What would you say my arguement is?
B-b-b-b-b-but that's where it starts!Your argument (not yours, but the right-wing cult media talking point) is that social media is banning people based on political speech.
But they are not. They are banning people for racism, bigotry, hate speech and slander.
It's just a coincidence that most of those happen to be your right-wing cult leaders.
Yet again, you're on the wrong side of history and morality.
Your argument (not yours, but the right-wing cult media talking point) is that social media is banning people based on political speech.
But they are not. They are banning people for racism, bigotry, hate speech and slander.
You are so scared about the concept of "hate speech." I wonder why that is.And like the ACLU said, the opinion on what that entails can easily sway the other way. Trump would label Black Lives Matter racist. Say he’s a traitor and colluded with Russia, call it slander. Disagree with a story, call it fake news and ban it. And the completely opened ended term "hate speech" can be used to justify banning whatever the hell you want. To think there’s not a political element behind it is naive and to think it will only be used for good even more so. Google is working with the Chinese government to build out and enforce censorship. Sounds like "don’t be evil" to me.
And like the ACLU said, the opinion on what that entails can easily sway the other way. Trump would label Black Lives Matter racist. Say he’s a traitor and colluded with Russia, call it slander. Disagree with a story, call it fake news and ban it. And the completely opened ended term "hate speech" can be used to justify banning whatever the hell you want. To think there’s not a political element behind it is naive and to think it will only be used for good even more so. Google is working with the Chinese government to build out and enforce censorship. Sounds like "don’t be evil" to me.
Your argument is that it should be a right to yell fire in a crowded theater, and that's it's censorship when the theater owner bans you from the theater after doing so.What would you say my arguement is?
Your argument is that it should be a right to yell fire in a crowded theater, and that's it's censorship when the theater owner bans you from the theater after doing so.
Hate speech isn't why Jones has been getting banned off various sites.And like the ACLU said, the opinion on what that entails can easily sway the other way. Trump would label Black Lives Matter racist. Say he’s a traitor and colluded with Russia, call it slander. Disagree with a story, call it fake news and ban it. And the completely opened ended term "hate speech" can be used to justify banning whatever the hell you want. To think there’s not a political element behind it is naive and to think it will only be used for good even more so. Google is working with the Chinese government to build out and enforce censorship. Sounds like "don’t be evil" to me.
Hate speech isn't why Jones has been getting banned off various sites.
I'm not going to guess your argument if you're incapable of articulating it clearly. Instead, I will discern it from your words and formulate my own opinion of it, and say so, as I already have. Because free speech.Nope. Try again
I'm not going to guess your argument if you're incapable of articulating clearly. Instead, I will discern it from your words and formulate my own opinion of it, and say so, as I already have. Because free speech.
So are you. Defamation isn't protected speech. Neither are incitement, slander, or libel. Nor is it censorship when a privately-owned publisher declines to publish anyone's speech for any of those reasons.Like I said: they're picking the exact wrong hill to die on here.
I admire, and to a large extent, agree with the ACLU's position here except for 1) Jones' speech has long ago crossed the line to actual defamation, which is not protected, and 2) counterspeech and public opinion have thus far been ineffective in combatting him, because his following is relatively small and entirely cult-like.I’ve articulated and posted several articles regarding. You just don’t like what my (and the ACLU's) opinion on it is.
Fair enough. I disagree with the concept of holding platforms liable for the content of its users and the distinction between platform and publisher (which has admittedly been blurred). If Jones is commits defamation the appropriate parties should file suit, I don’t trust Mark Zuckerburg to be the judge. Same with fake news, I don’t trust these companies to be the decider of what is and isn’t true.
Am I arguing they don’t have the right to police their users? No. I do see censorship and nebulous justifications such as "hate speech" and "fake news" as concepts/terms straight out of an Orwellian future though.
Private companies get to set rules. No one is stopping jones starting his own Twitter clone. Let's call it Twatter for now.
As long as these rules are not discriminatory, nothing you can do about it.
Private companies get to set rules. No one is stopping jones starting his own Twitter clone. Let's call it Twatter for now.
As long as these rules are not discriminatory, nothing you can do about it.
No, there's a danger in that, because having to create your own social media platform is an unreasonably high barrier for speech. But at the same time, I believe that FB, Twitter, etc have been extremely tolerant of Jones thus far, and that they (and the rest of the internet) have greatly expanded free speech during their relatively brief existence. Many people would say too much so even, and it's taking society a bit to adjust to this new norm of nearly unrestricted speech.
So are you. Defamation isn't protected speech. Neither are incitement, slander, or libel. Nor is it censorship when a privately-owned publisher declines to publish anyone's speech for any of those reasons.
The good news here for Jones is that the truth is the absolute defense against the charge of defamation. So all he has to do is prove that the Sandy Hook parents are crisis actors who are lying about their children being murdered, and he's in the clear.
Oops, quoted the wrong post there. I thought I was replying to Ugly.Are you confused. I agree with you. You agree with me.
No one is holding a gun to your head to use social media. Should there be a time the government decides social media have become like utilities then the government can regulate them like utilities.
Zuckerberg is dead afraid of government intervention.
It's not a "concept", it's called "liability", as in you knew person A was posting material that prompted person B to commit an act of violence. These Co's can't take the risk that they don't want to remove person A from their platform due to "free speech".Fair enough. I disagree with the concept of holding platforms liable for the content of its users and the distinction between platform and publisher (which has admittedly been blurred). If Jones is commits defamation the appropriate parties should file suit, I don’t trust Mark Zuckerburg to be the judge. Same with fake news, I don’t trust these companies to be the decider of what is and isn’t true.
Am I arguing they don’t have the right to police their users? No. I do see censorship and nebulous justifications such as "hate speech" and "fake news" as concepts/terms straight out of an Orwellian future though.
I guess you’re arguing I
If that’s what you got out of the article you either are being dishonest in your reply or didn’t actually read it. The very next sentence which you omitted from your response (seems to be a recurring practice) frames the rest of the article:
No one is arguing they didn’t have the right to ban him. The arguement of the ACLU, Rolling Stone, and myself is this celebration of censorship should be concerning to any of us. It’s gone beyond something (fairly, even then tons of gray) concrete such as no pornography to something extremely ambiguous like "hate". These platforms are completely dominant in modern day life and are increasingly serving to regulate thought, nothing more Orwellian than that.
You’ve got your guy and will never admit the dangers all of this poses. Celebrate while you can, it's not a question of if it’s turned against us but when. The article which you didn’t seem to read ends it nice,y:
"completely dominant in modern day life"
Get off it. You don't have to be on fucking Facebook if you don't want. You'll probably be happier anyway.
Republicans didn't even want to regulate internet service as a public utility, yet Facebook is a necessity, and with monopolistic powers no less?
Do we need to start subsidizing internet service so poor people can get on fking Facebook?
When does ATP&N qualify? When do we get to post vile shitposts without threat of the ban hammer?
I can't post an image only response, obviously I'm being censored and repressed...