Democrat threat to freedom of speech?

[hislegacy]

Conservatives can still speak on Twitter and Facebook.

Am I able to speak my mind freely, or only speak things that fit the Democratic narrative?

Last I looked I could NOT voice my opinion that the election was stolen.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Truth is absolute. It's reality.

Some truth is absolute, but everyone must get there in there own way.

I was raised in a home that quite literally dictated what my beliefs had to be, and how I must behave. That travelled beyond that with my first husband who likewise dictated my beliefs and actions.

What I never wanted, was to do that to my own kids. So I told them what my beliefs were, and why I believed them, and let them figure out their own answers from there.

I was divorced with no kids at home any longer, before I ever had a chance to look introspectively and decide for myself what I believed, why I believed it or even who I was and wanted to be as a person because til that time everything was dictated to me, whether by others or by circumstance.

That was mainly in matters of faith of course... but I still see most everything from whether we should support a war in another country, to having national borders and legal immigration, to whether or not Q is a nut job much the same way because it's largely opinion based... you may operate on a similar fact base for some of it, like whether to go to war with x country, but still arrive at different conclusions from other people.

People don't need dictated to, even if what your saying is true people have a right to figure it out on their own. People who are adults aren't children to be led, nor imbeciles to be dictated to.

If Q is a nut job that truth will bear itself out (without the necessity of a fact checker telling you Q has been - or not been - certified as clinically insane)

The last thing any free society needs is someone dictating to you what you are or are not allowed to see, or dictating to you their opinion of the facts. That's not freedom at all... even if they let you vote...

Fusion in late 2014 determined 80% of all women coming into this country illegally via our southern border to have been raped along the way... whether by fellows that immigrated with them, or by coyotes, or by other nefarious individuals they met along the way.. but the facts were, according to them, that 80% of the women crossing the border were raped by the time they got into this country, or perhaps some shortly thereafter if by coyotes.

80% Of Central American Women, Girls Are Raped Crossing Into The U.S.

Now, you don't have to agree with this report, but it was plastered all over because this was a shocking figure, especially when it was 20% above an amnesty international figure of 60% not terribly long (a year or two) before fusions..

Here's the issue. Those are two disparate sets of facts, from two different sources, from two different data sets... so you would determine which to believe back then (at the time of reporting), whether to stick with amnesty's report because they seem more reputable and a little less left than fusion, or go with trusting fusions report...

either way you go either dataset is a pretty dim picture so it hardly matters which set you have more faith in.. more than half is bad enough to warrant attention and attempt to change the situation for these unfortunate women.

However, what no one did was question either the accuracy of either sets of data, whether fusion or amnesty (we all mainly accepted both could have degrees of error, but none large enough to warrant not seeing this as a potentially serious problem for women coming into this country illegally), until Trump quoted the fusion reports in an interview (or media statement I forget which)..

At the time I pulled up both the fusion report and the amnesty international report from their original sources when people started calling him a racist. Why? As a women I remembered how big of a deal those statistics were less than a year previously. They were important to me, so I actually remembered discussions about them both they each came out.

Then the media started saying he's spouting conspiracy theories (which okay, fusion was pretty far left, I myself opted to stick with amnesty's data for that reason when fusion came out with theirs) but even 60% was enough to warrant looking far more closely at how our actions as a nation actually encouraged illegal immigration and ended up putting more women in harm's way than should... keeping people safe should be an important consideration.

These days of course the 60% amnesty report is "page not found" on their website, and mainstream media now pretends it was all some big lie propagated by Trump...

What they couldn't change, was people like me actually remembering all this stuff... like both the fusion and the amnesty reports, and being able to source from amnesty's website before they decided it was more important to convince people Trump was crazy than to keep relevant data available for the public to see and consider.

So... when it comes to facts... even they have varying levels of truth in them...

If I say "in America you had a 99.9% chance of surviving the coronavirus pandemic in 2020", and your say "In America the coronavirus has a 3% mortality rate in 2020" guess what?

We are both relaying very real and established facts concerning this pandemic... and neither are lying, neither statement is untrue.

It's all a matter of what spin we put on it, and how we frame the exact same statistics. That's why getting to the truth yourself is extremely important, and "truth" can vary, depending on who your talking to.

When it's you coming to the truth, then you can examine various statistics etc in light of various considerations, and consider them accordingly, and come up with your own opinions.

It's much better than having truth dictated to you by some potentially biased individual... and is a bedrock of a free society.

 

[Thomas White]

Am I able to speak my mind freely, or only speak things that fit the Democratic narrative?

Last I looked I could NOT voice my opinion that the election was stolen.

You just did.

 

[Thomas White]

Some truth is absolute, but everyone must get there in there own way.

I was raised in a home that quite literally dictated what my beliefs had to be, and how I must behave. That travelled beyond that with my first husband who likewise dictated my beliefs and actions.

What I never wanted, was to do that to my own kids. So I told them what my beliefs were, and why I believed them, and let them figure out their own answers from there.

I was divorced with no kids at home any longer, before I ever had a chance to look introspectively and decide for myself what I believed, why I believed it or even who I was and wanted to be as a person because til that time everything was dictated to me, whether by others or by circumstance.

That was mainly in matters of faith of course... but I still see most everything from whether we should support a war in another country, to having national borders and legal immigration, to whether or not Q is a nut job much the same way because it's largely opinion based... you may operate on a similar fact base for some of it, like whether to go to war with x country, but still arrive at different conclusions with other people.

People don't need dictated to, even if what your saying is true people have a right to figure it out on their own. People who are adults aren't children to be led, nor imbeciles to be dictated to.

If Q is a nut job that truth will bear itself out (without the necessity of a fact checker telling you Q has been - or not been - certified as clinically insane)

The last thing any free society needs is someone dictating to you what you are or are not allowed to see, or dictating to you their opinion of the facts. That's not freedom at all... even if they let you vote...

Fusion in late 2014 determined 80% of all women coming into this country illegally via our southern border to have been raped along the way... whether by fellows that immigrated with them, or by coyotes, or by other nefarious individuals they met along the way.. but the facts were, according to them, that 80% of the women crossing the border were raped by the time they got into this country, or perhaps some shortly thereafter if by coyotes.

80% Of Central American Women, Girls Are Raped Crossing Into The U.S.

Now, you don't have to agree with this report, but it was plastered all over because this was a shocking figure, especially when it was 20% above an amnesty international figure of 60% not terribly long (a year or two) before fusions..

Here's the issue. Those are two disparate sets of facts, from two different sources, from two different data sets... so you would determine which to believe back then at the time of reporting, stick with amnesty report because they seem more reputable and a little less left than fusion, or go with trusting fusions report...

either way you go either is a pretty dim picture so it hardly matters which set of facts you have more faith in.. more than half is bad enough to warrant attention and attempt to change the situation for these unfortunate women.

However, what no one did was question either the accuracy of either sets of data, whether fusion or amnesty (we all mainly accepted both could have degrees of error, but none large enough to warrant not seeing this as a potential serious problem for women coming into this country illegally), until Trump quoted the fusion reports in an interview (or media statement I forget which)..

At the time I pulled up both the fusion report and the amnesty international report from their original sources, when people started calling him a racist. Why? As a women I remembered how big of a deal those statistics were less than a year previously. They were important to me, so I actually remembered discussions about them both they each came out.

So then the media started saying he's spouting conspiracy theories (which okay, fusion was pretty far left, I myself opted to stick with amnesty's data for that reason when fusion came out with theirs) but even 60% was enough to warrant looking far more closely at how our actions as a nation actually encouraged illegal immigration, and ended up putting more women in harm's way than should... keeping people safe should be an important thing.

Now of course the 60% amnesty report is "page not found" on their website, and mainstream media now pretends it was all some big lie by Trump...

What they couldn't change, was people like me actually remembering this stuff... like both the fusion and the amnesty reports, and being able to source from amnesty's website before they decided it was more important to convince people Trump was crazy than to keep relevant data available for the public to see...

So... when it comes to facts... even they have varying levels of truth in them...

If I say "in America you had a 99.9% chance of living through the coronavirus pandemic in 2020", and your say "In America the coronavirus has a 3% mortality rate in 2020" guess what?

We are both relaying very real and established facts concerning this pandemic... and neither are lying, neither statement is untrue.

It's all a matter of what spin we put on it, and how we frame the exact same statistics. That's why getting to the truth yourself is extremely important, and "truth" can vary, depending on who your talking to.

When it's you coming to the truth, then you can examine various statistics etc in light of various considerations, and consider them accordingly, and come up with your own opinions.

It's much better than having truth dictated to you... and is a bedrock of a free society.

You're ignoring a simple fact: no one is stopping you from believing what you believe and saying what you want to say.

 

[mindlight]

yet in your OP you equated Twitter's permanent suspension of Trumps account as the end of freedom of speech and the beginning of a new totalitarianism of woke thought police.


So which is it?

Your original point was about no link between freedom of speech and freedom from consequence which I refuted.

Your rejoinder is that I suggested that Trump's Twitter ban represented an attack on freedom of speech and the promotion of a woke authoritarianism in Big Tech which I stand by

 

[SilverBear]

First, it is necessary to understand what the claim actually is. I don't seem to be able to get you to that level.

you made the claim: "other posts calling for violence that were posted by people who are NOT sympathetic to the President remain available for all to see. Guess what? There are no reports about the Twitter bosses having any interest in suspending those accounts. "

that is pretty easy to understand.

so...name these accounts

 

[Hazelelponi]

You're ignoring a simple fact: no one is stopping you from believing what you believe and saying what you want to say.

I guess Twitter and Facebook banning people in the 10's of thousands for speaking their mind in a "public forum" (so declared by our nations courts), AWS pulling the plug on hosting for Parler, people being deplatformed etc has escaped your attention then?

Look, if Trump blocking certain people from making comments on his private Twitter account is declared suppression of a person's 1A rights in a "public forum" by the American justice system, then what exactly is it when conservatives are banned from those same public forums if not an attack on American freedom of speech by corporate America...

 

[mindlight]

you seem to be presenting a double standard.

Twitter has certain basic values just as CF does ensuring that it isn't a "free for all" Twitter and CF are operating in the same ways both use their rules to limit the voice of some posters the only difference seems to be your approval of CF's rules

No, I do not think they should shut down mosques or other places of false religion, but that does not mean I would actually want to attend one. Freedom of religion does not mean not having standards, that you yourself find acceptable, nor does it mean that I do not reject the content of what I support the right to be said. An imman has a right to preach, so some nutcase, who actually believes this election was "stolen", rather than lost, also has a right to be heard, even if I do not want to actually listen to either one, having already worked through both their positions.

 

[Thomas White]

I guess Twitter and Facebook banning people in the 10's of thousands for speaking their mind in a "public forum" (so declared by our nations courts), AWS pulling the plug on hosting for Parler, people being deplatformed etc has escaped your attention then?

Look, if Trump blocking certain people from making comments on his private Twitter account is declared suppression of a person's 1A rights in a "public forum" by the American justice system, then what exactly is it when conservatives are banned from those same public forums if not an attack on American freedom of speech by corporate America...

Go to Facebook and Twitter and type in "stop the steal." You will see that plenty of people are still voicing their opinion that the election was stolen. Some people calling for violence are being banned. But again, that is a private platform. You are welcome to state your opinion in whatever public forum you choose.

 

[mindlight]

I guess Twitter and Facebook banning people in the 10's of thousands for speaking their mind in a "public forum" (so declared by our nations courts), AWS pulling the plug on hosting for Parler, people being deplatformed etc has escaped your attention then?

Look, if Trump blocking certain people from making comments on his private Twitter account is declared suppression of a person's 1A rights in a "public forum" by the American justice system, then what exactly is it when conservatives are banned from those same public forums if not an attack on American freedom of speech by corporate America...

The Wall Street Journal expressed similar concern about clear political motivations of Big Tech companies making these bans

Twitter, Facebook and Others Silenced Trump. Now They Learn What’s Next.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Go to Facebook and Twitter and type in "stop the steal." You will see that plenty of people are still voicing their opinion that the election was stolen. Some people calling for violence are being banned. But again, that is a private platform. You are welcome to state your opinion in whatever public forum you choose.

It's very likely the only reason they paused in "the great purge" as it's now being called, is because this has disturbed so many, left and right, as to just how much power, and just how oppressive, these social media giants have and are, and just what a danger these people can be, when they use the full extent of that power.

When it's described as being totalitarian, by a state actor who jails people for speaking in opposition to state positions, it's pretty bad...

 

[Thomas White]

It's very likely the only reason they paused in "the great purge" as it's now being called, is because this has disturbed so many, left and right, as to just how much power, and just how oppressive, these social media giants have and are, and just what a danger these people can be, when they use the full extent of that power.

When it's described as being totalitarian, by a state actor who jails people for speaking in opposition to state positions, it's pretty bad...

Facebook and Twitter are not state actors. Again, you can still speak your beliefs in whatever public forum you wish.

 

[hislegacy]

You just did.

I sure can’t on Twitter or Facebook

 

[Thomas White]

I sure can’t on Twitter or Facebook

Why not? I see plenty of people doing it as we speak? Don't call for violence and you're good.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Facebook and Twitter are not state actors. Again, you can still speak your beliefs in whatever public forum you wish.

What is fascism? It's a public/private partnership, where private actors can do what the state actors cannot get away with and vice versa, it's the embodiment of what Mussolini dubbed “corporatism;” that is, the “merger of state and corporate power.” Under corporatism, the ruling class is able to expand unbeknownst to the average person. The Average Joe still has his wallet forcefully stripped of its contents but now the state’s cronies get to partake in the plunder. Meanwhile the same big businessmen who benefit from government privilege still maintain their praise for free markets while working with politicians to forcefully subdue their competition, and the competition for whatever politicians feed them the most.

Some people are on the wrong side of what will become history here.. and arguing for the wrong cause all because of a personal bias against conservatives. These types of things have a tendency to come back on your own head, when you back real fascists.

There's just no talking to some people.

 

[Thomas White]

What is fascism? It's a public/private partnership, where private actors can do what the state actors cannot get away with and vice versa, it's the embodiment of what Mussolini dubbed “corporatism;” that is, the “merger of state and corporate power.” Under corporatism, the ruling class is able to expand unbeknownst to the average person. The Average Joe still has his wallet forcefully stripped of its contents but now the state’s cronies get to partake in the plunder. Meanwhile the same big businessmen who benefit from government privilege still maintain their praise for free markets while working with politicians to forcefully subdue their competition, and the competition for whatever politicians feed them the most.

Some people are on the wrong side of what will become history here.. and arguing for the wrong cause all because of a personal bias against conservatives. These types of things have a tendency to come back on your own head, when you back real fascists.

There's just no talking to some people.

It's ironic that you make that argument while insisting that private companies should not be able to run their platforms as they see fit, a distinctly fascist practice.

 

[parousia70]

Last I looked I could NOT voice my opinion that the election was stolen.

You just did.

"She turned me into a Newt!"

"She turned you into a Newt?"

"..I got better"

 

[Hazelelponi]

It's ironic that you make that argument while insisting that private companies should not be able to run their platforms as they see fit, a distinctly fascist practice.

Well I hope you truly appreciate tthe state your creating here by arguing in favor of a fascist state where corporate America partners with the democratic party to take down any dissenters to this brave new nation where you will end up a slave to the party - or starve.

I know it sounds fun now... but you won't always agree.

As a beside, I have thought my whole life that corporations should be subject under law, ever since I decided people were wrong for refusing service to black Americans. Refusing service to people from an opposing political party is just as unjustified...

 

[Thomas White]

Well I hope you truly appreciate tthe state your creating here by arguing in favor of a fascist state where corporate America partners with the democratic party to take down any dissenters to this brave new nation where you will end up a slave to the party - or starve.

I know it sounds fun now... but you won't always agree.

Corporate America partnering with the Democratic Party to take down dissenters... See, that is how a conspiracy theory starts. It's much more practical to just accept that companies are not comfortable with hosting a platform through which insurrection was planned.

 

[mindlight]

It's ironic that you make that argument while insisting that private companies should not be able to run their platforms as they see fit, a distinctly fascist practice.

Microsoft Azure, Amazon and Google dominate the hosting environment for IAAS, PAAS and SAAS. They have a global infrastructure that is superior to all the alternatives. Their decision making is commercially based. If they think hosting extremists is bad for business they delete them, because they look bad for their brand. They have allowed things like Parler because they were afraid of what Trump would do if they did not. But now that he has lost the election and is losing power they feel free to get rid of his more extreme and violent supporters from their networks. I may agree with their repugnance and even their commercial sense and still worry about the implications for freedom of speech of having brand image and commercial considerations as the primary reasons for allowing someone to speak or not. Yes people can move to alternate hosting platforms but they will not provide the global reach and range of services these 3 companies provide. Certain positions will be marginalized. No one likes fascists or racists or deluded conspiracy nuts, but what happens when Christians become bad for business - what then? The monopoly power of Big Tech to control the conversation for purely commercial or branding reasons is a background issue here.