Alex Jones and Infowars gets 'disappeared' - are we headed in the right direction?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Alex Jones banned from Twitter.

---

I was thinking about this a while back.  We regulate both monopolies and effective monopolies.  And that they're private businesses is no defense against such regulation.  Would it really be that unusual or inappropriate to regulate these social media platforms?

Seen the legal definition of a monopoly?

[Angrboda]

Oh Noeeeeees!  Does this mean that he'll have to advertise Ultimate Bone Broth solely on his own website now?  

---

I was thinking about this a while back.  We regulate both monopolies and effective monopolies.  And that they're private businesses is no defense against such regulation.  Would it really be that unusual or inappropriate to regulate these social media platforms?

Yes, in that we actually would be abrogating free speech and property rights all at once, so that some loon could sell pills.  For this same reason, we can't force a newspaper to carry content.  There are other social media apps he could use, in any case.  Having a better product is not a monopoly or effective monopoly in any actionable sense.

It might also be useful to point out that some portion of the rationale for ditching jones is due to regulation in the first place.  Specifically, regulations that may not be in effect here..but, as a global enterprise, could harm twitter (or anyone elses) bottom line through official action, wholly aside from and in addition to consumer/user blowback.

I don't notice the FCC being declared unconstitutional. And it's questionable just what free speech is being claimed here.

[The Grand Nudger]

The FCC is a government watchdog formed by the communications act of 1924.  

For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority theretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is hereby created a commission to be known as the 'Federal Communications Commission', which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this Act.

Their authority is constitutional  by reference to article 1, section 8, which reads:

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

As far as free speech (and other protections) - twitter is a media/networking enterprise, as such it is property with owners who are not the federal government - they can decline to reprint or post whatever they want, within confines of other applicable laws..and since pill salesman aren't a protected class (for example) - that pretty much rules out any constitutional grounds for jones' bitching...... regardless of how helpful it may be to his brand.

And here, for further clarity, is the legal description of a monopoly as it applies to US law.

(1) the power to fix prices and exclude competitors within the relevant market.
(2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen or historical accident.

[brewer]

If he wants his speech he can develop his own platform and get his own advertisers and/or support. 

The owners of social media services owe him nothing.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If he wants his speech he can develop his own platform and get his own advertisers and/or support. 

The owners of social media services owe him nothing.

If nobody gives him a platform it's just confirmation that he's universally reviled.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and he's bitching about that, too...freely, on his own website and in articles appearing in aligned media sources.

The clearest confirmation, if confirmation is required...that he has no grounds for complaint, and We The People have no grounds for worry..... whatsoever.

---

If we -really- wanted the go down the rabbit hole....the ability of folks to band together and try to disappear people from the internets is protected by free association, lol.  

Rather than being some flaw in the system, the tossing in the cultural oubliette of people like Jones is working as intended.   If the government stepped in to stop it, they really would be beyond their own stated boundaries in that regard...as well as affording a specific subset unequal protection under law.

Not that our "originalists" will ever read their dead..dead document in any way unhelpful to their stupid causes.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Don't you mean 'maligned media sources'? 

[brewer]

Let Jones file a lawsuit for the various platforms suppressing his free speech.

Um.........., he might need to finish defending his other suits first.

[Angrboda]

I really could care less about Jones. Nitpicking about his case doesn't answer the general question of whether these internet platforms can or should be regulated.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I really could care less about Jones.  Nitpicking about his case doesn't answer the general question of whether these internet platforms can or should be regulated.

No. You know what happens when the camel gets its nose under the tent.