General Discussion

bearsfootball516

(6,717 posts)

10. Good luck with that.

Reply to ancianita (Original post)

Thu Aug 2, 2018, 06:40 PM

Aug 2018

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

87 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

NO New Accounts in American Social Media Until the Election Is Over [View all] ancianita Aug 2018 OP

A court would overturn that in ten minutes Loki Liesmith Aug 2018 #1

Why. Social media is for profit business, and this decision concerns national security. ancianita Aug 2018 #5

1st amendment fescuerescue Aug 2018 #20

Ummmm. No. Ms. Toad Aug 2018 #31

Why would their be criminal court action fescuerescue Aug 2018 #62

I didn't say anything about criminal action. Ms. Toad Aug 2018 #68

Ya I guess I missed that line in the OP fescuerescue Aug 2018 #72

I agree with you on that. Ms. Toad Aug 2018 #78

including DU? nt msongs Aug 2018 #2

DU isn't social media. DU is an Internet discussion forum. ancianita Aug 2018 #6

distinction without a difference fescuerescue Aug 2018 #21

That you say that says more about your "no difference" understanding than social media reality. ancianita Aug 2018 #30

I don't really care how reddit markets itself. fescuerescue Aug 2018 #58

Then you really don't care about the distinction-without-a-difference that websites themselves make. ancianita Aug 2018 #60

I'm not going to explain marketing to you. fescuerescue Aug 2018 #64

I have attempted a definition of difference and you haven't. ancianita Aug 2018 #53

I see. fescuerescue Aug 2018 #59

Give us a legally defensible definition of "social media" brooklynite Aug 2018 #51

What the... who is "us"? This is a general discussion forum, so perhaps you could go first, since ancianita Aug 2018 #55

You're the one making the absurd suggestion mythology Aug 2018 #73

DU is absolutely social media. Iggo Aug 2018 #74

All due respect, "in the form ... internet discussion board" does not a social media entity make. ancianita Aug 2018 #77

Under what law? marybourg Aug 2018 #3

What the...? Do you really think these are governmental agencies? They're businesses. ancianita Aug 2018 #7

And laws don't apply to businesses? marybourg Aug 2018 #39

Explain how current efforts to stop social media attacks are governed by law, then understand that ancianita Aug 2018 #40

Businesses are not going to violate their primary obligation, marybourg Aug 2018 #42

It's a civic, security-motivated decision. Profit shouldn't rule a fair & free election process. ancianita Aug 2018 #57

Well, why don't you write each of them a letter? marybourg Aug 2018 #69

I've contacted them, thanks. What they do going forward, we'll see. ancianita Aug 2018 #81

No manor321 Aug 2018 #4

I didn't say shut you down, I said shut down taking in any new accounts. ancianita Aug 2018 #8

I just fixed the unclear OP title, folks! Thank you all for the clarifying questions. ancianita Aug 2018 #9

And I was just about to make a snotty remark about Control-Z Aug 2018 #43

Thank you. Appreciate that you understood the spirit of the idea. I only changed two words in the OP ancianita Aug 2018 #45

Good luck with that. bearsfootball516 Aug 2018 #10

It's not up to me. It's an idea. Thanks for your input. ancianita Aug 2018 #11

Who is proposing this? fescuerescue Aug 2018 #22

I am proposing this. Its acceptance is scant here. I'm disappointed. To me it's a good idea. ancianita Aug 2018 #41

I closed my Facebook account several months ago. underthematrix Aug 2018 #12

Great.But that posits social media as the threat. What do you think about the OP idea? ancianita Aug 2018 #15

Here's the issue with the 90 day no new accounts underthematrix Aug 2018 #49

The idea isn't to close out valid and constructive accounts. The idea is to prevent new ones to ancianita Aug 2018 #52

I hear you and I wish that could work. Maybe a slightly different way would be to eliminate underthematrix Aug 2018 #54

How, exactly, do you know it couldn't. No new apps, accounts is the idea that I think could help. ancianita Aug 2018 #56

Oh I think your idea is a good one. But let's be honest. This approach says more about underthematrix Aug 2018 #61

Why 30? We need to block hostile foreign intrusions until after election day, wouldn't you agree? ancianita Aug 2018 #65

Because advertisers, the primary paying consumer underthematrix Aug 2018 #66

You're saying that national security efforts and profit efforts can't mutually support each other? ancianita Aug 2018 #67

No. I'm saying they're mutually exclusive. I'm saying that underthematrix Aug 2018 #86

Howsabout not allowing anyone on Social Media too stupid to discern fact from white wing lies. Hoyt Aug 2018 #13

You care about how people use media. I'm talking about a national security proposal. ancianita Aug 2018 #16

I don't see the purpose of yours, and it's not going to happen. Hoyt Aug 2018 #19

You don't see how a voluntary, social media CEO decision to call a 90-day moratorium ancianita Aug 2018 #44

No, because just like here at DU, people and organizations have multiple accounts to Hoyt Aug 2018 #47

Then why does DU even bother with MIRT? Most Internet orgs have ways to prevent crap. ancianita Aug 2018 #50

How'd that work out on DU Control-Z Aug 2018 #46

Here, you got rebuttals hidden. Would hope that doesn't happen here again. Hoyt Aug 2018 #48

I'm afraid that'd be a head-on free-speech issue. VOX Aug 2018 #14

It's a national security issue, not discrimination or a free speech issue. ancianita Aug 2018 #17

It's not about a genie out of the bottle. It shuts down further threat for 90 days. ancianita Aug 2018 #18

I wonder what other amendments we could shut down for 90 days fescuerescue Aug 2018 #23

I'm puzzled as to what you're talking about. I'm talking about social media CEO's helping secure ancianita Aug 2018 #24

Private businesses can do what they choose. Ms. Toad Aug 2018 #32

A few things. . . . Jake Stern Aug 2018 #25

Re #2: this government does not run social media. It's not up to this govt. to decide or even approv ancianita Aug 2018 #27

Seems like a good idea. nt ladjf Aug 2018 #26

Whew. Thank you. Glad to see someone who can appreciate the national security help CEO's can give. ancianita Aug 2018 #28

Nope. But how about a prominent date joined notation, highlighted if less than one year? Freethinker65 Aug 2018 #29

DU should be all about national security. This proposal is about national security. Re your ideas: ancianita Aug 2018 #34

LOL. WhiskeyGrinder Aug 2018 #33

As long as there's no government involvement, there are no First Amendment issues. J_William_Ryan Aug 2018 #35

The problem: national security threats. There's no compliance, only good faith voluntary CEO help. ancianita Aug 2018 #37

Shareholder suits fescuerescue Aug 2018 #63

This is literally fascism SkyDancer Aug 2018 #36

You need to explain, otherwise I say you're beyond wrong, since it's not directed by government. ancianita Aug 2018 #38

The FBI is the government SkyDancer Aug 2018 #70

Understood. So there's a mutual interest, not oppositional one, in securing communications. ancianita Aug 2018 #76

Literally no one is going to go along with such a stupid idea. phleshdef Aug 2018 #71

Exactly....99.9% of social media is global anyway... HipChick Aug 2018 #75

You realize that politics isn't the sum total of social media? Blue_Adept Aug 2018 #79

Of course. National security OF politics is the focus of the OP. This isn't about denying people ancianita Aug 2018 #80

Wow, that's some pretty incredible condescension coming from you there Blue_Adept Aug 2018 #87

Um, yeah, that's not going to happen. First Amendment and all. Tommy_Carcetti Aug 2018 #82

Um, yeah No. No one is entitled to join social media. It is not a tax supported public utility. ancianita Aug 2018 #83

If the government (FBI in your hypo) steps in and tells social media folks not to allow new accounts Tommy_Carcetti Aug 2018 #84

You may not conclude that I want govt. barring citizens. I SAID such a moratorium is voluntarily ancianita Aug 2018 #85