So I've heard. I was talking about personal responsibility. The state's also failed theirs. If you didn't have predominantly locally funded schools, or christians, then you wouldn't be susceptible in the first place. Go ahead and prosecute, but the real problem is America is stupid. Maybe it has something to do with your "motto."
Bad direction? No. Good direction. Yes. They are listening to their customers and getting rid of asshole posts. Good for them. I fully support them and proudly report any racist, bigoted or defamatory post I see. I also refuse to give my money to any business that carries such messages.
The principle of free speech is that the government cannot punish you for it or limit it with threat of punishment. That is where it stops. Period. Full stop.
No private company has, nor should have an obligation to carry any message it doesn't want to. Especially since any asshoile can start his own website and post his crap there.
Again, either you agree to the right of private property or you do not.
What you cannot stomach here is the vast majority of social media users do NOT want racist, bigoted or defamatory posts on their social media.
Hmmm... what about this? Looks like a bit of a Pandora's box has been opened. Foreign governments setting up sites that look like American grassroots organizations followed by pure propaganda...... American oligarchs are probably doing the same damn thing.
https://psmag.com/news/are-foreign-...-campaigns-part-of-the-new-political-playbook
You're trying very hard to be not that bad for a conservative, which is tedious and kind of overpowering. Nobody can be trusted to delimit speech, and whether you like it or not, these companies are more important than you're given them credit for. They can't be coerced, but they could be persuaded. I mean, if they weren't so obviously either stupid or sell-outs.
Does pewdiepie deserve this? I know it's Sweden, but it's the same kind of sensibility. And he has been punished by youtube itself. The WSJ? And what is the meaning of a hate registry if his name is on it. A defense of anyone's speech is a defense of all.
Should Sargon of Akkad been temporarily banned in this wave? (he's also on sweden's hate list lulz). He claims that they're actually targeting leftist or centrist broadcasters, who disagree with the mainstream narrative, since they're a little plausible, whereas people like alex jones are ignored because they're transparently ridiculous? I don't know. Actually just a big fan of The Room.
Those activities are legal as they filed the proper paperwork. Going into the future, I would agree with Justoh that the primary issue is people being able to think critically about what they see and read. We aren't going to be able to keep foreign propaganda out.
Why is it, among both progressives and conservatives here, I seem to be the only one who is in favor of an individual freedom to control one's own private property?
True, but social media providers don't have to serve as their medium, at least not when it becomes obvious.
There may be hope for the future-
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180220093555.htm
A wee touch of ego? You're not the only one.
It seems rather clear that you don't understand what you were replying to. You seem a bit confused between what you thought it should be, what you want it to be from across the sea, and what it actually is. Feel free to read it and see for yourself. Replying without reading from afar doesn't seem to be working out for you.
No ego (or my ego won't let me admit it ). A misconception to be sure though. Apologies.
But that's Zin's schtick. Without it, he wont have any game.
Yes, I agree that social media companies are under no obligation to carry fake news, conspiracy theories, etc. It's just that as a practical matter, it's hard to keep propaganda out now that we have the internet.
That game is a very cool idea. Too bad only a small number of people will ever play it.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/11/tim-berners-lee-tech-companies-regulations.
Don't get stuck on the tech companies not being Tier1 providers as some have pointed out.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/11/tim-berners-lee-tech-companies-regulations.
Don't get stuck on the tech companies not being Tier1 providers as some have pointed out.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/11/tim-berners-lee-tech-companies-regulations.
Don't get stuck on the tech companies not being Tier1 providers as some have pointed out.
Cons just wanna be the only voice heard, even if it's boots and foreign trollsSo...what are you saying? Should we trust the industry to figure out self-regulation or do you advocate for governments to step in and tell the tech companies what to do? Who gets to determine the balance between free speech vs. incendiary/hate speech?
Your comment is pretty immaterial to what he was saying. Do you ever actually read the articles you link to? If you do your reading comprehension is for shit.
He never gets past the headline.
Its amazing how often conservative posters link to articles to "support" their positions yet those articles are either not on point or actually say the opposite of what said conservative poster says they do.
@imported_tajmahal @Doc Savage Fan @brandonbull are all repeat, serial offenders.
Can you all not read?
So...what are you saying? Should we trust the industry to figure out self-regulation or do you advocate for governments to step in and tell the tech companies what to do? Who gets to determine the balance between free speech vs. incendiary/hate speech?
Its amazing how often conservative posters link to articles to "support" their positions yet those articles are either not on point or actually say the opposite of what said conservative poster says they do.
@imported_tajmahal @Doc Savage Fan @brandonbull are all repeat, serial offenders.
Can you all not read?
What I'm saying, along with others, is that tech companies have massive control over ideas, dissemination of information, and knowledge and it is a slippery slope when those tech companies state that they can control information in any manner they wish on their private platforms vs being regulated. Do we "nationalize" social media and tech companies or do we say "they are private companies and can do pretty much what ever"?