covington Catholic High School story.)

FB and TW don't create the content. They're just acting as publishers, so under Section 230 they're not held liable for the content of a third party if that content is not illegal.

[georoc01]

I think the same could be said of both CNN and Fox news.

Here you're talking about two different things. It's true that CNN and Fox publish different kinds of stories and give them different spins and that each station blocks stories that the other runs. However, they originate the material that's broadcasted. That is, they write the stories and broadcast them and as such they're responsible for them. (This is why Nicholas Sandmann was able to sue - and win - over his treatment in the Covington Catholic High School story.)

FB and TW don't create the content. They're just acting as publishers, so under Section 230 they're not held liable for the content of a third party if that content is not illegal.

And that's the crux of the situation, isn't it? Trump was banned for promoting what turned into the January 6th insurrection, which has led to charges against 500+ people so far.

[JimDiGriz]

Here you're talking about two different things. It's true that CNN and Fox publish different kinds of stories and give them different spins and that each station blocks stories that the other runs. However, they originate the material that's broadcasted. That is, they write the stories and broadcast them and as such they're responsible for them. (This is why Nicholas Sandmann was able to sue - and win - over his treatment in the Covington Catholic High School story.)

FB and TW don't create the content. They're just acting as publishers, so under Section 230 they're not held liable for the content of a third party if that content is not illegal.

And that's the crux of the situation, isn't it? Trump was banned for promoting what turned into the January 6th insurrection, which has led to charges against 500+ people so far.

I'll skip the Trump part of the question because that would make it political and I'll honor Sidewinder's request. There's two parts:

(1) The world, as it is, with Section 230:
Regardless of whether content is despicable or the platform just disagrees with it and blocks it, FB and TW can't be sued for someone else's content. So this lawsuit should fail.

(2) How I'd like the world to be:
TW and (I think) FB do not limit their blocking of content to whether it's illegal. They also block on ideological grounds, but that has to be allowed because it's their private property and the government should never be allowed to bully someone on what they do with their private property. However, I'd argue that if a platform publishes on ideological grounds, then they implicitly are approving the material and become responsible for it.

So while it shouldn't be actionable that a platform publishes (for example) right-wing content and not left-wing content, it should be actionable if it publishes someone being doxxed or libeled (e.g. being called a Nazi) if it results in loss of employment, income, or property.

[SIDEWINDER]

I guess the part that I don't get is how anyone thinks it's their legal right to be able to post wherever they want? Does this mean if I posted a bunch of stuff on The Bunnyranch Board or on Q's board that they did not like and banned me, all I would have to do is go get a lawyer and they would have to let me continue to post things they didn't like?

[rachelvarga]

No, it's just that the way Twitter and Facebook are setup people have been saying what they want for years without repercussions so they think they have a right to say what they want. They mistakenly believe freedom of speech covers them when it doesn't.

Forums are different. They are built around a group of like minded people. Like a village. If you piss off enough of the other villagers you can get kicked out of the village. Are forums perfect? No, forums are villages and there is a control structure.

Facebook groups is garbage. You can report an admin or anyone for something not valid and their automated system will ban you for a certain time. Even and admin. Plus the idea of a feed doesn't allow a structure for topics and so on.

Too bad that people don't use forums. Many younger people can't cut it in one because people just don't want to hear other people's bullshit.

What I love about forums is that there are forums for everything.

[Florida Couple]

Everyone should know this lawsuit is a waste of time and money. Twitter and Facebook will not lose. When people sign up they never read the TOS. Violate the TOS of a private company and you can not use their platform, pretty simple / case closed.

https://twitter.com/en/tos
https://www.facebook.com/terms.php

Parler was setup as a "free speech" alternative. They were taken down by Amazon Web Service and upheld in court, because free speech doesn't allow the things below:

“including posts that encouraged violence, denigrated various ethnic groups, races and religions, glorified Nazism, and called for violence against specific people.”

[georoc01]

And plus there are other alternatives out there. Right now one that is being promoted is gettr as a twitter alternative.

https://gettr.com/


The fact is the former president could join a site like this and those that want to hear what he is sending out could get his message. I'm sure millions would join for that reason. The question would be would the media follow along and give his message a much larger distribution that the site itself?

But I believe there are gofundme sites as well as other fundraising sites that have been set up related to the lawsuit that maybe the reason more than the lawsuit itself.