Imagine wanting to give the Biden admin control over speech on social networks. You really dont think this through, do you.
Paradoxical wrote:
Harambe wrote:
Says the guy criticizing the Democrats on a public forum.
If I was a public figure on Twitter, Youtube or Facebook I could be banned or demonetized for saying the same things. You really do just like the taste of boot, don't you?
Precious Roy wrote:
It is fun to wax on poetic about free speech when your Qanon twitter account is suspended, but what about this hypothetical:
Trump wins reelection by a razor thin margin in FL that is significantly less than the number of felons who were not allowed to vote because they could not pay the court costs and restitution requirements of their parole. Dems claim this is an illegal poll tax and litigation is ongoing at the time the electoral college meets. To make the hypothetical more fun, Bernie Sanders was his Dem opponent.
Antifa followers start organizing on twitter, facebook etc. to storm the US Capitol building and overthrow the US government so they can install Bernie Sanders as the president. Bernie Sanders goes full on Marxist and starts posting about the need for a working class revolution that followers all understand as implicit support for storming the Capitol.
The plans are foiled after Antifa briefly takes over the capitol building. Bernie continue to urge a working class revolution and Antifa announces plans to take a second attempt during the inauguration.
Does Bernie and Antifa get to continue to use social media to plan an execute an overthrow of a hypothetical second Trump administration? If not, then what if anything should happen to them?
If it is ok to plan the overthrow of the US government on social media, is it ok to discuss child pornography? Rape? Human trafficking? Is criminal activity ok on the internet if it touches upon political opinion? Where do you draw the line? And how do you enforce the line?
Slogans are fun to post and make you sound like some great champion of free speech. But what would you actually do if you were in charge?>
I think any incitement of violence should be taken off, as per the law. What has been explained to you for the past week is that 1) Trump never said anything that could have incited violence on Twitter, nor in person (I have asked for evidence of incitement 4 or 5 times on different threads, and nobody has ever given a single tangible quote despite numerous tweets and hours of footage at the rally) and 2) left-wing calls for violence has been allowed on Twitter and has been shown on these boards, showing that this really isn't about reducing violence
https://realitycircuit.com/2020/05/29/twitter-censors-president-trump-while-countless-violent-tweets-remain-active/This is not about Trump inciting a takeover, this is about politicians using social media to silence political dissidents which include Trump and others.
2600 bro wrote:
Imagine wanting to give the Biden admin control over speech on social networks.
You really dont think this through, do you.
Paradoxical wrote:
If I was a public figure on Twitter, Youtube or Facebook I could be banned or demonetized for saying the same things. You really do just like the taste of boot, don't you?
When have I ever said that?
Paradoxical wrote:
Precious Roy wrote:
It is fun to wax on poetic about free speech when your Qanon twitter account is suspended, but what about this hypothetical:
Trump wins reelection by a razor thin margin in FL that is significantly less than the number of felons who were not allowed to vote because they could not pay the court costs and restitution requirements of their parole. Dems claim this is an illegal poll tax and litigation is ongoing at the time the electoral college meets. To make the hypothetical more fun, Bernie Sanders was his Dem opponent.
Antifa followers start organizing on twitter, facebook etc. to storm the US Capitol building and overthrow the US government so they can install Bernie Sanders as the president. Bernie Sanders goes full on Marxist and starts posting about the need for a working class revolution that followers all understand as implicit support for storming the Capitol.
The plans are foiled after Antifa briefly takes over the capitol building. Bernie continue to urge a working class revolution and Antifa announces plans to take a second attempt during the inauguration.
Does Bernie and Antifa get to continue to use social media to plan an execute an overthrow of a hypothetical second Trump administration? If not, then what if anything should happen to them?
If it is ok to plan the overthrow of the US government on social media, is it ok to discuss child pornography? Rape? Human trafficking? Is criminal activity ok on the internet if it touches upon political opinion? Where do you draw the line? And how do you enforce the line?
Slogans are fun to post and make you sound like some great champion of free speech. But what would you actually do if you were in charge?>
I think any incitement of violence should be taken off, as per the law. What has been explained to you for the past week is that 1) Trump never said anything that could have incited violence on Twitter, nor in person (I have asked for evidence of incitement 4 or 5 times on different threads, and nobody has ever given a single tangible quote despite numerous tweets and hours of footage at the rally) and 2) left-wing calls for violence has been allowed on Twitter and has been shown on these boards, showing that this really isn't about reducing violence
https://realitycircuit.com/2020/05/29/twitter-censors-president-trump-while-countless-violent-tweets-remain-active/This is not about Trump inciting a takeover, this is about politicians using social media to silence political dissidents which include Trump and others.
No it's about washing away the sh!t when the cesspool backs up. The lies, the threats, the unsupported claims of fraud with insufficient evidence.... the country is moving ahead with cleaning it up, impeaching those responsible, and resuming with the business that very much needs to be done.
Paradoxical wrote:
If I was a public figure on Twitter, Youtube or Facebook I could be banned or demonetized for saying the same things. You really do just like the taste of boot, don't you?
Right in the constitution: you have a right to FORCE a private company to pay you money!
^This is literally your take. Bernie voter?
Paradoxical wrote:
I will also add that you have to be naive beyond belief to think the Amazon, Google and Apple, some of the richest companies in the world, give a single flying f!ck about "riGhT wInG exTrEMiSm" on a social media platform, or a riot on the capitol. The movie to ban Parler was purely to silence Trump and prevent him and his allies from whistleblowing, which is why they also removed Gen. Flynn and Sidney Powell from Twitter as well.
They don't care about right-wing extremism but it was in their business interest to remove Trump and his supporters after the backlash against the storming of the capitol last week.
It's not because Jeff Bezos is communist.
[quote]2600 bro wrote:
Bro...
Really.
Imagine blaming "THEM" for your miserable life.
Who's them Bro?
Afraid to say, aren't you?
Which proves the point.
The Gallant Pig Man wrote:
josiahi l Williams wrote:
To sum it up:
The Left approves of this because hurts the other team.
The Right disapproves of it because it hurts their team.
Yes, and there you are, objective, above-the-fray, and way smarter than everyone else.
People approve of this because they can see very clearly that last week was not just civil unrest. It was violent sedition and it will continue to happen this week. Armed protests will occur at every capitol. More people will die. These were necessary steps and it is the height of hypocrisy for long-time "free market" conservatives to express outrage over private businesses making decisions on their own about who to do business with and on what terms.
Look, almost nobody likes the amount of power the tech companies have over us. But that is the reality, due in no small part to conservative efforts to stifle any sort of regulation of the tech sector. Given their immense power, I am glad these tech companies have chosen to exercise a modicum of responsibility at the final hour. That doesn't change my opinion that they need a dramatic regulatory intervention and that we need to update our tax code to get at the massive amounts of wealth they are accumulating through digital advertising.
Facebook and Youtube have been two of the primary means of disseminating the most toxic Qanon BS. They are only now taking action against Trump, Qanon freaks, and Parler because they know good and well that, thanks to their complicity, an extended period of far-right terrorism is essentially inevitable at this point and they don't want to be held directly responsible for it. It is their right to do that and it will be our responsibility to strip their power from them after the coming period of Trumper terrorism has been put down.
I agree with a lot of what you have just said, however, you are part of a tribe(The Democratic Party) and have your own biases. I have lurked for a long time on this site. I have never seen you decry the enormous amount of violence and destruction created by BLM throughout 2020.
Precious Roy wrote:
It is ironic that right wingers are suddenly enamored with enforcing first amendment rights against private companies. If there are first amendment rights to things like internet website hosting and being able to post on social media, then the following will also trigger first amendment rights inside private businesses:
The right to use an employer's email system to circulate union organizing material.
The right to wear clothing with socialist slogans while making coffee at Starbucks.
The right to stand inside a clothing store selling fur coats while holding up graphic signs showing animals being skinned.
And so on.
And if the consumer is given free speech rights over and above the private business's rights to operate their business how they see fit, the people who refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings would have to bake cakes for gay weddings because they cannot refuse to bake a cake that says "congratulations Steve and Mike on your wedding".
It is fun to play the victim in internet free speech debates with the narrative of a leftist social media world trying to destroy right wing movements (which ironically the social media world substantially participated in creating and profiting off of), but you cannot pick and chose your principles of limited government and the rights of private enterprise when it suits you.
Private companies are free to censor as they see fit (for the most part). But it is a terrible business decision on their part. They just shut down service to an individual that roughly half of the population voted for. There will be an adverse financial impact from their decision to side with one side of the argument. As Kaepernick taught us, corporations do not have to allow all forms of speech. But economics has also taught us that there are alternatives. The behavior of facebook, amazon, twitter, etc. is just creating an economic opportunity for competing platforms and businesses. Twitter stock is down over 6.5%, facebook is down 4.1%, Amazon is down 2.17%. When you are an over valued tech company, it is a bad idea to alienate half of your customer base. It will be interesting to see how their actions play out down the road.
Harambe wrote:
Paradoxical wrote:
If I was a public figure on Twitter, Youtube or Facebook I could be banned or demonetized for saying the same things. You really do just like the taste of boot, don't you?
Right in the constitution: you have a right to FORCE a private company to pay you money!
^This is literally your take. Bernie voter?
This is one of your more egregious straw mans. I'm saying politicians should not be using government-protected monopolies to inhibit political speech and influence elections by silencing political dissidents (just like dictators use private media outlets to spew their propaganda). Face it, all that is going to come from this censorship is that the internet will become a public good, just like radio and television where rules will be put in place to allow to allow for speech of all political persuasion to exist - just like radio and television. I've always been a moderate, so you can try to paint me with a partisan brush in order to call me a hypocrite, but it's not going to work.
Again, if you think it's virtuous (maybe not illegal) for Twitter to ban Trump but leave up Iran's Ayatollah who sends out tweets calling for "death to america," you're not on the "right side of history."
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/khamenei-death-america-means-death-trump-pompeo-bolton-not-allSetting up regulations to compel speech gives the current administration power over the regulated speech.
Paradoxical wrote:
2600 bro wrote:
Imagine wanting to give the Biden admin control over speech on social networks.
You really dont think this through, do you.
When have I ever said that?
2600 bro wrote:
Setting up regulations to compel speech gives the current administration power over the regulated speech.
Paradoxical wrote:
When have I ever said that?
When have I ever sought to set up regulations that compel speech?
Telling companies what they can and cannot take down is compelling speech. I.e. they must allow certain posts but are free to remove others. You're correct, in my opinion, that political figures are currently held to different standards on these websites than "normal" people. I agree that this practice should stop. Media companies should have clear guidelines about which content is allowed and enforce the guidelines fairly and thoroughly. I do not want laws passed codifying or enforcing such guidelines. The fairness doctrine for TV and radio was removed in 1987 - there is no regulation of those mediums that compels "fairness" or prevents "censorship," despite your assertions.
Paradoxical wrote:
2600 bro wrote:
Setting up regulations to compel speech gives the current administration power over the regulated speech.
When have I ever sought to set up regulations that compel speech?
To no one in particular:
Where was the outrage when Trump's incriminating portion of the Mueller report was redacted? Something we have not seen to this day.
How about voter supression? Maybe the biggest possible infringment upon freedom of speech?
It goes on and on, not just twitter and parler.
Paradoxical wrote:
Harambe wrote:
Right in the constitution: you have a right to FORCE a private company to pay you money!
^This is literally your take. Bernie voter?
This is one of your more egregious straw mans. I'm saying politicians should not be using government-protected monopolies to inhibit political speech and influence elections by silencing political dissidents (just like dictators use private media outlets to spew their propaganda). Face it, all that is going to come from this censorship is that the internet will become a public good, just like radio and television where rules will be put in place to allow to allow for speech of all political persuasion to exist - just like radio and television. I've always been a moderate, so you can try to paint me with a partisan brush in order to call me a hypocrite, but it's not going to work.
Again, if you think it's virtuous (maybe not illegal) for Twitter to ban Trump but leave up Iran's Ayatollah who sends out tweets calling for "death to america," you're not on the "right side of history."
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/khamenei-death-america-means-death-trump-pompeo-bolton-not-all
Which politicians are using government protected monopolies to inhibit political speech and influence elections by silencing political dissidents?
Give us names, and tell us how they did it.
johnny99 wrote:
Which politicians are using government protected monopolies to inhibit political speech and influence elections by silencing political dissidents?
Give us names, and tell us how they did it.
Joe Biden
He put executives from big tech on his transition team and his cabinet AFTER they protected him in the election by censoring the Hunter Biden story.
Cancelling Parler isn't about Trump or the riots. Trump will be gone in a few days. These are rationalizations to ban non-leftist platforms.
The left is a totalitarian collectivist movement. In order to establish the dictatorship they desire, they must suppress opposition to achieve full control of society.
Hence, they will attempt to brand anything that rebukes the their fundamental principles as racist and backwards, and worthy of censorship.
Parler was founded by libertarian types who don't support Trump, or consider him anything more than the lesser evil, and who have nothing to do with racism. Yet, the left is branding them right-wing extremists, white nationalists, Trump supporters, "conspiracy theorists," etc.
Give me a break. The left are a bunch of fascist ass hats.
Paradoxical wrote:
This is one of your more egregious straw mans. I'm saying politicians should not be using government-protected monopolies to inhibit political speech and influence elections by silencing political dissidents (just like dictators use private media outlets to spew their propaganda). Face it, all that is going to come from this censorship is that the internet will become a public good, just like radio and television where rules will be put in place to allow to allow for speech of all political persuasion to exist - just like radio and television. I've always been a moderate, so you can try to paint me with a partisan brush in order to call me a hypocrite, but it's not going to work.
Again, if you think it's virtuous (maybe not illegal) for Twitter to ban Trump but leave up Iran's Ayatollah who sends out tweets calling for "death to america," you're not on the "right side of history."
I really don't care who or who isn't banned from Twitter. There is very little moral gravity to all on this, contrary to how flustered you seem to be. Again, there is no right to make money on Youtube. Feel free to petition your government if you feel that should be protected.
Trump can post whatever he wants on whitehouse.gov or whatever. You trying to characterize him as 'silenced' because he got banned from a website with ~2% of the world's population as daily users is..... comical. But I admire your devotion.
she aint messin with a broke broke wrote:
Cancelling Parler isn't about Trump or the riots. Trump will be gone in a few days. These are rationalizations to ban non-leftist platforms.
The left is a totalitarian collectivist movement. In order to establish the dictatorship they desire, they must suppress opposition to achieve full control of society.
Hence, they will attempt to brand anything that rebukes the their fundamental principles as racist and backwards, and worthy of censorship.
Parler was founded by libertarian types who don't support Trump, or consider him anything more than the lesser evil, and who have nothing to do with racism. Yet, the left is branding them right-wing extremists, white nationalists, Trump supporters, "conspiracy theorists," etc.
Give me a break. The left are a bunch of fascist ass hats.
Amazon banned/censored/cancelled Parler from its web services platform. Are you SERIOUSLY saying Jeff Bezos is a communist?
george c wrote:
politically homeless wrote:
We moderates are still here. We see both parties being hijacked by extremists. We're the ones decrying the violence this summer and the violence now. It doesn't matter what ways the violence was similar or dissimilar, justified or unjustified, it's all wrong.
But much fewer of us. Among other things this trump-era will convey is the push for people to move heavily left or right or be left behind. I hope not, but fear this.
I said "us" because doesn't 90% of the people consider themselves moderate? I considered myself a left-leaning R. Since this disaster the past 4 years I am firmly D hoping for the party to rid itself of the stink or a third party alternative.
The polarization occurred under Obama's reign. Don't kid yourself and I voted for him in 2012.