feddoc
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 7,225
Last edited:
Because you're pro-censorship and support "cancel culture" when it agrees with your viewpoint? Wow. Just wow.That just made my night!
Pot, meet kettleBecause you're pro-censorship and support "cancel culture" when it agrees with your viewpoint? Wow. Just wow.
_________________
"The company says that two-thirds of its customers asked for the sites to be blocked."
Are they not smart enough to refrain from clicking on the link? Or were they trying to get the provider to ban the sites in protest? The latter would be the ultimate in hypocrisy and another example of a group acting just like the one they claim to oppose... which is exactly what we saw last week in the Capitol.
Its apparent you don't know what that means.Pot, meet kettle
Yep, you know not what you speak of. I've not given my opinion here on this subject so you have no idea what I think about it.Your the guy that’s all for big tech colluding to drop parlor blatantly ignoring anti trust laws right? May e he’s just happy about that provider exercising its rights as a private company.
yeah, I know what it means. Your the kettle, or maybe the pot. Same diff
Had an older polish guy that worked for me for years. This was 10 years ago and he would talk about how scared he was with what was going on in this country. That guy lived through it and the writing on the wall was easy for him to see. It truly terrified him. If he’s still around I can only imagine what he’s thinking seeing it all happen here like it did to his countryPoland knows first hand what it is like to live under socialist rule where censorship is practiced by the government. Maybe we should learn from them.
RELH
The one big difference I see is that their customers asked for the sites to be blocked and that if you are a customer and want those sites you can be added on the allowed list.Its apparent you don't know what that means.
You heard no indignation from me either way, just pointing out the clear hypocrisy when somebody who criticized it one way celebrates it another.
Because you're pro-censorship and support "cancel culture" when it agrees with your viewpoint? Wow. Just wow.
_________________
"The company says that two-thirds of its customers asked for the sites to be blocked."
Are they not smart enough to refrain from clicking on the link? Or were they trying to get the provider to ban the sites in protest? The latter would be the ultimate in hypocrisy and another example of a group acting just like the one they claim to oppose... which is exactly what we saw last week in the Capitol.
Are there any other values that you hold dear that you're willing to give up by majority vote? Because if I'm not mistaken you were against censorship by FB, Twitter, etc...When 67% of your customers ask for something, its generally a good idea to grant it .
Besides, as you've pointed out, they arent blocked, FB and Twitter are more than welcome to build an ISP and deliver service to that area.
Are there any other values that you hold dear that you're willing to give up by majority vote? Because if I'm not mistaken you were against censorship by FB, Twitter, etc...
____________
I personally couldn't care less about any of this. I've never had a social media account. I've been to Northern Idaho and know that is someplace that I never want to live. I don't care if a private company turns off certain websites; if the locals don't like it then can switch providers. It's free market, just like on the other side of the spectrum.
But I'm amazed at the people who were so ticked at private company censorship that now support it just because it aligns with their politics.
I thank God we have a Constitution or we'd truly have nothing left by now.
Unlike your other argument about content, this could be about infrastructure and if this is a public utility (which it could possibly be, I just don't care to find out) then there would be censorship concerns at play. Public utilities are granted special exceptions but then have special rules. That's why you only have Dominion Energy running gas in your neighborhood and not four different gas lines. If it's a wireless system that's self-funded then they can do what they want and the customers will decide if they like it.
Spell check, ughMonster Muslims? Any pisscutter muslims in your area?
yes. already talking about certain people that wont be able to fly due to political affiliation. Forbes magazine put out a statement that any company who hires any former member of the Trump administration (were talking thousands of people) they will consider there entire company liars? so defamed and off the Forbes 500 list? citi bank lining up. your free as a bird you just cant bank any where, no problem.Will Mastercard begin to disallow charges to companies or candidates they disagree with?
What about me blocking anti-hunter, anti-gun and PETA posts? Should I not have the right to do that? What would this site be like if I were forced by the government to allow them to post whatever they want here?All this "private Company" can do what they want is BS. What if said private company decided to block/censor all Black peoples voices ? Its their company so.........
I agree Brian, but who gets to decide what is allowed and what is not ? This always has and always will lead to propaganda, by the ones in control. I don't have the answer but something has to change. They say if you don't like it start your own site... how did that work out for Parler ?What about me blocking anti-hunter, anti-gun and PETA posts? Should I not have the right to do that? What would this site be like if I were forced by the government to allow them to post whatever they want here?
Or what if I didn't want religious battles taking place on this website, but the government forced me to allow it? What kind of website would this be if I was forced to allow anything and everything to be posted here?
I understand what you're saying, but on the flip side, private business should be allowed to run their business as they see fit. If I don't want my site filled with a bunch of peta messages telling me and others what horrible rotten people we are, maybe even calling for our death (as in the Parler deal), I shouldn't be forced to by our government.
The internet would be an utter mess if websites had to allow every message by every visitor.
What about me blocking anti-hunter, anti-gun and PETA posts? Should I not have the right to do that? What would this site be like if I were forced by the government to allow them to post whatever they want here?
Or what if I didn't want religious battles taking place on this website, but the government forced me to allow it? What kind of website would this be if I was forced to allow anything and everything to be posted here?
I understand what you're saying, but on the flip side, private business should be allowed to run their business as they see fit. If I don't want my site filled with a bunch of peta messages telling me and others what horrible rotten people we are, maybe even calling for our death (as in the Parler deal), I shouldn't be forced to by our government.
The internet would be an utter mess if websites had to allow every message by every visitor.
Something may need to be done, but it needs to be well thought out. Same with the Section 230......maybe something needs to be done, but it needs to be a smart something that takes into account many viewpoints and impacts on all businesses, not just a couple big techs. Not an easy issue to address.I agree Brian, but who gets to decide what is allowed and what is not ? This always has and always will lead to propaganda, by the ones in control. I don't have the answer but something has to change. They say if you don't like it start your own site... how did that work out for Parler ?
You're missing a key part of the discussion... Federal Anti-discrimination laws. As I pointed out in the other thread, there are Protected Classes under federal law. Political affiliation isn't one, but race is.All this "private Company" can do what they want is BS. What if said private company decided to block/censor all Black peoples voices ? Its their company so.........
Define "Discrimination" It doesn't apply only to race. And what is a "Protected Class" and who decides this ? The Government does ! But we can't involve the government, Grizz you are talking in circles.You're missing a key part of the discussion... Federal Anti-discrimination laws. As I pointed out in the other thread, there are Protected Classes under federal law. Political affiliation isn't one, but race is.
"Shouting fire in a crowded theater"
is a popular analogy for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating panic. The phrase is a paraphrasing of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).[1]
The paraphrasing differs from Holmes's original wording in that it typically does not include the word falsely, while also adding the word "crowded" to describe the theatre.[2] The original wording used in Holmes's opinion ("falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic") highlights that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.
And there you go again putting words in people's mouths that they never said. I'm not trying to have it both ways, I clearly said in the very post you quoted, "I don't care if a private company turns off certain websites; if the locals don't like it then can switch providers. It's free market, just like on the other side of the spectrum."Customers ask stores to stock or unstock products continuously. There is no difference.
But you cant have it both ways. Apple and google play shutting down an App, isn't censorship because they are a private company, but a private company shutting down FB/Twitter is censorship? Apps being shut down by private companies. Again there is no difference.
Lastly. Where exactly in the constitution does it discuss government protecting SOME forms of speach(230) while not protecting others(every other form of media)?
And. Seeing what happened now, are you SERIOUSLY going to try and say these tech companies arent now editorializing? Really?
You have Google, Amazon, Apple, demanding that Parler be responsible for all content on their app.
So Google and the others hide behind 230 saying they need it because they cant be responsible for all the content on their "platforms", then turning around and censoring apps claiming they must be.?
If Parler must be and isn't extended 230 protection, then neither should Twitter.
And again I have neither.
But i went to history class. I learned about Standard Oil. This is exactly the same. Including using government handouts/protections to monopolize industry
Google is your friend... https://www.subscriptlaw.com/blog/protected-classesDefine "Discrimination" It doesn't apply only to race. And what is a "Protected Class" and who decides this ? The Government does ! But we can't involve the government, Grizz you are talking in circles.
Not what I said at all. I said the government made changes to discrimination laws when they were called for and needed. And some kind of change is called for and needed now. And most people agree with this, the question is what to do.Google is your friend... https://www.subscriptlaw.com/blog/protected-classes
So now your position is that because there are discrimination laws, the government should also control the speech and operating agreements of a private company? Wow.
Look at where your path has now taken you.
And there you go again putting words in people's mouths that they never said. I'm not trying to have it both ways, I clearly said in the very post you quoted, "I don't care if a private company turns off certain websites; if the locals don't like it then can switch providers. It's free market, just like on the other side of the spectrum."
It's not my position that is against censorship of one type of speech while celebrating the other; I've made it clear that private companies can do what they want... and that there is a possible exception in the case of public utilities.
As to your question, "Where exactly in the constitution does it discuss government protecting SOME forms of speach(230) while not protecting others(every other form of media)?"
If you think ALL speech is equally protected or that NO speech is equally protected, you're wrong. The Supreme Court has been very clear that there are limitations on free speech and some of more protected than others.
Media is speech. Just like Citizens United found, money is speech too.I specifically said where in the constitution does it say that certain media deserves protection vs other media?
PROTECTION.
All this "private Company" can do what they want is BS. What if said private company decided to block/censor all Black peoples voices ? Its their company so.........
Pelosi on twitter dismissing 70 million plus people due to there "whitness" no that's not discrimination based on skin color.Define "Discrimination" It doesn't apply only to race. And what is a "Protected Class" and who decides this ? The Government does ! But we can't involve the government, Grizz you are talking in circle
Media is speech. Just like Citizens United found, money is speech too.
As to your "protection" argument... the FCC regulates television content (which is why hardcore adult content can't be found on The Discovery Channel at 2 in the afternoon) but the government decided they largely weren't going to try and regulate internet content (obviously with certain exceptions like child assault). Part of that was 230 where they said an internet provider couldn't be held liable for content posted by another person and couldn't be reasonably expected to fully moderate all content at all times. This is where the "made aware" discussion comes in from @Founder.
I, for one, am not looking to give the government more control of internet content. I'm amazed at those looking to force/prohibit speech of private companies just because somebody took a different political slant than they may like.
All that would happen is every 4 years a different website would get shut down and then started back up again depending on the people in charge.
I sure pity the position those social media sites are in. You’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I know this first hand here on this site. In trying to keep this thread from going to a political battle, I deleted a few earlier posts, but allowed the thread to continue. It gradually went beyond one of the posts that I removed earlier, and I understand the complaint of the member who’s post was removed.I couldn't agree more.
If your stance is that a private company can do whatever they want, you need to step back and think about where we are at this moment in history.
A certain ideology now controls all branches of government, corporate America, and Big Tech. In this country’s history, have we ever seen this level of power all aligned under one ideology?? In case you haven't noticed, it is no longer OK to have a difference in opinion. Rather, they wish to force you in to conforming to their view point. And they now have all the power to do it.
We have already seen the requirement to conform to a certain view point imposed on nearly all leaders of public schools, professional athletes, universities, corporate mangers/leaders, etc....Now that this certain ideology has unchecked power, the requirement to conform will be pushed further down the social hierarchy. The only question is, how far will it go?
Corporate America now controls almost everything, and a lot of people seem to think it is OK to discriminate based on ideology. If that's OK and lawful, there's not much to limit what a certain ideology could legally impose on the rest of us (the specific laws may vary by state).
Maybe we are taking it for granted that those of us with a different viewpoint (and especially those that choose to express it) can freely purchase goods and services in a society that is primarily controlled by large corporations and a government with viewpoints different than our own. How far could they go in refusing service to those of us that view the world through a different lens?
Some will say that corporations won't ever refuse to do businesse with people that view the world differently than they do because it will hurt them too much financially. There is no doubt that this will help in limiting it, but it won't eliminate it. All you need to do is take a look at the financial hits the NBA and the NFL are taking. They are taking huge financial hits, but they show no signs of slowing down in silencing those with a different viewpoint.
Again, because all the power (corporate America, Big Tech, government) is now concentrated under one particular belief system, there are some things to consider. I have no idea what the correct answer is, but if I were you, I might think about this belief that "a private company" can refuse service to whoever they want. Depending on the state you live in, things could be taken to a more extreme level than you ever thought possible.
ACLU standing up for something on the right? world is ending...ACLU raises concerns amid Trump Twitter ban
The American Civil Liberties Union on Friday is raising concerns about social media platforms banning users, in the aftermath of Twitter’s decision to permanently suspend President Trump.m.washingtontimes.com
Saw this. I guess they are as "confused" as me
how can anyone be so blatantly naked in there dishonesty?!
If any of us here want to stay relevant at all in the right leaning political world we better get our wallets out and support the politicians we like..........corporations, under extreme pressure from the other side are cutting them off........
Welcome to the USSR.....