|
|
|
|
|
|
by fmfam
1814 days ago
|
|
|
> It is not a restriction on private companies I think this is an irrelevant argument. Why Congress was concerned by foreign interference then? Private companies should have had some social responsibility if they stepped into social area. Or, they should have banned all non-US residents as well. Why Trump only? Actually, these details aren't interesting to me. A lot was already said about that, no point to say more. I would just like to note that in the global scope, through all my conscious life since 80s, America was great but what's going on nowadays worries me. This reminds me my home country which quickly went through real freedom back to totalitarianism. Maybe, in US things are just slower but the tendency looks the same. That's a view from my couch, don't take it seriously. |
|
|
Congress was concerned because it was foreign interference in an election, not because of the First Amendment. This is totally irrelevant.
> Private companies should have had some social responsibility if they stepped into social area.
Of course. But the First Amendment says that the government cannot compel social media to carry Trump's message if they don't want you. You have it exactly backwards: the First Amendment protects Facebook's right to ban Trump, not Trump's right to use Facebook.
> This reminds me my home country which quickly went through real freedom back to totalitarianism.
So Facebook bans Trump for (in their opinion) inspiring his followers to riot to overturn a free and fair election, and you think that sounds like authoritarianism?
> That's a view from my couch, don't take it seriously.
If you don't fully believe what you're saying and are too lazy to do research, why post about it at all?