ADVERTISEMENT

Twitter, Google, Facebook

Was there a question from Congress about TI mods moving Covid Posts to the Roundtable? That’s the censorship we care about. Right?!
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374
The right to free speech protects against prosecution and suppression from the government. It does not mean you can say whatever you want on any platform you want. These are private companies that can make whatever decisions they want.

Best solution is the free market - make alternative platforms. History shows that censorship in any form does not work - the best way to combat "bad" speech is with "good" speech.
 
Here's the issue I have with the giant social media companies.

1) Its their company, they can do what they want with it. Its not a public utility (yet)

but...

2) They've limited their liability to lawsuits etc by saying they are not content providers, but just a content vehicle so the tech company isn't held responsible for what content was on their platform

however....

3) They do censor content, and not just on a public decency standard. So in effect they ARE content providers by limiting their platform to the content they WANT to show making them no different from authors and publishers, who can be sued for libel/defamation/losses etc.

2 and 3 aren't compatible. They either need to be wide open with no real censorship in content or if they do want to select the content they have liability when the content has negative outcomes.
 
The right to free speech protects against prosecution and suppression from the government. It does not mean you can say whatever you want on any platform you want. These are private companies that can make whatever decisions they want.

Best solution is the free market - make alternative platforms. History shows that censorship in any form does not work - the best way to combat "bad" speech is with "good" speech.
I completely agree, but they should not enjoy the protections they have if they choose to do business this way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CUT93 and tigerworx
The right to free speech protects against prosecution and suppression from the government. It does not mean you can say whatever you want on any platform you want. These are private companies that can make whatever decisions they want.

Best solution is the free market - make alternative platforms. History shows that censorship in any form does not work - the best way to combat "bad" speech is with "good" speech.

You are correct in that there are no free speech violations by these platforms, but I would argue that the Section 230 protections should be changed
 
I know it’s too simple but at least creating platforms where we can restore some trust:

1. Facebook/Twitter/Google: free for all platform
2. Facebook/Twitter/Google: verification platform. If you violate the code of conduct, subject to fine or public outing or suit.

Basically restore the Enquirer vs legitimate news organization again. Keep free speech free and allow the devils playground do their shit.
Restore an attempt at legit communication.
 
The right to free speech protects against prosecution and suppression from the government. It does not mean you can say whatever you want on any platform you want. These are private companies that can make whatever decisions they want.

Best solution is the free market - make alternative platforms. History shows that censorship in any form does not work - the best way to combat "bad" speech is with "good" speech.
I agree unless companies are creating monopolies that make it difficult for other non-aligned competition to enter the market.
 
well they support the idea that they should be allowed to moderate their content

therefore

people need the right to hold them liable when they moderate free speech.

so simple

easy fix

Why do you people insist on constantly demonstrating your total ignorance of how the first amendment applies? It cannot be infringed upon by a private entity, only the government. This is civics 101.
 
Why do you people insist on constantly demonstrating your total ignorance of how the first amendment applies? It cannot be infringed upon by a private entity, only the government. This is civics 101.

This is about section 230. The free speech argument is a common sense thing. You know this and you’re intentionally misrepresenting what we’re arguing
 
This is about section 230. The free speech argument is a common sense thing. You know this and you’re intentionally misrepresenting what we’re arguing
Section 230 offers protection to the internet companies from 3rd party speech, and protection from liability for their own censorship. Again, you and all other qtip dum dums have a fundamental lack of understanding of how free speech works.
 
I agree unless companies are creating monopolies that make it difficult for other non-aligned competition to enter the market.
Good thing they’re not doing that. Otherwise the SEC would already be involved. Anyone can start printing a newspaper today. That’s the beauty of America.
 
Why do you people insist on constantly demonstrating your total ignorance of how the first amendment applies? It cannot be infringed upon by a private entity, only the government. This is civics 101.

you missed the whole congressional debate on definition of these companies as "platforms". aka public utlities

they "agreed" not to interfere with free speech

hence the protection

now they have changed to a more editorial approach.

fwiw. project veritas has taken over 200 journalist to court for lying and has won every case.

we need this same power to keep these guys in check.

that jack dorsey nut scares me.

what a nut
 
all 3 admitted that there was no evidence to support that the laptop is fake or a russian disinformation campaign

so they were like why do you not remove all tweets that contain that the laptop is fake?

they had no answer

but when asked about right wingers being censored they could name specific examples

but they could not mention any single censor of a left nut job

and they had no answer why they havent removed alot of tweets thats are confirmed lies from the left

they couldnt answer

just said they had a criteria of 3 areas when deciding or not to allow a statement to be published.


but yes

having another twitter platform to use

what is the closest platform to twitter

plus "platforms" and "algorithms" should all be public now to be used to build better ones
 
for what?

you plainly have no idea how this works.

i know how it works

google
facebook
and
twitter


are trying to hide the truth

and your dumbass is trying protect them

thats whats going on

and it needs to stop and it will stop

you dumbass democrats are not going to control information

not gonna happen

its over
 
i know how it works

google
facebook
and
twitter


are trying to hide the truth

and your dumbass is trying protect them

thats whats going on

and it needs to stop and it will stop

you dumbass democrats are not going to control information

not gonna happen

its over

you think im capable of protecting facebook from something? that feels like quite a compliment.
 
PLUM PUDDING RIOTS

In 1644, the Puritans gained control of Parliament. With Grinch-like fervour they set about cancelling Christmas. At a stroke, the traditional 12-day festival – a prolonged period of merriment and revelry characterised by rich food, dancing and excess – was banned.

The Puritans regarded Christmas celebrations as sinful, ‘giving liberty to carnal and sensual delights’. Even worse, the traditional decorations of holly, ivy, rosemary and bays were pagan.

To bring the country to its senses – or its knees – Christmas Day was initially turned into a day of fasting and repentance until, in June 1647, it was abolished altogether.

This extremist Puritan attitude was typified by one ‘Praise-God Barebone’, a leather-seller in London’s Fetter Lane who is described by historian Walter Thornbury as “one of those gloomy religionists who looked on surplices, plum-porridge, theatres, dances, Christmas pudding, and homicide as equally detestable, and did his best to shut out all sunshine from that long, rainy, stormy day that is called life”.

So extreme was the Puritan intolerance of Christmas that special constables were appointed to search ovens on Christmas Day and confiscate any food being prepared for the festival!

This went down badly with the people of Kent who – like many of their compatriots – were addicted to the festive season. The matter came to a head in Canterbury resulting in what became known as the ‘Plum Pudding Riots’.

At this time, the city had a particularly severe – and humourless – Puritan as mayor who encouraged a mob to “insult and molest” church-goers on Christmas Day.

This led to an unseemly brawl which – although quietened by the intercession of three leading citizens – resulted in armed forces being sent in to attack the city. The city gates were torn down and burned, parts of the wall were destroyed and many people – including the peace-makers – were sent to prison.

With the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, Christmas celebrations were reinstated and church-going once more became a part of the festive calendar. However, notes from the diary of Samuel Pepys reveal that his attendance at church served a purpose other than that of salvation.

On 3rd December 1665, Pepys noted with evident pleasure that, in church, he sat “very near my fat brown beauty of our Parish, the rich merchant’s lady”.

His entry for Christmas Day reveals an even deeper streak of cynicism. A wedding was held during the Christmas service and, having noted the young couple’s apparent happiness, Pepys remarks:

“strange to see what delight we married people have to see these poor fools decoyed into our condition, every man and woman gazing and smiling at them”.
 
no

if the laptop was eric or don jr

you would be against suppression right?

I have paid exactly zero attention to this laptop idiocy.

Moderates and undecided voters don't give a flying ****. It's hyper-partisan bullshit.

And 2, it doesn't actually involve joe, and at BEST the family corruption comparison between Biden and trump is a wash. They come out even. The notion that this laptop proves that the bidens are more corrupt than the trumps is literal idiocy.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: HumasButthole
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT