Silicon Valley goes full Orwell, ADL and SPLC now official Google/Facebook/Twitter censors

[justoh]

The problem is that most people don't understand and appreciate the principle of free speech, which the constitution adopted, took on, but didn't invent. So appealing to the "principles of the founding fathers" or whatever doesn't necessarily implicate the constitution at all. Of course the OP does specifically mention the constitution in the last sentence or two, which was a mistake, but it was an obvious mistake, so pointing it out for 7 pages is a bit unnecessary.

Why not pretend he didn't reference the constitution and comment on why you support you don't support these companies censoring certain people. Beyond just, "they can do what they want, lulz."

 

[ch33zw1z]

So they really are special snowflakes that want the rules to apply differently to them?

Yes, that's been the irony the entire time. It's funnier if it weren't so blantantly hypocritical.

 

[ch33zw1z]

The problem is that most people don't understand and appreciate the principle of free speech, which the constitution adopted, took on, but didn't invent. So appealing to the "principles of the founding fathers" or whatever doesn't necessarily implicate the constitution at all. Of course the OP does specifically mention the constitution in the last sentence or two, which was a mistake, but it was an obvious mistake, so pointing it out for 7 pages is a bit unnecessary.

Why not pretend he didn't reference the constitution and comment on why you support you don't support these companies censoring certain people. Beyond just, "they can do what they want, lulz."

Unnecessary, like a non-american lecturing about free speech provided under our constitution. Just realize nobody really cares what you have to say on the matter. It's obvious which way you would politically lean on the matter.

 

[hal2kilo]

It's still unclear. Is it legal or not for them to be doing this? Is twitter the government?

Asking that question is all I need to know about your understanding of the Constitution. Clueless much.

 

[ch33zw1z]

It's still unclear. Is it legal or not for them to be doing this? Is twitter the government?

Derp. If it's unclear at this point, it's because you refuse to accept the clear answer.

 

[Amused]

No matter how you frame or spin this, it boils down to this: Are private companies allowed to control the content of their websites as they see fit, or not?

If not, you do not believe in private enterprise and you want government control of private enterprise.

Either you believe in private property, or you do not. Full stop. There is no way around this. This is the core of the issue.

Freedom of speech and the 1st Amendment absolutely does not apply here. Your rights do not trump the rights of the property owner's. Your rights do not give you the right to limit the rights of others on their own property.

There is no "conspiracy" to silence conservatives. I am a conservative who writes about free markets quite often.

This is a cry against public and private backlash against hate speech and slander and private companies refusing to be the medium that carries those messages. Period. It's hilarious how the alt-right is desperately looking for a "Rosa Parks" as an example while ignoring the entirety of the bans and removals have been for absolutely abhorrent material. It is no coincidence that this cry reached a fever pitch right after social media started removing posts claiming the Florida shooting was a false flag and the kids and victim's parents started getting death threats.

The public at large isn't buying it. In point of fact, it is they who forced the hands of social media to act.

 

[Amused]

I think this is relevant:

 

[ch33zw1z]

OMG, it continues at a government level! The horror!

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5a99ae32e4b089ec353a1fba

 

[Victorian Gray]

OMG, it continues at a government level! The horror!

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5a99ae32e4b089ec353a1fba

Now that is a 'very fine person' indeed.

 

[feralkid]

That's the girl she reminds me of...

 

[zinfamous]

There you go again. Keep your bathroom habits to yourself.

See, that's exactly what Youtube and Twitter are asking you to do.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

See, that's exactly what Youtube and Twitter are asking you to do.

I'm going to put some excessive HaHa's in:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[zinfamous]

It's still unclear. Is it legal or not for them to be doing this? Is twitter the government?

No, it was never unclear what Youtube/Twitter/Facebook can and can't do with their own property.

 

[zinfamous]

The problem is that most people don't understand and appreciate the principle of free speech, which the constitution adopted, took on, but didn't invent. So appealing to the "principles of the founding fathers" or whatever doesn't necessarily implicate the constitution at all. Of course the OP does specifically mention the constitution in the last sentence or two, which was a mistake, but it was an obvious mistake, so pointing it out for 7 pages is a bit unnecessary.

Why not pretend he didn't reference the constitution and comment on why you support you don't support these companies censoring certain people. Beyond just, "they can do what they want, lulz."

It seems rather clear that you don't understand free speech protections as outlined and preserved in the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. 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 in the US, in practice. Feel free to visit and see for yourself.

Reading about our laws from afar doesn't seem to be working out for you.

 

[zinfamous]

I'm going to put some excessive HaHa's in:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why you guys gotta make life difficult for people?

 

[SNC]

See, that's exactly what Youtube and Twitter are asking you to do.

Do you think it will sink in?

 

[IronWing]

Irony for today: someone on the internet uses the word irony correctly.

If the FCC had determined that the internet should be regulated as a utility similar to phone service (as some liberals would have liked) then OrooOroo would have almost had a point, not quite a point, but almost a point. As things are, his point is as sharp as a marble.

 

[bshole]

No matter how you frame or spin this, it boils down to this: Are private companies allowed to control the content of their websites as they see fit, or not?

The problem is that large corporations are more and more controlling what information is easily available. Now that ISPs have the right to block sites outright, there is a chance that corporations that control access to the internet could slowly begin strangling and marginalizing speech that they disagree with.... especially speech pointing out the venomous effects their money has had on our political system. There has been an active war on progressive voices and there is a chance that those voices could eventually be shut down entirely. The thought of going back to exclusively corporate news commentary makes me physically ill. It could be our future and it would be a kick to the nutsack of democracy.

At the age of 21, David Pakman started a little Massachusetts community radio talk program. While the young broadcaster got his show syndicated on a few public radio stations, it was a YouTube channel he began in 2009, “The David Pakman Show,” that opened up his progressive political commentary to a whole new digital audience. The show has since amassed 353,000 subscribers, and roughly half of its revenue now comes from the ads that play before his videos. He earns enough to produce the show full time and pay a lean staff.

Or, at least, he used to. Last month YouTube announced abrupt, vague changes to its automated processes for placing ads across the platform. Ads on Mr. Pakman’s YouTube channel evaporated, dropping to as little as 6 cents a day, and forcing him to set up a crowdfunding page to help cover $20,000 a month in operating costs.

“This is an existential threat to the show,” Mr. Pakman said. “We need that money.”

The architecture of the internet has tremendous influence over what is made, and what is seen; algorithms influence what content spreads further on Facebook and turns up on top of Google searches. YouTube’s process for mechanically pulling ads from videos is particularly concerning, because it takes aim at whole topics of conversation that could be perceived as potentially offensive to advertisers, and because it so often misfires. It risks suppressing political commentary and jokes. It puts the wild, independent internet in danger of becoming more boring than TV.

The topics of Mr. Pakman’s videos are no more controversial than the programming typically found on CNN or the local news. In fact, because his show is also broadcast over the radio, it adheres strictly to FCC content rules. But the show takes pride in its independence from corporate ownership. “I have no boss above me,” Mr. Pakman said, and because of YouTube’s automated ad systems, “I’ve never had any contact with advertisers, so it’s impossible for me to ‘sell out’ to satisfy them.”

Instead, he’s subject to the whims of the algorithm. To rein in its sprawling video empire — 400 hours of video are uploaded to the platform every minute — YouTube uses machine learning systems that can’t always discern context, or distinguish commentary or humor from hate speech.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/arts/youtube-broadcasters-algorithm-ads.html

 

[fskimospy]

The problem is that large corporations are more and more controlling what information is easily available. Now that ISPs have the right to block sites outright, there is a chance that corporations that control access to the internet could slowly begin strangling and marginalizing speech that they disagree with.... especially speech pointing out the venomous effects their money has had on our political system. There has been an active war on progressive voices and there is a chance that those voices could eventually be shut down entirely. The thought of going back to exclusively corporate news commentary makes me physically ill. It could be our future and it would be a kick to the nutsack of democracy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/arts/youtube-broadcasters-algorithm-ads.html

The answer to that is some good old fashioned trust busting, not forcing private actors to host speech they don’t want to.

 

[bshole]

The answer to that is some good old fashioned trust busting, not forcing private actors to host speech they don’t want to.

ROFLMFAO! Like that is going to happen. America is going in the other direction entirely and the trend is accelerating. They control the pipe and increasingly are controlling the content.

You need to realize that this shit is materially affecting some of the best progressive content on youtube. In a few years, much of that progressive content could be completely gone, replaced with corporate media.

 

[fskimospy]

ROFLMFAO! Like that is going to happen. America is going in the other direction entirely and the trend is accelerating. They control the pipe and increasingly are controlling the content.

You need to realize that this shit is materially affecting some of the best progressive content on youtube. In a few years, much of that progressive content could be completely gone, replaced with corporate media.

So you think we can’t break up monopolies, which aren’t constitutionally protected, but you think we CAN force these companies to host speech they don’t want to, which is?

This seems highly unlikely.

 

[bshole]

So you think we can’t break up monopolies, which aren’t constitutionally protected, but you think we CAN force these companies to host speech they don’t want to, which is?

This seems highly unlikely.

Of course we can force these companies to host speech we want them to. Companies are extremely responsive to protesters. There is no defensible reason for them to be attacking serious, thoughtful, independent progressives on their platform. If we defended those sites from censorship via protests, etc... it would make a difference. It makes me ill to think that google, which is supposedly a progressive company, is the very entity attempting to kill off progressive channels on youtube (in order to replace with them corporate crap).

 

[brycejones]

Of course we can force these companies to host speech we want them to. Companies are extremely responsive to protesters. There is no defensible reason for them to be attacking serious, thoughtful, independent progressives on their platform. If we defended those sites from censorship via protests, etc... it would make a difference. It makes me ill to think that google, which is supposedly a progressive company, is the very entity attempting to kill off progressive channels on youtube (in order to replace with them corporate crap).

Look, if you think there is an audience for this material start your own platform. That is the wonderful thing about the internet. What you should support without reservation or compromise is net-neutrality to ensure people can reach your site and have access to your content.

You-tube is no more required to host your progressive viewpoint as the are stupid shit the right puts up.

 

[bshole]

Look, if you think there is an audience for this material start your own platform. That is the wonderful thing about the internet. What you should support without reservation or compromise is net-neutrality to ensure people can reach your site and have access to your content.

You-tube is no more required to host your progressive viewpoint as the are stupid shit the right puts up.

I am not a content provider, I am a consumer. As customers, we collectively have an absolute right and obligation to register our displeasure with the direction that social media is taking. There is an active and aggressive campaign to turn the internet into cable TV. Shutting down independent progressive voices is part of that campaign. Kicking those voices off social media is step one, blocking sites they create to disseminate their message is step two.

Of course I am for Net Neutrality but I am realistic enough to know that the corporatists have killed that forever. I also know that the strongest independent progressive voices for net neutrality on youtube are all being slowly killed by youtube.

 

[brycejones]

I am not a content provider, I am a consumer. As customers, we collectively have an absolute right and obligation to register our displeasure with the direction that social media is taking. There is an active and aggressive campaign to turn the internet into cable TV. Shutting down independent progressive voices is part of that campaign. Kicking those voices off social media is step one, blocking sites they create to disseminate their message is step two.

Of course I am for Net Neutrality but I am realistic enough to know that the corporatists have killed that forever. I also know that the strongest independent progressive voices for net neutrality on youtube are all being slowly killed by youtube.

Meh, go someplace else for your content. Suggest progressive sites you like start carrying content from people you follow on you-tube who you believe are being squeezed out.

I can't say why they're being squeezed out since you haven't named any or provided any evidence of them getting the boot. But the 1st amendment doesn't guarantee you a platform to express your views OR that you get to consume the content you want on the platform you desire.