Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

108

Private businesses and sites have the right to set rules on what they will and won't allow. The 1A says the government can't censor you. This is something that can be found with a quick internet search. Don' t believe me? Try it.

Private businesses and sites have the right to set rules on what they will and won't allow. The 1A says the government can't censor you. This is something that can be found with a quick internet search. Don' t believe me? Try it.

(post is archived)

[–] • 2 pts

But (((they))) can update their EULA as they please.

People don't know they have the power to take down these corporations by simply not using their "services".

[–] • 1 pt

That's besides the point. The point I'm trying to make is that using the 1A as an excuse for Alex Jones saying the stuff that got him banned, regardless of whether or not the bans were justified (Which I don't think they were, but that's also besides the point.) is stupid because the 1A doesn't work like that.

[–] • 1 pt

It's not beside the point because the EULA is companies' amendments. If you refuse to agree with it you won't be able to use their services.

The problem is the masses have been brainwashed that it's cool to use social media platforms that collect and expose privacy.

[–] • 2 pts

The problem is that these corporations have essentially became a part of the government. These corporations very often collude with the government.

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

I have adult twins that joined the military, at reception they were told it was required of them to have a F.B. account by phase V.

[–] • 1 pt

You are correct they do have the right to ban him as a private business. However I think some consideration should be given to the fact that these platforms when put together are a virtual monopoly and that effectively silenced him. I think he should start again on other platforms.

[–] • 1 pt

It is more that he names the jew and gets fucked across multiple sites.

[–] • 2 pts

Be that as it may, the 1st Amendment doesn't apply here. The 1A means I can stand outside the White House and say Trump's hair looks stupid (which it does) and that he needs to fire his hairstylist (which he definitely does). Thanks to the 1A, our President can't do anything about it, even if he's tired of people pointing out how stupid his hair looks. It does not protect me from getting banned from /r/TheDonald for saying the same thing, as Reddit is a private forum/business, and has the right to make and enforce rules, as do the individual subreddits. Many people have used the 1A to defend Alex Jones.

[–] • 1 pt

You are missing the point that people are outraged that naming the jew does this

[–] • 1 pt

I think most people understand that here. It is just the fact of calling out these platforms to be non-biased and that they can't claim to be an impartial medium.

[–] • 0 pt

There is an argument to be made, and it will likely be made soon in the courts, that these businesses - though private - constitute the modern equivalent of the Greek agora. The approach to take is centuries of "common carriage" laws - mail services, airlines, telephone companies all must serve everyone regardless of political (and other) viewpoints.

Democracies (and our democratic-representative Republic) require free exchange of ideas. What a shame it would be if in our 21st century we rolled back the application of this principle to only verbal conversations face-to-face... because "private businesses" like the phone company, ISPs, social media platforms, and messaging application developers were permitted to restrict the public discourse. If Facebook (et al) wanted to be as big as they have become, then they deserve the regulation that comes with it.

The 1A says the government can't censor you. This is something that can be found with a quick internet search. Don' t believe me? Try it.

You'll catch more flies with honey than snark...