Cyber Spaces.

Continued from A1...

        You no longer go “online” or “log in” we are online 24/7. The IRL and the URL have merged and created a new reality. We need to define what “spaces” mean within the internet. What is “public”, “private”, “private-public”, “commercial” and what sites fall within each? How should each be regulated? It is not the place for the government to force a private company to allow a publisher to use their platform. Any lawmaker who proposes to revoke section 230 is not a friend of the free market or free speech. Ironically, these are some of the same lawmakers who support the free market when a baker wishes to deny service based on a customers private life. This is a gross over reach, an attempt to consolidate more power and control by both parties. They are losing the battle for control and pulling out all the stops.

     One of the five pillars of the first amendment states the Government shall not make any laws that will restrict free speech of its citizens. The first amendment DOES NOT protect you from an economic boycott due to that free speech. The first amendment DOES NOT protect you from social shunning. The first amendment DOES NOT protect you from violence due to the content of free speech. The first amendment DOES NOT protect the sign you posted on your lawn. Although, your psychical well being is protected by assault laws and your personal property is protected by property laws. The free market dictates that any lawmaker or private citizen attempting to undercut the first amendment could be shunned and economically boycotted until they are voted out of office or pushed out of society. 

     When black Americans stood up and demanded to no longer be called by a racial slur, we collectively agreed to remove those words because we did not wish to cause them further harm. Now that queer or other minority groups are standing up and saying they wish for selected words to no longer be associated towards them, you claim it’s a “free speech” issue. When in reality it is a issue of respect. So I ask, what’s the difference between black Americans and queer Americans? Why do you not extend the same respect to them? If a queer person hears a word that shares the same sentiment as a black person who hears “that word”, then why do you continue to use those words? This has nothing to do with free speech. This has to do with you being a little cry baby because you are being told you’re wrong. Buck up buttercup. It’s not a hard thing to give people the respect that you wish to receive in return.

Proposal:
 

     What’s the difference between an Influencer and an infomercial? What’s the difference between a twitter fight between BLM and ALM or watching Jerry Springer? (There’s no Steve!) What’s the difference between a Podcast and talk radio? Let’s be honest, it is all just modern day Public Access TV. If Wayne & Garth were around today they would have a show on Youtube, Twitch and/or TikTok. Sites owned by the GOV should be treated as a “public space” and should include a space for public debate (that is why we used to have town halls or town squares). Company websites are privately owned and post at the discretion of the business owner. Personal websites, emails, text messages, VoIP is all peer-to-peer and deemed “private spaces.” Similar to hanging a poster in your window, bumper sticker on your car or having a conversation on the street. That’s your space, that you are free to regulate however you want. It’s almost as if the .com (company), .net (network), .gov (government) and .edu (education) are suppose to be used to denote what type of site you are on. Shocking and extremely hard to grasp. We know.

     The first amendment should be applied to each space and no different than that of the psychical world we live in. Freedom of speech is not under attack because anyone can make an email list or send a text message. Everyone is free to build their own website. Anyone may build their own server to host that website. Anyone is free to post whatever they want. Are TV/cable stations forced to interview the deranged person standing on the corner yelling for Primetime TV? No, they are not. So why should social media be forced to give those of the same people a platform? Platforms are platforms. Users are publishers. Publishers are responsible for what they publish. Platforms should not be responsible for what their users post. All users should be required to be blue check verified: real name, real photo, real consequences for your actions. Social media is Public Access TV, Public Access Media. A personal website is just that, personal property protected by the 1st amendment.

     Big tech needs to make the first move. Wipe the slate clean and purge their platforms of every account to eliminate all bots and shadow accounts. Allowing everyone to start fresh and get blue check verified. Putting trust back into society. The only reason they won’t do this is because they rely too much on user numbers to show companies they can sell ads. Ads make dollars. It’s all rooted in making money and control. The same reason as “if it bleeds it leads”. It’s time to break up The FB empire and every other monopoly (Disney, nestle, etc.) before it breaks up our once civil society. Y’all have reaped the rewards of destruction long enough.

     The beaches of disinformation are stormed by removing the tools of those spreading the disinformation. The war of disinformation is won by over educating the public.