• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.
  7. There has been an addition to the announcement regarding unacceptable nick names. The phrase "Let's go Brandon" actually stands for a profanity and will be seen as a violation of the profanity rule in the future.

The Internet And Social Media Are No Danger But Truth Suppressers Are A Grave Threat.

Discussion in 'Current News & Events (Articles Required)' started by Contenders Edge, Oct 13, 2021.

  1. Contenders Edge

    Contenders Edge Well-Known Member Supporter

    +363
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Or so it seemed. But with the internet, knowledge has spread much more rapidly around the world and those things that were hidden from us are now being brought to light. It has enabled us to learn things that we would never be able to learn from the radio broadcasting corporations, the cable and satellite companies, or most of our academic institutions.

    And I would much rather live in a world in which information and ideas can be shared freely and without intervention from any earthly power deciding for the rest of us what is truth and falsehood, fact and fiction and in which everything publicized stands or falls on its own merits than in a world subjected to a power that suppresses anything dissenting from its favored narratives and challenges the favored doctrines and creeds that it wants its subjects to believe in and abide in.

    At least in a world free of government control of information and content output, those things that are true and factual have a chance to prevail even if that means contending with a lot of misinformation and disinformation and even if that means leaving people to believe whatever it is that they want to believe.
     
  2. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +15,697
    Christian
    Married
    ]

    Like what?

    Not really. A lie is usually more credible than the truth because the truth is what it is, whether believed or not, while a lie is specially crafted with the presumptions and biases of the audience in mind to be credible.

    "A lie has travelled around the world and back while the truth is still lacing her shoes."
     
  3. dzheremi

    dzheremi Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

    +11,884
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    I'm surprised this thread got past the OP, where Contender's Edge links to what appears to be his own opinion blog, another slightly more dressed-up opinion blog (er, excuse me, 'new media company'), and Breitbart as sources of information.

    And you also say everyone must be his own censor? OK, sure. You go first.
     
  4. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +7,410
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    Each website restricts what it publishes. No different from libraries.
    The internet publishes about 1% of all available information and the rest is behind firewalls and not open to the public.
     
  5. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +7,410
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    Or more with access to your preferred websites, anyway.
     
  6. Aussie Pete

    Aussie Pete Well-Known Member Supporter

    +6,567
    Australia
    Non-Denom
    Divorced
  7. Contenders Edge

    Contenders Edge Well-Known Member Supporter

    +363
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others

    Well let's see here:


    How pervasive government corruption has become.
    How dishonest the media is.
    How deceptive our academic institutions are.
    How full of greed and wickedness Big pharma has turned out to be.


    Before the advent of the internet, we might have gotten a sense of it, but we really had no idea of how far the wickedness of the aforementioned had come.



    All the while suppressing the truth knowing that their lies, no matter how credible they sound, won't fool everyone for long once subject to honest scrutiny and therefore those walking in lies have relentlessly attempted to make themselves the sole arbiters of what is or is not accurate and credible information, what is truth and what is a lie, what is fact and what is fable and so suppress and censor anything and everything challenging their control of the narrative on any given subject and on any given matter.

    And what platforms and venues they find themselves unable to control, they want to eliminate and that includes the internet. It is always the mind, heart, and even the soul, that becomes enslaved by totalitarian powers before even the body itself.
     
  8. Contenders Edge

    Contenders Edge Well-Known Member Supporter

    +363
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    The hypocrisy of Twitter is what is the problem:

    Terrorists orgs can breathe out threats of violence on big tech platforms with little or no consequence while Trump, his supporters, QAnons, COVID vaccine skeptics, climate-change skeptics, those who would question the integrity of the 2020 election results, and in some cases, Bible-believing Christians, who generally do not breathe out threats of violence, risk being banned; all because they dared to challenge the favored narratives of those who own and manage platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc.

    This is also the very reason why Contender's Edge is established on multiple SM platforms and advises all SM users to do the same.
     
  9. Contenders Edge

    Contenders Edge Well-Known Member Supporter

    +363
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others

    And yet that one percent of all available information on any given topic exceeds that of what even your own respective library would be willing to make available to the public any day.
     
  10. Aussie Pete

    Aussie Pete Well-Known Member Supporter

    +6,567
    Australia
    Non-Denom
    Divorced
    I was being sarcastic.
     
  11. Contenders Edge

    Contenders Edge Well-Known Member Supporter

    +363
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others

    Better that each person be their own moderator and be granted free, unrestricted, and unfettered access to all the information that there could be and be left alone to publish and share with the world all that they themselves have to say than for a governing power to decide for everyone what information is available to them and what is not and what they can or cannot freely publish.
     
  12. Contenders Edge

    Contenders Edge Well-Known Member Supporter

    +363
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    I apologize. My misunderstanding.
     
  13. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +15,697
    Christian
    Married
    Contenders Edge said: ↑
    Or so it seemed. But with the internet, knowledge has spread much more rapidly around the world and those things that were hidden from us are now being brought to light.

    RDKirk said: ↑
    Like what?

    I was hoping for examples of specific information brought to light on the Internet that had been suppressed before and could not have been published except for the Internet.

    There were articles about the greed and wickedness of Big Pharma before the Internet, and books written by Ralph Nader against the automobile industry.

    There were articles critically dangerous to the government, such as those exposing the Watergate and Pentagon Papers scandals before the Internet.

    I don't think you can find any area where dangerous exposes had not been produced before the Internet, or would not have been produced without the Internet.
     
  14. miamited

    miamited Ted Supporter

    +5,461
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Hi @Contenders Edge

    Just a couple of points that I'd make about these comments you posted:

    Facebook and twitter and other such social media companies do have to keep their public happy. They also need to do what they can to keep the government from breathing down their neck with a lot rules and regulations. As for the people in the list that I copied, there are a lot of Americans who are quite happy that such dangerous talk has been banned, and yes, it is dangerous talk. No, I don't see that any widespread religious beliefs themselves are being banned but people who claim to subscribe to such beliefs, but post disinformation and anger and division as a part of their 'christian' attitude, aren't really following what they claim to preach. We see that fairly often right here. And yes, CF does ban people for writing such postings.

    I'm not sure you've got your finger on the real root of the problem. I don't think it's got anything to do with someone's posts challenging some favored narrative of those who 'own and manage' platforms that you mention. I still think it's more about general public sentiment that causes them to ban such 'misinformation'. And let's be honest here. Most of the posts that are banned are spreading disinformation. It's been well proven that the last election was secure and fairly counted and reported and verified. So people who spend their waking hours trying to tell us all that such things just aren't true and that we're being duped by some great master plan of the pedophile democratic body...are lying and causing division among us.

    Now, they may be honestly too stupid to know that they're lying. But they are lying!!! As far as I'm concerned, these social medias do have a responsibility for some oversite as regards 'what' gets posted on their sites. I believe that there are a lot of people like myself living in these United States. Surely not everyone, but I'm confident that it is a majority. It is an infraction on most social media sites to bully people and quite frankly that's what a lot of this political disinformation attempts to do. So, by letting these lies float around the internet and creating anger and division among the people, these organizations risk the government stepping in to control such talk and I'm pretty confident that they'd rather just do it on their own so they don't wind up with a bunch of government red tape to play around in.

    So, you and I may be on a totally different plane of thought here, but for me, I'm all for these social media companies policing a lot of the lies and disinformation off of their sites. You are free to call that what you will. For the record, none of these sites really ban most people who spread all this disinformation, but they do ban some of the worst of the lot. As far as I'm concerned, Donald J. Trump is definitely the worst of the lot.

    Someone mentioned that the Taliban has a twitter account. Ok...and? Do they spread a lot of hate and division with their participation, or do they just post conversation points in Arabic? There's certainly nothing wrong in doing that. Just because we might believe that deep down inside they are terrible people isn't what gets one banned from social media sites. It's the actual voicing of hate and division and anger that gets most people banned from any social media site.

    God bless,
    Ted
     
  15. Contenders Edge

    Contenders Edge Well-Known Member Supporter

    +363
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others

    And thanks to the Internet that information contained those articles has been made much more easily accessible to the public and is potentially more widely known than it otherwise would have been and much more has come out since then.
     
  16. Contenders Edge

    Contenders Edge Well-Known Member Supporter

    +363
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others

    Facebook and Twitter have demonstrated that they are not really concerned about keeping the public happy apart from the users of those platforms who are either like-minded with the owners and managers thereof or who have no interest in challenging the preferred narratives and there is a First Amendment in our Constitution that forbids our government from dictating to an SM platform as to what they can or cannot allow their users to post on their platforms.

    And no, they are not going to eliminate from their platforms every conservative, Trump supporter, or Christian from their platforms outright. The persons and content which tend to be the most at risk for censorship are those gaining in influence and considered to be the most threatening to their control of the narrative on potentially any given subject. I know because I witnessed the Twitter purge first hand. They targeted the most influential users in that purge while leaving seemingly leaving everyone else alone regardless of their political or religious beliefs. If they banned every conservative and Bible-believing Christian from their platforms, then they could no longer maintain the facade of being free-speech platforms.

    As for CF, they do not claim to be a free-speech platform. They've made very clear what they will not allow to be propagated on this platform, which makes them more honest than Facebook or Twitter who claim to be free-speech platforms yet have been known to censor.

    Those happy that so-called dangerous talk was being banned are only making the credibility of their favored views and narratives out to be questionable because those confident in what they themselves believe see no need to silence or censor dissenting voices and censoring those accused of spreading disinformation will only make them appear to be more credible in the long run.




    If the general public doesn't wish to listen to anything that a few dissenting voices have to say, they need to be their own moderators rather than calling upon the big tech owners and operators to do it for them. Every SM platform, including this one, that I know of, gives users the ability to block content they don't want to see and fellow users with whom they do not wish to interact with and if they wish, they are more than welcome to challenge the merits of claims they don't believe to be accurate, and viewpoints they deem to be in error.

    But to censor Trump, those questioning the integrity of the electoral results, QAnon adherents, anti-vaxxers, climate change skeptics, etc. only serves to make their claims more credible and the preferred narratives and viewpoints calling for their censorship to be less credible because those calling upon unfavorable opinions, information, viewpoints, and claims to be censored are only showing themselves to be insecure in their own beliefs at best or the ones who are walking in lies at worst.

    Therefore it is best to let every claim made, every piece of news and information proclaimed, and every belief system propagated stand or fall on its own merits and to be subject to civil debate. That is a part of living in a society that values free speech which is foundational to all other liberties that we enjoy.
     
  17. miamited

    miamited Ted Supporter

    +5,461
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Hi @Contenders Edge

    Thanks for your reply:

    Unless you have evidence to prove that claim, it is nothing more than one's opinion. While you say that the First Amendment in our Constitution forbids our government from dictating to an SM platform as to what they can or cannot allow their users to post...that isn't really true. For years the government, through support of the ratings operations, dictated what could or couldn't be said on social media platforms such as television and movies. As far as I know, no one has changed the Constitution to read any particular words to 'SM platforms'.

    Here's it is:

    Amendment I
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    However, as we have seen with several SM CEO's being called to give certain testimony, while they may not make such laws, they can certainly investigate and make life tough for those who aren't seen as abiding by certain societal norms. Further, one would like to think that Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey didn't conceive of their SM platforms as being a way for people to promote lies and disinformation. As the CEO's of those platforms, they do have the legal right to kick anyone off of their sites that aren't operating in a manner that is good for society at large. Lying to people is not a 'good societal norm'.

    I wholeheartedly disagree with that position. As I said, I don't believe that the CEO's of the two major SM platforms in question here ever intended, nor want their applications, used in ways that is harmful or detrimental to society at large. And obviously just those who don't agree turning away from the platforms is not doing anything to correct the corrupt values of those who promote lies and disinformation. We're talking about the free dissemination of lies, misinformation and disinformation. This isn't really about one's opinion as to whether the sky is blue or aqua. This is about whether or not someone has the right to a business SM platform to spread proven lies. That's exactly why Donald J. Trump was refused access to the SM site. He just wouldn't stop lying!!!! And he still won't!!!! He's just upset that he can't get those lies out to all the world. Personally, I'm thankful for that.

    You and I don't agree on what a society should allow. As Paul wrote to the Romans in his letter to them. All of the wickedness that is coming upon the world, the corruption of such people and the approval that they will be giving to one another for such corruption; all of that is being hastened by our society allowing even those things that are dangerous to its well being, to proliferate under some pretense of a law established in a document some 300 years old that never would have envisioned the kinds of goings on that we have today.

    The 1st Amendment only ties the government's hands from making laws that might better protect us in this issue. But the free practice of business, and what the person or corporation desires for their business to be, is also their right.

    God bless,
    Ted
     
  18. Contenders Edge

    Contenders Edge Well-Known Member Supporter

    +363
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others

    ‘Ex-gay’ pastor can’t sue Vimeo for removing church's account, appeals court rules

    Facebook restricts the "save our children" hashtag

    Big Tech aggressively censoring RELIGIOUS content and groups, all while protecting Satanism and pedophilia

    Facebook Shuts Pro-Israel Jerusalem Prayer Team Page After Anti-Semites Flood Site With 800,000 Hateful Comments

    Federal Judge Rules FB Is Above The Law, Conservatives Have No Right To Speak - The Beltway Report

    https://nationalfile.com/twitter-bans-maga-candidate-jarome-bell-after-newsweek-demands-censorship/

    California court sides with Twitter in Meghan Murphy lawsuit who was banned for saying "women aren't men"



    The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and that protection applies just as much to SM platforms as it does to any other platform used to express opinions and broadcast information and if the government has been dictating what can or cannot be said on SM platforms, then they are violating the First Amendment and those whose First Amendment rights have been violated need to take legal action.



    If you are going to present yourself as a free-speech platform, then users will have to contend with the lies and disinformation they encounter. They can either block such content or challenge and attempt to discredit those lies and information. By choosing the latter, the problem is not ignored but corrected and the lies and disinformation fall on their own merits in the arena of scrutiny, debate, and discourse, but people will believe and adhere to whatever it is they will and that is their choice. If they be in error, then it is before God for which they will give an account.

    If there are lies and disinformation being fabricated for the purpose of defaming someone, the person being defamed is able to sue for libel and defamation of character provided that it can be proven that the accused knowingly and consciously lied about them for the purpose of defaming their character.




    Rather than censoring Trump, his lies, if they are lies, should have been left to fall on their own merits, but as for the merits of his claims, they are best discussed and debated on another thread. But censoring Trump and others has only made those who have censored them out to appear as though they themselves have something to hide and therefore do not want their users to know about whatever it is that they are attempting to hide and protect and thus lending credibility, or at least the appearance of credibility, to Trump's claims.

    Truth need not censor lies. It need only discredit them. But if lies and disinformation are prevailing, it is because not enough truth is being preached or there are too many people who have no love of the truth.

    But those who walk in lies not only reject that which is true and factual, they will do all in their power to prevent others from hearing and embracing that Spirit of truth. This is how the wicked rulers of the world retain their power and it is also this suppression of that which challenges those narratives, traditions, doctrines, creeds, and philosophies favored that gives power to tyrants in whom the truth of God does not dwell.

    Far better to live in an uncensored society in which the wheat and the tares are left to co-exist with one another until the return of the incorruptible King than in a censored society in which the wheat is destroyed.
     
  19. miamited

    miamited Ted Supporter

    +5,461
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Hi @Contenders Edge

    I'm sure you believe that, but it just isn't true. The opening line of the 1st Amendment is: Congress shall make no law... it is a restriction only on the right of the government to make laws that breach the issues brought up in the amendment. It says nothing about any private business being restricted as regards these things. Now, there have been businesses that have gone against the issues in the 1st Amendment and those cases have wound through the courts and it's really been kind of hit or miss as to whether the judges of the courts hold businesses liable to maintain the issues of the 1st Amendment.

    "The First Amendment does not prohibit private individuals, companies and employers from restricting speech. The social media platforms responsible for suspending President Trump’s accounts are privately owned and operated, and they are free to limit the content on their sites without implicating the First Amendment. Thus, the First Amendment is not implicated in the decisions made by private social media platforms to suspend President Trump’s accounts." The First Amendment: Where it is Implicated, and Where it is Not | JD Supra

    Business and the First Amendment | Federal News Network

    "It applies to federal, state, and local government actors. This is a broad category that includes not only lawmakers and elected officials, but also public schools and universities, courts, and police officers. It does not include private citizens, businesses, and organizations." Does the First Amendment apply to private companies - Google Search

    God bless,
    Ted
     
  20. Contenders Edge

    Contenders Edge Well-Known Member Supporter

    +363
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others




    I don't think I made myself clear regarding as to whether or not the First Amendment prohibits a private entity from censoring the expression of those things with which it does not agree. I never said that the First Amendment prohibits private SM platforms from censoring the expression of opinions or the dissemination of information with which their operator do not agree.

    I have maintained that it prohibits the government from dictating to SM platforms as to what can or cannot be expressed or promoted by them or their users and I have never argued that platforms like Twitter and Facebook don't have the right to censor those propagating ideas, opinions, and spreading information that they find objectionable and don't believe their users should be exposed to.

    They have every right to expel from their platforms those propagating that with which they find themselves at odds, but if they are going to persist in this, then they cannot any longer advertise themselves as free-speech platforms unless they want to potentially a lawsuit filed against them for false advertising (which is illegal for any private entity to do by the way)

    They need to make it very clear to their users as to what viewpoints they will allow to be propagated and expressed and what they will not so that those holding to persuasions dissenting from the favored narratives and viewpoints of the owners of those platforms will know to avoid them.
     
Loading...