WATCH: Corporate Censorship Fighting To Shut Down Conservative Voices

[Kangaroo Feathers]

So how does an Australian know this and the assumed to be American OP not?

Never fails to bemuse me that the Spittle Flecked Reactionary classes of America so frequently get schooled not only by their own countrymen, but foreigners as well. You'd think after the first dozen or so times, they'd take note and start doing a modicum of research before making their ridiculous claims, but sadly, a defining characteristic of the SFR class is a total lack of self awareness, so they keep making nonsense claims, and keep getting pwned by foreigners with a bare minimum of general knowledge. Personally speaking, if I were constantly having my misconceptions about my own country corrected by people who don't even live here, I'd do something constructive about it, but unfortunately we're so deep into the age of "my ad hoc kneejerk opinion is equal to your evidence based studied understanding" that these clowns almost seem to wear their ignorance as a badge of pride.

Remember when everyone though civilisation would end in a nuclear conflagration between superpowers? Turns out it's social media and the 24 hour news cycle that's going to lead to our collapse. How embarrassing. Worst Apocalypse Ever.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Time to ignore.

Welcome to the club. Believe me, you won't miss anything of value.

 

[Notanumber]

Facebook/twitter/etc? These are private venues. They may do whatever they choose, pretty much.

As for what is NAZI? Well.... look closely at tЯump and his cronies. Or try reading a history book for the first time in your life.

They may be classed as private venues but governments with have an interest in them.

Hillary and her cronies resemble NAZIS more so than Donald and his merry men.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Maybe. Giving these reprobates free reign to say whatever? Lets like minded monsters gather together in large groups.

And do things ... Unspeakable things. Like, I dunno.... fly airplanes full of innocents into buildings?

Or elect a literal rapist into the Presidency? Or put a rapist on the Supreme Court?

That is the consequences of your No Holds Barred-- Let Them Say Any Lie, All The Time, Whatever.

Your talking apples and oranges here.

Saying stuff is one thing. Its harmless and it always will be.

Doing harmful and destructive things is an entirely different animal.

The Socialists are trying to blur that distinction trying hard to make one thing the same as the other.

Words alone have never ever harmed anybody at any time in the world's history.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me".

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

They may be classed as private venues but governments with have an interest in them..

So? What happened to that whole "no regulations" that CONservitives are so in love with?

Oh! When it affects them and their lies? They suddenly want protective regulations!

Hillary and her cronies resemble NAZIS more so than Donald and his merry men.

LMAO!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Your talking apples and oranges here.

Saying stuff is one thing. Its harmless and it always will be.

Doing harmful and destructive things is an entirely different animal.

The Socialists are trying to blur that distinction trying hard to make one thing the same as the other.

Words alone have never ever harmed anybody at any time in the world's history.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me".

So sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree.

By mere Words Alone, people have managed to start revolutions, overthrow governments, change hate-laws, and so on.

It's not always necessary to load up the gun and shoot somebody.

If we continue to Tolerate Intolerance? Soon enough-- Intolerance is all we have.

 

[Notanumber]

So sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree.

By mere Words Alone, people have managed to start revolutions, overthrow governments, change hate-laws, and so on.

It's not always necessary to load up the gun and shoot somebody.

If we continue to Tolerate Intolerance? Soon enough-- Intolerance is all we have.

View attachment 28915

This could be said about Islam.

 

[Notanumber]

These three make some powerful points about Facebook, etc.

 

[UpperLimits]

Facebook and Twitter and Instagram....all private companies who have the right to determine who uses their services. They have the right to ban anybody, for any reason.

I don't like what they are doing...but going after them and asking the government to force them to 'not censor' things.....is censoring THEM, and violating the first amendment. Rock and Hard Place, here.

Are you aware that these social platforms enjoy special congressional protection on the basis that they are "platforms" and not "publishers?" Newspapers, for example, are publishers. They control content and decide what views and opinions they will promote. Because of this editorial control, they are liable for the content they publish. If they libel or slander someone, they can be sued.

Social platforms such as FaceBook and Twitter enjoy special protection from libel and slander prosecution on the sole basis that they do not exercise control over what is being placed on their system. So tell me; Now that they are deciding what will and will not appear on their systems, should the government now remove the special protections they have enjoyed up until now?

The solution is to make platforms that do not censor--or rather, which censor the 'other way.' ....

Are you sure that's such a good solution? Wont placing left wing people on left wing platforms and right wing people on right wing platforms only lead to segregation and further intoleration of opposing viewpoints? Personally, I'm not sure that dividing people into echo chambers according to their political ideology is going to solve anything.

 

[dianaiad]

Are you aware that these social platforms enjoy special congressional protection on the basis that they are "platforms" and not "publishers?" Newspapers, for example, are publishers. They control content and decide what views and opinions they will promote. Because of this editorial control, they are liable for the content they publish. If they libel or slander someone, they can be sued.

Social platforms such as FaceBook and Twitter enjoy special protection from libel and slander prosecution on the sole basis that they do not exercise control over what is being placed on their system. So tell me; Now that they are deciding what will and will not appear on their systems, should the government now remove the special protections they have enjoyed up until now?

If this is true, In that they get special protection as 'platforms' rather than as 'publishers,' then yes, those special protections should be removed, since they seem to be acting as publishers. I don't see that they can have this both ways.

Are you sure that's such a good solution? Wont placing left wing people on left wing platforms and right wing people on right wing platforms only lead to segregation and further intoleration of opposing viewpoints?

You mean...as opposed to, er, now?

Personally, I'm not sure that dividing people into echo chambers according to their political ideology is going to solve anything.

Hasn't so far, no.

 

[UpperLimits]

UpperLimits said:

Are you sure that's such a good solution? Wont placing left wing people on left wing platforms and right wing people on right wing platforms only lead to segregation and further intoleration of opposing viewpoints?
You mean...as opposed to, er, now?

Well, that's just the point though - isn't it?

In many ways forums such as this one have simply become sounding boards for (a) certain viewpoint(s). That's the problem with an echo chamber. If one expresses a concern that is contrary to the prevailing opinion they typically get blasted for daring to go against the common ideology.

But isn't the whole point of these forums to present a place to discuss opposing ideas? I mean, if one has already solved the worlds problems - then why do we still have those problems? And usually in greater degrees than before we shut out the other side. Is your idea really failing because a counter perspective is prevailing and it needs to be quashed? Or is it because some of these pre-determined "solutions" might not really be the answer to the problem?

While I tend to lean to the conservative side, I'm fundamentally a political centrist. Personally, I believe both liberals and conservatives can make some valid points. And both sides can equally screw up as well - but that's another discussion.... Left AND right need each other to keep themselves in balance.

But when I come to a place like this I find I'm typically met by a band of rabid leftists who simply want to shut me down and counter anything and everything I have to say. When I ask questions I very often get no answers, and little or no discussion. I find in many instances they don't actually want to discuss. Ignoring the usual band of trolls and hecklers, I find this group simply wants to gang up and overpower any view that is different. I think we need to work together to find solutions. The incessant damning of an opposing point of view and relegating it to "Hitler" and "fascism" isn't helping matters any. (Shows how very little these people know of fascism, anyways...) Frankly; If your ideology needs the protectionism of censorship, perhaps it's time to get some new ideology.

 

[UpperLimits]

If this is true, In that they get special protection as 'platforms' rather than as 'publishers,' then yes, those special protections should be removed, since they seem to be acting as publishers. I don't see that they can have this both ways.

Here's a little more info on the matter. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act - Wikipedia