Fighting back against big tech censorship

[hislegacy]

Gotcha... so you are a staunch proponent and advocate for Big Gov't regulation of, and intervention into, Private Business, because you believe private business does not have the right to decide for themselves what they want to allow on their platform.

Noted.

If that is what you chose to believe, so be it, but as for me personally you are incorrect in your assumptions.

Thank you.

 

[RDKirk]

It's an interesting question.
Weird because we wouldn't say the govt should force you to deliver your product to all who request it.

On the other hand, you make your living in the public space that we all have to share. The state provides security, legal resources that protect your land and building etc, order for you to carry out your business function (or that's a reasonable assumption?? Perhaps not??) - so ought the state be due obedience if they are interested in serving all people?

Definately an interesting question.

The way I've heard the debate framed over here in the UK regarding big tech is; Do American's want freedom of speech being in the hands of just a few people? (FB, AWS and Google).

Except that it's not. Not even close. Do you realize how many blogs there are on the Internet?

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Except that it's not. Not even close. Do you realize how many blogs there are on the Internet?

You said “it”. What does “it” mean??
Did you intend on quoting me?? Haha

 

[RDKirk]

You said “it”. What does “it” mean??
Did you intend on quoting me?? Haha

Freedom of speech in America is not in the hands of only a few people. Certainly less now than it was 200 years ago, when printing presses were relatively rare.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Freedom of speech in America is not in the hands of only a few people. Certainly less now than it was 200 years ago, when printing presses were relatively rare.

Fair enough

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I remember when the left was against giant companies having such power and when the right defended these giant companies. Oh how the times have changed.

What I find interesting about the left is that they'll argue they have every right to control who baker must cater to, but they have less of a right to control what facebook, twitter or youtube must cater to.

I congratulate the left on their cultural and institutional dominance. You guys have won.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Free speech is related to government censorship, it has nothing to do with tech companies. It's like saying religious freedom is censored if a Christian church does not allow Muslims to conduct religious services in their facilities.

Churches are not asking people to consider them public forums protected by the government from lawsuits and have never claimed to be a place for such open discussions. Additionally, why would anyone consider a religious service the same thing as political speech.


[ˈsensər]
NOUN

1. an official who examines material that is about to be released, such as books, movies, news, and art, and suppresses any parts that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
   synonyms:
   expurgator · examiner · inspector · editor
2. (in ancient Rome) either of two magistrates who held censuses and supervised public morals.

VERB

1. examine (a book, movie, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it.
   "my mail was being censored"
   synonyms:
   cut · delete · delete parts of · redact · make cuts in · blue-pencil · unpublish ·

The definition does not stipulate government official but even if it did as the federal government has given these tech companies special privileges by making them immune from being sued, they might well be considered de facto arms of the government and officials of the company as de facto government officials. If one claims to be a public forum in order to attain government protection from lawsuits for what one allows to be posted on one's site and one censors political speech, then one is not only infringing upon free speech but fraudulently claiming to be a public forum. When one only censors speech from one political side, while allowing the exact same sort of speech from the other, one becomes a partisan propagandist publisher and not a public forum at all.

 

[hislegacy]

part of the American population acts on their disagreement with Twitter. Stock plummets.

Twitter CEO attempts damage control.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey defends Trump ban, but admits company's power sets 'dangerous' precedent

 

[hislegacy]

NY Post bans reporters, editors from using CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT as primary sources: report

 

[hislegacy]

The beginning of the new resist movement has begun.

 

[RDKirk]

I remember when the left was against giant companies having such power and when the right defended these giant companies. Oh how the times have changed.

What I find interesting about the left is that they'll argue they have every right to control who baker must cater to, but they have less of a right to control what facebook, twitter or youtube must cater to.

I congratulate the left on their cultural and institutional dominance. You guys have won.

Control is quite limited. Any business owner can refuse service except in a vary narrow range of circumstances: Race, color, sex, religion, certain physical liabilities (Federally. Some states add sexual orientation).

Beyond those classifications, businesses are free to discriminate. Don't like Democrats? Don't allow Democrats. Don't like vegans? Don't serve vegans. The law won't force you to.

In this case, the law applies to Amazon, et al, just as it does to a bakery. Amazon is not permitted to discriminate on the basis of Race, color, sex, religion, certain physical liabilities either.

 

[RDKirk]

Churches are not asking people to consider them public forums protected by the government from lawsuits and have never claimed to be a place for such open discussions. Additionally, why would anyone consider a religious service the same thing as political speech.

The same Constitutional amendment protects both in the same way.

 

[RDKirk]

NY Post bans reporters, editors from using CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT as primary sources: report

If the NY Post had ever allowed its reporters to use other news sources as "primary sources," then they were always in the wrong. No news outlet is a valid "primary source."

If the NY Post is only now making that a rule, it only shows what a sorry rag it's been up until now.

 

[hislegacy]

If the NY Post had ever allowed its reporters to use other news sources as "primary sources," then they were always in the wrong. No news outlet is a valid "primary source."

If the NY Post is only now making that a rule, it only shows what a sorry rag it's been up until now.

For those who are not aware:

The NYPost was founded in 1801 and is oldest continuously run newspaper in the United States.

If they are always in the wrong, then they have been in the wrong for 219 years with one of the largest circulations around.

 

[RDKirk]

For those who are not aware:

The NYPost was founded in 1801 and is oldest continuously run newspaper in the United States.

If they are always in the wrong, then they have been in the wrong for 219 years with one of the largest circulations around.

A. Longevity does not mean they were good.

B. Their recent practices might not have been their original practices.

C. Newspapers two or three hundred years ago were uniformly pretty poor by modern journalistic standards. They didn't get "good" until right after WWII.

 

[hislegacy]

https://www.conservativereview.com/...post-could-be-fined-2-million-2649862676.html

Countries that survived the communist era are working to prevent censorship again.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Freedom of speech in America is not in the hands of only a few people. Certainly less now than it was 200 years ago, when printing presses were relatively rare.

Big tech and censorship
Here is a link to an article you may or may not care to read. I found it interesting. If you read it, let me know you opinion

 

[RDKirk]

Big tech and censorship
Here is a link to an article you may or may not care to read. I found it interesting. If you read it, let me know you opinion

Well, I don't need another little vampire sucking the blood out of my income. What is the gist of it.

 

[grasping the after wind]

The same Constitutional amendment protects both in the same way.

What Constitutional amendment protects a publisher from being sued?

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Well, I don't need another little vampire sucking the blood out of my income. What is the gist of it.

They don’t like what trump did but big tech shouldn’t necessarily blanket ban accounts. Especially not inconsistently. There is room to improve. It gives some ideas. Doesn’t think blocking or ignoring the disgruntled is good. That’s from memory.