Social Media Are Just Badly Run Message Boards With A Flat UI

Social media has got to become decoupled with this idea of freedom of speech. All human beings alive are born with the freedom to speak, distinct from any government. People are especially imbued with freedom of speech with respect to any corporation. So a single website domain cannot possibly have anything to do with the governance of free speech. Since advertising funds social media websites, it couldn’t be more true that these websites are digital ad books, or online shopping malls. That’s all.

The main difference between social media companies and actual shopping malls are that you do not need to provide any form of personal identification information in order to enter. Another main difference is that when you walk into a store in the mall, an actual human being (paid by that company) may say hello to you. If you have questions, they will help you (hopefully) find what you’re looking for. When you’re trying to just stay shopping alone, most employees get the hint. They do not follow you out of the store afterwards. Nobody follows you to the parking lot, or back home, like they do on social media.

Twitter.com Is The Holographic Example You Needed To Watch Burn

The fact that Twitter.com has allowed more people than the owners to publish content in the past has nothing to do with whether or not they grant free speech. If you were walking around a shopping mall espousing racial slurs, antisemitic comments, and other political nonsense, you may in fact get your actual ass kicked. This would undoubtably make you question whether or not being that way was a good idea or not. It might even change your mind from saying these things, whether you believed them or not.

No company needs to create anything else to allow people to join together in person or online in order to have conversations. The internet exists, email exists, and there are plenty of other websites out there which enable people to publish content or exchange data. In fact, the power of Twitter.com exists on Twitter.com and Twitter.com alone. If newscasters would simply stop publishing tweets on television you would never hear about this company again. You are free to express yourself in real life, on your own website domain you could purchase & publish, or on countless other online message boards.

You Are Already & Always Free To Speak

Companies do not govern free speech, even when they try to. The sad truth is that today, most people modulate the truth out of their own communications for fear of being judged for what they think. It is not made any better by people pretending that any social media company is going to clamp down on them.

As a person who has fought against these companies online, in the street, and anywhere else I could, I can tell you that they are not as capable as you think they are – at suppressing dissent. It’s a surprisingly easy thing to do, beating these companies at the communications game. All you have to do is stay off of their domain and they can’t do a lot to you. They do have your email address and password but that’s another situation entirely. Social media companies do not need to operate as phishing scams, but they might just be smaller than 200,000,000+ users if emails were captured honestly.

A Refresher On Freedom Of Speech

It is not easy for government officials, or the public, to figure out what people should be free to say. That is made even more difficult by people who don’t bother to read our country’s history, or constitution. A few different kinds of speech are actually already illegal, hate speech being the least easy to define or actualize. “Fighting words” are illegal. In other words, you cannot say “I’m going to beat the shit out of you!” or you could get locked up. Cops in any city with actual violence is unlikely to charge that. You’ll never see a DA in an urban environment prosecute fighting words because it’s hardly a local crime.

False advertising is also illegal. Lemon law is one of the clearest example of this. You cannot sell somebody a car claiming it has 20,000 miles on it if there are actually 200,000 miles on it. That’s one of the most common type of lawsuits in false advertising aka unfair competition, or unfair trade practices.

But “hate speech” is a sort of fake distinction in our society now. It is a confusion of what fighting words actually are. Fighting words are that which could “incite violence” technically. It’s easiest to see a fighting words phrase as what it is, when a person threatens violence – then they themselves enact violence immediately. So the idea that somebody…tweets something, and then later somebody who read that communication goes and commits an act of violence elsewhere, is more like blaming the movies or video games for kids being violent.

There may be some effect, but in the case of social media this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Twitter.com is a website. Facebook.com is a website. Snapchat.com is a website. No company has the power to give you freedom, nor take it away.

Reclaim The Rhetoric Of The “Public Square” From Social Media’s Death Grip

They are not internet providers, either. Section 230 should never have protected these companies.

These websites in no way are the “public square.” The public square is…in public. At best the open internet would be the online public square, with each website domain being an individually owned space off that square – but not the square itself. Because any one domain is owned by 1 or more people, not the public itself. When Twitter.com was a publicly traded company, there could be a weird argument about ownership since nearly every person on the platform had shares of Twitter.com via their 401k or retirement programs. Or individual stock ownership.

In that case, suppressing speech is a shareholder issue, not a government issue.

Just Leave Already

These companies are run by weak-willed lames who cannot handle scrutiny. That’s why they make these gigantic websites which cost billions of dollars in order to evade accountability for their bizarre and disgusting proclivities. If everybody were to leave these websites, the founders (who own all the voting shares) would be the only people left holding the bag. That means every single piece of content will be theirs. Which means they moderated the content just the way they wanted it, and are left with only the publication instances they want: CSAM, cryptocurrency scams, fake medical treatments, and the rest.

Delete your account, and join in the millions who are demanding these companies are held accountable for stealing personal identification information. Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, Evan Spiegel, now Elon Musk all must be brought in as leaders of a racket. They pretend they do 1 thing (or 1,000 things) but actually do no things. Social media websites started as frauds, and will end as the same.