What Are Your Free Speech Rights On Social Media? | NBC News NOW

You don't have freedom of speech on social media. It isn't constitutional protected speech. I don't get why ppl have a hard time understanding this.

No such thing as rights. They only "exist" when we are under the mercy of the state.

@TheChristFollower We have no rights. The government has the "right" to grant or take away those from us. In reality we must defend our right to live.

Oh well 😂

Well technically, you can't have both.
In the US I have the freedom of speech to say that I absolutely despise n*****s. And I'm not defaming or threatening anybody, so that's entirely legal.
However, you are subject to revocation on any website.
Social media is a product. It shouldn't be regulated by the government. Imagine if Twitter went private, and the government tried to tell them what to allow.
What if Twitter just wanted to shutdown, but the government says that people now need Twitter so you have to stay in business?
It just doesn't work.

This is what happens when monopolies run the internet

@@L4Disillusion true I hate capitalism

​@special2agent319 communism is worse, bud. Capitalism is the best thing yet.

@FusionGamer9600 If you can't read through comment with patience, I guess you didn't understand section 230. May read through this gist.
There has been several forms of censorship enforced on online content. There has been de-platforming, banning content, arbitrarily flagging of content as hate speech, shadow banning content and comments, de-monetization and monetisation of certain groups ( KRplus Originals). This is not indicative of free market platform business.
In my view, Section 230 needs to be amended. Section 230 protects social media platforms from any liability for their user's posts. Mostly because platforms are free market place and the users are personally responsible for their actions.
Social media needs to either act as a platform with no responsibility and no editorial rights OR act as classic media (PUBLISHER) with editorial rights and take full responsibility for everything being published.
They shouldn't be picking and choosing their obligations as a free market platform, whatsoever. Social media is currently the public square of this age. Currently, social media wants to control the narrative by which they are not a free for all public forum and their protection under section 230 should be revoked, in my opinion.
There are several comments claiming platforms are private businesses and they can do what they want. This is for more understanding.
Giving free access to all ideas is the VALUE PROPOSITION of Platform business model, for the users. And platforms don't make money directly from users(Private Individual's account), mostly.
Having access to a very high volume audience for advertisement is the VALUE PROPOSITION for the Customer (Companies selling products). And that's where they make the money. So, if Platforms don't censor the content it will not affect their Revenue stream and their business.

@Triggering anti mask Karen's with facts The reality and truth in the situation with the US (regarding Social Media and constitutional free speech) would be the promotion of "public forum" and how Major Tech Companies market the "possibilities to create or express" content alongside the domain of the types of audience(i.e.- National vs International Population Appeal) through OS systems in the current advanced e-device's app stores and software installation. It becomes controversial due to the approach in the types of account/content moderation with perspectives. As of now, TikTok and Facebook utilize AI for moderation and it only tracks terms and phrases, instead of background context from the demographics of users. The frustration users have with that becomes issues towards how much justification to provide without much guideline criteria or opportunities for discussion between moderators in an accessible method(e.g.- private chat avenues for customer help/support).

@Triggering anti mask Karen's with facts you are a special kind....?
You don't know the first thing about private companies and the regulation they have to follow. Go to school kid.

@Triggering anti mask Karen's with facts Aside from the point. The distinction of what is considered as discrimitory and upon the rights of the owner, in the context of Social Media Moderation, has been quite misconstrued and the notion of "hate speech" has unclear parameters with what constitutes as insinuating said "hate"(in context of a discussion towards exchanging matters of thought in "controversy"). Seems that these Big Tech Companies are becoming more authoritative by the days, based on favoritism with certain viewpoints and topics regarding a certain political party on many social media post feeds, regardless of attempts to avoid it via blocking accounts &/ specifying disinterest to topics/interests by will.

@Triggering anti mask Karen's with facts private company? You mean private company's that flow all information to the government,, as in Federal? That "private" company? Sorry, they ARE the government by association and therefore 1st amendment applies.

People forget its a private company and private company gets to choose who they want and who they don't.

Exactly. 👍🏼

And that is why they will lose billions

@@chrisneil2779 and that’s the way a free market works. Yay once again for the USA.

@@chrisneil2779 twitter did the best thing for society got rid of Donald trump 👏. Never ever will we hear a tweet from that deranged man. Even better all his deals are cutting contracts and running as fast as they can from Donald trump. Even processors that help him fund money from his followers have cut him off. This man and his family will have a permanent stink on them for the rest of their lives they will never be able to regain themselves from this nightmare and make face again after what happened. Donald trump destroyed any bit of hope of there was any left. This is so amazing and satisfying that only did biden win but him leaving this way in such a shameful way and never to have a megaphone to scream his lies again. The best news so far. Though I am sad 5 people had to die for this man to be brought down in such a horrible and humiliating way

The social media companies have their own free speech to ban what they want.

Meaning I'm sure he's a Google puppet

You mean you don't like the First Amendment and want carte blanche!

Section 230 never applied to Parler. Amazon AWS web didn’t want to host it.

Section 230 protects internet forum from lawsuits for user content, it has nothing to do with parler being able to get hosting service.

I'm not American either but I'm pretty sure the first ammendment doesn't grant anyone the right to use my megaphone or my printing press. Earlier today one of these entitled MAGA folks tried to tell me that Facebook had "silenced" him when, in fact, Facebook had simply refused to amplify his voice. What next? I'm violating the first by refusing to read Art of the Deal?

What's going to waste your time really

If only it were that simple. A lot of the times KRplus will block posts with links and certain words.

@@serpentsepia6638 somehow , I still am able to upload truth , even to revealing government secrets
I guess it depends on the link - do really want to go to a QAnon post ?

@@NCOGNTO Maybe it depends on the "truth". However, KRplus does indeed block posts with links and certain words.

@@serpentsepia6638 "truth" means it's TRUE and you can prove it .
I do see some people have trouble with that - probably you ?

@@serpentsepia6638 like .... have you seen Melania naked ? Just ask Go Ogle - comes right up .
See if they take this down - it's true

I've not used Twitter much. I've avoided it as a 'time waster' but now I've been using it. So I've had my first banning experience this week. My Twitter account just got suspended because I said I do not support Islam. Some annoying person Tweeted at me "So you are pro-Islamaphobia" I responded with "I do not like the religion Islam, I do not support it and I don't have to" That got the Twitter account suspended. Not supporting a religion doesn't constitute a violation of any of the Twitter policies. It's freedom of belief and choice, it is not 'hate.' Now Twitter is doing religious persecution for not sympathizing with a particular religion. I'm pretty sure if I had said I don't support Satanism they would have done nothing. I do not like zoroastrianism, I do not support it and I don't have to. See. Woke is a religious conversion process and to a particular religious belief. The USA was a place where lots of people can have different ideas and pick their own beliefs and ideology... not anymore.

@@emmalouie1663 twitter and facebook believe their policies supersede federal law because they operate all over the world. This is something their executives said during an interview with Joe Rogan. Thing is as long as they operate in the united states of America they will have to follow our laws. The problem is no one is enforcing them. Everything you do online is connected to your email so any removal of written posts is considered tampering. There is a video you should look up called Kymatica. There is a part about law it will explain the deception being played on the masses.

@@Anonymous-fv1gp Thank you for the reply and the suggestion. I will see what Kymatica is about.

This is an inaccurate legal analysis. The fact that the FCC regulates something does not make the underlying entities state actors. This is an incredibly misleading and ignorant comment.

Unless your BLM or ANTIFA, then its ok, according to these companies.
This is a big reason we are about to have a civil war.

We're learning a lot about how the law actually works by ppl who constantly test it.

Then why are you here? Google banned Parler. They know you're all talk but no action. They know you'll eventually come back. Lol

@@thechristiandash I honestly only KRplus. Instagram/Facebook and Twitter is not my thing so for me I'm good this statement is for those upset about it Nothing changed for me

@@chrisneil2779 here's the thing... Most of the people complaining about bans are doing so because they're utterly dependent on social media. They are actually some of the biggest users.
I even heard a Parler user complaining about the lack of liberals on that platform because there was no one there to troll.
So basically... Your suggestion is like telling crackheads to stay off the crack.

@@ColaSpandex you are correct it's sad people depend on it like meth head

@@chrisneil2779 and, like meth, it actually makes their pain worse in the long run. Sad is an understatement. These angry, combative, argumentative types (who keep getting themselves banned) need hugs, kisses and therapy, not social media battlefields. Because they are clearly hurting.

Spot on

Money went to his head. He's an elitist snob.

Now I mentioned what was socialism. This is terrorism. POS

The men who created this country knew evil would come for it one day. It is here now, and we need to exercise our rights or lose them.

I respectfully disagree with that, because our second amendment IS to protect, NOT to force others to listen to or do what you want!!!

@@grannybntnsouthernlove2205
nope that is what antifa and BLM are for.

@@itstinks1371on no they force you to recognize a group of your own neighbours and citizens are being treated as second or third class citizens by the police...wow so horrible of them(sarcasm).

The constitution is just another one of the world's lies.

They are not. To apply rights in this way would destroy rights, not protect them. You don't have the right to force someone to host your speech.

Free speech has never been free.

I DO NOT HAVE A TWITTER, AND I ONLY USE FACEBOOK TO CONNECT WITH MY FAMILY AND FRIENDS.

Speech is not violence. If it is, then so is speech/1st amendment suppression, which would by default defined social media ad terrorist organizations. Which, maybe they are.

So censor based on your political beliefs? It’s ok to support BLM, ANTIFA, and everything else under the sun but Trump is crossing the line? Kim Kardashian can post nudes on Twitter for kids to see but a president telling the truth about things is deemed inappropriate. Rules for the but not for me! That’s the Democrat party motto.

@@lancehumphries1153 That may be, but who has decided the President is telling the truth? This is why i define as independent.

@@lancehumphries1153 It's "Rules for Thee but not for me". Hypocritical of them.

@@jeffreymarra231 Also, I define as independent. BOTH PARTIES HAVE THEIR DOWN SIDES.

It's called treason

Being publicly traded in no way makes you a state actor.

@@L4Disillusion It's not remotely close to treason. Stop lying.

@@InvincibleSol Silicon Valley has proven your claim otherwise, for years.

Those definitions don't mean anything. They are defined as private sector companies, they aren't bound by the 1st Amendment and they never owed anyone free speech.

This is completely false. To apply the constitution to private entities would destroy rights wholesale.

@@InvincibleSol No it wouldn't, not letting corporations censor people doesn't get rid of anybody's rights.

@@seanquillen4300 Yes, it would. It would violate the 1a rights of the social media owners.

@@David888B No it doesn't, corporations aren't people, and shouldn't be allowed to censor. Period. If laws get in the way the laws need to change.

@@seanquillen4300 They are, that's their right. Do newspapers, TV, and radio get to pick and choose content? What about publishing houses? Yes, they do, that's their right, that's Freedom of the Press, protected by the 1st Amendment.
"That makes social media publishers, then." Yes, it does. And that's what Section 230 protects.

It's ok to not support Islam. A cult that promotes beating women, among other terrible things.

You're really stupid

😂

loo

l

@Licht Bach Nope.

Well..... I'm all about the guns.... Funny that the most sweeping gun control bills were both passed by republicans, huh? Lol

Excellent argument.

You didn’t pay attention. He stated you don’t have completely free speech. You can’t threaten people, etc.

That comes from a case called Schenck, which used that metaphor to rationalize convicting a peaceful socialist for merely protesting the draft. It's also dead law.

That's nonsense. Their private property rights would present that barrier to the FCC.

Everyone has Freedoms and they are guarantee not only in the Constitution of the United States but also guaranteed in the reality of life itself. The Freedom to die which is the original explanation of Freedom also accompanies the Freedom in the due process of the law, notwithstanding execution.

I am one such lawyer. You are wrong. They are private forums.

*****freedom

It's not even 13 minutes long, bot.

@@jacob.loesch lol ikr

This is wrong. Being publicly traded in no way makes you a state actor.

@Triggering anti mask Karen's with facts sec says you're wrong take it up with them 😂

@Triggering anti mask Karen's with factsYES YOU ARE AND STUPID