Isn’t this communism? What could go wrong with state owned social media?
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You must log in or sign up to comment
5 comments:
3
1 year ago
3 points
(+0
/
-0
/
+3Score on mirror
)
1 child
Permalink
Reply
Mirrored from scored.co
1
1 year ago
1 point
(+0
/
-0
/
+1Score on mirror
)
It is not technically communism -- its just things fake communist countries are known for. But tbf, a lot of compromised western countries do it to
Permalink
Reply
Mirrored from scored.co
This could actually be amazing. As you fags probably already know, we live in a communist country. The government (jews) works with the social media companies to get people banned. We saw this with specific individuals that the FBI was telling Twitter to ban before the last election. Also, no one went to prison for the '08 banking bs. It definitely wasn't because of a separation between government and corporations.
Anyway, right now, the First Amendment does not apply to social media because they aren't government entities. I believe they should be held to it anyway, because the constitution applies to private entities providing a "traditional government function" (i.e. public forums aka social media). I was fantasizing about this ruling coming out of SCOTUS during the TikTok stuff, which would make the constitution apply to social media companies, but it obviously didn't happen. But if the government does own/operate it publicly, then any bans would require due process and would be subject to First Amendment litigation.
The could in the first sentence wasn't because this might not be the case. As a matter of constitutional fact, if the government owns TikTok then the 1A applies. The could was because this could potentially be used as a farm for 1A litigation to restrict rights. Like common sense free speech.
Anyway, right now, the First Amendment does not apply to social media because they aren't government entities. I believe they should be held to it anyway, because the constitution applies to private entities providing a "traditional government function" (i.e. public forums aka social media). I was fantasizing about this ruling coming out of SCOTUS during the TikTok stuff, which would make the constitution apply to social media companies, but it obviously didn't happen. But if the government does own/operate it publicly, then any bans would require due process and would be subject to First Amendment litigation.
The could in the first sentence wasn't because this might not be the case. As a matter of constitutional fact, if the government owns TikTok then the 1A applies. The could was because this could potentially be used as a farm for 1A litigation to restrict rights. Like common sense free speech.
Toast message