Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Twitter has "outed" many a person.....for many a thing against their will...every day....
Gawker was free to use.....
Whether nasty bloggers (Gawker) getting paid for page views or tweeters making fame (which translates to money or power or other things) by being "bad", the same behavior....no, WORSE, is being shown.
At least at Gawker you have some semblance of editorial control....much less at Twitter. And, of course, Gawker didn't have right wing bots and fake accounts posting their vids, so they have a chain of responsibility....
Gawker did make the tape - as you know. They also didn't publish is (they published a short trailer of it)....most of their views were of the article, not of the tape.
Anyway, it seems we agree on this....."no one is having their rights violated by being censored, banned, removed, disciplined or outed (by management) on a private site" - we could even go past that and say that the TOC applies...
Anyway, I actually do cheer the Gawker shutdown...so I'm on Peters side. I believe in a Civil Society and that the 1st Amendment is mostly geared toward political speech in the marketplace of ideas. It is not a license to take society down to its lowest level.
So there you go. I told you I was libertarian. Heck, I did drugs before they made up the word.....and thought they should be legal....50 years ago. I spent 3 years living in a tent in the woods (commune) because we wanted to...I marched in DC at the biggest events in history - the Vietnam War demonstrations of the early 1970's. Power to the People.
Where I might differ from some libertarians is having an idea of what is doable and what is not. That is, the World as it Is. You can't go partway....unless you are Peter and has one small goal and billions of dollars.
That somewhat eliminates most of us.
It's an interesting thing that we are having discussions about corporate freedoms. At the same time people are still being locked up for smoking dope.
I think we may have have our signals crossed regarding Twitter.
I do disagree on the 1st Amendment, as free speech rights--like all other rights--don't come from government. The 1A is a meaningless paragraph on a document written by men that hasn't been signed by anyone currently living.
Oh, and by the way--corporations, as they are a State construct, wouldn't exist in a libertarian society.
City Data is a private forum. If they choose to let us discuss it in this sub forum, consistency demands you have no business commenting on it.
LOL.
No, that's not the point.
If this was a truly a consumer-related issue, as you implied, then it would be in that specific forum.
My assumption, and I could be wrong, is that this thread and other threads complaining about private businesses are created to discuss the "political" ramifications surrounding it. Why else would they be posted in this forum?
Libertarians arent morally consistent, you pick where to draw the line just like everyone else because it isnt possible to be an absolutist on every issue. Some things will eventually clash.
I don't know man. I think I'm pretty consistent on it. AnCaps, voluntaryists, agorists are all pretty much 100% consistent.
If I'm not, point it out, and I'll run it through my meat grinder (AKA...is the NAP being violated? & Are property rights being violated?).
If this was a truly a consumer-related issue, as you implied, then it would be in that specific forum.
My assumption, and I could be wrong, is that this thread and other threads complaining about private businesses are created to discuss the "political" ramifications surrounding it. Why else would they be posted in this forum?
There are political ramifications to it. I am glad we are discussing those ramifications, even though the private entity can have whatever rules it wants. It is also controversial to some, which is also not at odds with our shared belief that they have the right to do it.
Discussing it is good, regulating it would be bad.
There are political ramifications to it. I am glad we are discussing those ramifications, even though the private entity can have whatever rules it wants. It is also controversial to some, which is also not at odds with our shared belief that they have the right to do it.
Discussing it is good, regulating it would be bad.
There shouldn't be any political ramifications to it.
You originally said:
Quote:
t is good to know about stuff like this so we can take it in to consideration when deciding whether or not to use their product.
And that would be for the consumer forum.
I suppose anything can be construed as controversial. Private businesses make billions of decisions each day though. Not sure how any of them are controversial since there is no right to be served by a business.
I ran a number of businesses, including large internet sites and retail bricks and mortar.
In retail I made the decision that I wanted to have something for most all customers that walked through the door. That meant having a $200 product as well as a $2,000 one. Many of my competitors just addressed the higher end...that was our choice (I should mention that my choice beat theirs in terms of success)...
When it came to the internet sites I also welcomed all comers. BUT, I banned that particular set of users once they showed themselves to be who they are. Trolls were not welcome as were those who were there for reasons other than the mission of the site. Banned users could still obtain info and read the site - they just can't add to "Wikipedia" or whatever site I create....
LOL. A business is doing what businesses do. Why do you guys want some sort of authoritarian government that controls businesses so much? Democracy and capitalism not your strong suit?
GAB ai to you too!
I think we all understand that platforms like Twitter and Facebook are the new means by which politicians, authors, and news people reach people. It is essentially acting as a media outlet. If the company said upfront we don’t allow those opinions or conservative politicians to post there, that would be fine. But this is a way to actively make sure people don’t see their posts while the targets see their posts on there as if they’re part of the conversation.
And making sure only conservative politicians or writers don’t have their names pop up when people are typing in the search bar, while EVERY other person is shown if they’re searchable, is not trying to control bot accounts. That’s deliberate.
It’s like giving an in-kind political donation to liberal politicians running against someone who is shadow banned, and it’s illegal to boot.
This was noticed by VICE News, not exactly a conservative bastion.
I think we all understand that platforms like Twitter and Facebook are the new means by which politicians, authors, and news people reach people. It is essentially acting as a media outlet. If the company said upfront we don’t allow those opinions or conservative politicians to post there, that would be fine. But this is a way to actively make sure people don’t see their posts while the targets see their posts on there as if they’re part of the conversation.
And making sure only conservative politicians or writers don’t have their names pop up when people are typing in the search bar, while EVERY other person is shown if they’re searchable, is not trying to control bot accounts. That’s deliberate.
It’s like giving an in-kind political donation to liberal politicians running against someone who is shadow banned, and it’s illegal to boot.
This was noticed by VICE News, not exactly a conservative bastion.
Did you know...media outlets arent required to cover things? Thats...GASP...Fox news doesnt cover all the new either? That....they might be biased?
I think what you were trying to imply was that they are the new delivery service for folks media. Not that they are a media outlet. IE they are the cable provider or radio provider.
But really thats not precise either as the internet is the provider per se. If people do not like facebook there ARE other choices. And TONS of places to get your media fill. Alex Jones for example can host his own videos. So no. I not buying into this idea that a business should be forced to carry his stuff.
you are attempting to conflate a media provider, a access provider, and a delivery provider. And they are not the same.
The more I learn about social media and observe the way people use it, the more I think the world would be a better place if we all logged off, and I think all of the journalists, politicians, and the like, who are held hostage to social media platforms would breath a huge sigh of relief. It's a system built on a negative feedback loop that makes us into terrible human beings obsessed with reading our own words and tallying up signs of approval from people we neither know nor genuinely care about. We're all snowflakes now.
And on top of that, the people who run social media companies have monetized their businesses by making a product of our digital information and selling it to the highest bidders, companies who have purposes unknown to us and therefore outside of our explicit consent. It happens here at City-Data, too. We're all just cogs in a huge and terrifying machine, and even the people in charge have no clue how to tame the monster they've created. Log off. Starve the beast. We'll all be happier.
And on top of that, the people who run social media companies have monetized their businesses by making a product of our digital information and selling it to the highest bidders, companies who have purposes unknown to us and therefore outside of our explicit consent. It happens here at City-Data, too. We're all just cogs in a huge and terrifying machine, and even the people in charge have no clue how to tame the monster they've created. Log off. Starve the beast. We'll all be happier.
I have been online since 1985 and was among the first voracious user (and developers) on the internet, having created a very large site and used it extensively by the end of 1995. Before that it was Ham Radio....and CB....
BUT, I have to say you are 100% correct. When the internet was young, most all of us were creators...there were relatively few consumers (of the information or products). Rather we were sharing what we knew and starting sites (some with forums or comments) to learn more....
The thought, at the time, that people would buy a device like a tablet or phone where they became 95% CONSUMERS of information as opposed to being a "part of the tribe" was unheard of. The Society of the Internet required that we give as much as we take.
The entire formula changed when most became idle consumers...and then brainwashed...and then addicted and outright nasty. Lots of reasons for this, powerlessness part of it. Ego another part - people who started a "Page" on Facebook actually think/thought they were accomplishing something and had power or control. They didn't understand the game and therefore didn't know how to play...
Eventually, much of the internet was co-opted by "National Enquirer" type of sites (Drudge, Gawker, etc.) and that was that...now it's a meme....about winning arguments on the internet!
Most would be better off using the limited positive tools available and then going and doing something else. It's like having any tool - if I walked around with my hammer pounding on everything it really wouldn't benefit me or civil society.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
