I amended my post to be more specific. Im courteously letting you know so your post can reflect if needed.
It’s called growing up and being an adult.
1 Like
By this logic, Cenk Uygur should be censored off of the internet for being a genocide denier. I’m not advocating that he should, but this is where that trail of logic leads.
If you’re advocating for people who don’t want to hear it blocking his accounts, I agree with you.
1 Like
Im simply playing devils advocate. Attempting to sprinkle some common sense on the discussion as opposed to it becoming ridiculous hyperbole 
2 Likes
My post is redundant then. I was talking about political management, not self-management, to which I’m inferring the whole “don’t be an asshole” doctrine applies?
Okay. Let me wave my magic wand.
TADA!
Which ones? The satanism? The pedo stuff? (which I think is lumped in with pizzagate) I’m not really familiar with any others that are almost provably false.
I think it is. But I should of been more specific in the first instance.
No biggie
Kinda wanna touch on this one.
By that logic, 1A is not 100% freedom.
I think you’re conflating regulation with restriction. In a lot of cases it is, but regulation has two directions. It can protect people from the government, or it can protect people from other people.
I’m arguing that we treat these platforms as a utility and institute regulation protecting people from the government. This won’t mean that people who work at these social platforms are unfree from expressing their opinions, but that they must do it as and individual, rather than flexing their censorship and unpersoning people for wrongthink.
Yeah, this argument is extremely circular.
it’s not as simple as that. What do you define as a platform ?
It depends what you mean treat as a utility. I really don’t like the idea of socializing big tech.
Yes, all of those.
But when I mean tried there should be more than just him losing a few bucks from a fine.
I did conflate the two, again i should of expanded (but time constraint).
Whoever defines the global ‘internet bill of rights’ ( The UN ? ) then holds the power over every nation to change that further down the line. It seems potentially totalitarian imo.
Even the internet bill of rights seems like it could take form in ways that are too heavy-handed. It’s really tough to come up with a solution for this problem. There are a couple of things that seem obvious to me however.
- Companies need to adhere to their Terms of Service, make it easy to follow, and apply the rules equally.
- Companies who encroach on the constitutional rights of their users should not be given government subsidies.
- There needs to be a better defense against brigading and false-flagging on social media.
1 Like
That’s what i said.
Ultimately, the actions of “Big Tech” are creating a market force that aims to solve the problem. There are already multiple sites that have started up aiming to provide freedom centric platforms to replace Youtube, Twitter etc. I don’t know if they will ever grow large enough to usurp the large sites; but as popular figures get kicked off of platforms, many users will likely follow them to new platforms.
This
For all the talk of freedom of speech, land of the free, whatever… you guys in the USA seem to be just as censored as anywhere via government gag orders on stuff like wikileaks, alex jones, etc. And some people are even defending it because its targeting “bad” content. i.e., “this is good censorship!”.
If some crazy is spouting off bullshit, it will become self evident. You don’t need to “protect people” from the crazy. The only motive for trying to do that is to silence things you don’t want people to know.
Ergo. Trying to silence people like alex jones is likely because some (not all) of the things he is talking about are possibly legit stuff the powers that be want hidden.
But again. Even if they aren’t. Even if everything he says is complete shit… you either have freedom of speech or you don’t.
By getting involved with selecting what content is to stay on youtube/twitter/etc. (even though no TOS are broken) these companies are showing a political allegiance. When ideally, there isn’t one.
The media is ideally neutral and the audience decide for themselves.
3 Likes
I dont put much effort into forum posts. It should come over well cause I am nuts. Why argue with random people.
Religion was THE form of control over people with this all seeing all knowing judging BEING. Everywhere.
We hit governments etc etc.
Now we have the internet and communication can bypass government, religion and boarders.
Alex Jones is a nut like me with a sprinkle of smarts. I dont like him much outside of him being an idiot and entertaining most of the time.
My issue is social media is global and well this wet rock we all live on is just a little ball as well. The fact we can all talk to each other in milliseconds is amazing. The fact our ever representing governments hate that and now a cabal of social media corporations can enact bans on a whim is terrifying.
When I am drunk I sometimes think I can change the world. But its fucked.
3 Likes
This.
One the one hand, i want to expose the BS, stand up against shit like this, etc.
On the other hand, the more i find out about the world the more i want to be put back in the matrix…
1 Like