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.
At a hearing Wednesday at the House Financial Services Committee, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called on Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to “take down lies.”
“So you won’t take down lies or you will take down lies, it’s just a pretty simple yes or no?” Ocasio-Cortez demanded.
In reply, the Facebook CEO attempted to explain: “In a democracy, I believe that people should be able to see for themselves what politicians, who they may or may not vote for, are saying.”
And yet Twitter banned Donald Trump. (And, to repeat, I am NOT a Trump supporter!)
Unfortunately there are people who wield real power who think they know what's a lie and what's the truth.
Also unfortunate, not to mention ironic, that the OP has to keep insisting they are not a supporter of T-45 in a discussion about free speech.
I was a kid in high school during the ACLU's 1970's fight to allow Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, a town with a larger than usual percentage of Holocaust survivors. The ACLU eventually won the case but the Nazis held their march in a neighboring town. Back then the general feeling was that Nazis should be allowed to speak in America because most people would see how ludicrous their ideas were, and to silence them would do more harm to goodness than it would to evil. In 2021, why is our government (and our Big Tech quasi-government) moving toward a ban on free speech?
Your getting into the whole "where do my rights stop and yours begin."
Should I have to employ you regardless of whatever beliefs you put out in public? As long as I'm breaking no laws I should have the right to refuse employment to anyone I want. You might think that's unfair, but I think it's better than the alternative of inviting gov't to come in and regulate whose opinions I have to accept in my place of business.
Maybe someone is known for their hatred of illegal aliens? Should I have to keep such a person on my payroll? What about the second generation employee who feels threatened by working alongside an admitted whatever, what are their rights?
I get where you're coming from, you think it's not ok for some one to face repercussions because of certain political beliefs. But where are you going to draw the line on that? Which opinions will be 'protected'? Which will not? Do I get to go out and call my employer everything but a son of man and still expect to keep my job without any repercussions because- free speech?
Google is still in control, even if you make your own web site, you won't get much traffic if you don't kowtow to what Google's algorithm requires, which they can change at any moment without your permission. Also, saying that smaller options exist doesn't mean it isn't a monopoly. If 90% of customers use Business A and 10% use all others, it still has a monopoly. If you don't follow the rules of Business A, you lost 90% of your audience or market share. That is monopoly and control.
I believe that since ALL gov't entities now use internet services like Google, Facebook and Apple, those services are NO LONGER PRIVATE. They should be mandated to allow ANY entity including things as corrupt as BLM and ANTIFA to have access - oh wait those entities already do - hmmm.
If you're referring to Parler being taken off of those platforms, this is why it was. You are not, and never have been, allowed to say things that are blatantly false. That's called libel and slander. You also don't have the right, and never have, to threaten someone's health or safety or incite violence.
Do people do those things on other platforms? Yes because it's impossible to control people. However, other platforms are moderated so that they can mitigate those things as much as possible. And they can, and do, remove or flag things that violate those rules and can and do ban users who repeatedly violate them. Parler is unmoderated. It's appeal is that people could say whatever they wanted, even if what they were saying violated the law. Technically, someone could go on Parler and say ccjarider is a pedophile who beats his wife, here's his address, let's go get him, and it would be allowed. No matter how untrue it was, no matter that it posted your address, no matter that it called for people to physically harm you, it would still stay posted on Parler. THAT'S why Parler was removed. If Parler were moderated to prevent the spread of false information and calls for violence and threats to people, then it would still be available on those platforms.
If you're referring to Parler being taken off of those platforms, this is why it was. You are not, and never have been, allowed to say things that are blatantly false. That's called libel and slander. You also don't have the right, and never have, to threaten someone's health or safety or incite violence.
Do people do those things on other platforms? Yes because it's impossible to control people. However, other platforms are moderated so that they can mitigate those things as much as possible. And they can, and do, remove or flag things that violate those rules and can and do ban users who repeatedly violate them. Parler is unmoderated. It's appeal is that people could say whatever they wanted, even if what they were saying violated the law. Technically, someone could go on Parler and say ccjarider is a pedophile who beats his wife, here's his address, let's go get him, and it would be allowed. No matter how untrue it was, no matter that it posted your address, no matter that it called for people to physically harm you, it would still stay posted on Parler. THAT'S why Parler was removed. If Parler were moderated to prevent the spread of false information and calls for violence and threats to people, then it would still be available on those platforms.
Parler appears to be having even more troubles of its own right now. Parler's CEO, John Matze, was just fired by his associates. The firing was due to a difference of opinion between Matze and the company on the very issue that we are discussing in this thread. Read more at this link.
Unfortunately there are people who wield real power who think they know what's a lie and what's the truth.
Also unfortunate, not to mention ironic, that the OP has to keep insisting they are not a supporter of T-45 in a discussion about free speech.
I was a kid in high school during the ACLU's 1970's fight to allow Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, a town with a larger than usual percentage of Holocaust survivors. The ACLU eventually won the case but the Nazis held their march in a neighboring town. Back then the general feeling was that Nazis should be allowed to speak in America because most people would see how ludicrous their ideas were, and to silence them would do more harm to goodness than it would to evil. In 2021, why is our government (and our Big Tech quasi-government) moving toward a ban on free speech?
What is T-45? I Googled it and just got info about a jet aircraft.
And I agree with the bold, so why do you think that we are in disagreement?
What is T-45? I Googled it and just got info about a jet aircraft.
Sorry, I thought it was easy to get. I'm trying to fly under the radar by not saying Voldemort out loud. T-r-u-m-p was the 45th President, and many people on the Radical Left such as Maxine Waters refused to say his name, referring to him only as "45".
Quote:
And I agree with the bold, so why do you think that we are in disagreement?
I'm not disagreeing with you; just rhetorically reiterating your premise.
BTW if you are interested in free speech issues there is a website called Substack.com that carries articles from people like Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald. These are guys who are left of center politically yet are aghast at what's going on currently with censorship in the mainstream. There are still a lot of left-leaning intellectuals who are on the side of free speech but the reality is they are treated like Trotsky by the current crop of neo-Stalinist Red Guards in charge of speech policy on university campuses, in government, and in social media.
...Technically, someone could go on Parler and say ccjarider is a pedophile who beats his wife, here's his address, let's go get him, and it would be allowed. No matter how untrue it was, no matter that it posted your address, no matter that it called for people to physically harm you, it would still stay posted on Parler. THAT'S why Parler was removed. If Parler were moderated to prevent the spread of false information and calls for violence and threats to people, then it would still be available on those platforms.
Nope, that's not why Parler was removed. The Tech Monopolies were afraid that after T-45 was banned from Twitter he'd show up on Parler. That's why they were removed.
Parler had 10 million new app downloads the day it was banned by Apple and Google, then the next day it was de-platformed by Amazon.
The flimsy excuse that Capitol Rioters had used Parler to organize was untrue. In fact, Capitol Rioters used Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to communicate with and incite each other, yet those platforms remain up and running. Incidentally those platforms were and are used by BLM and Antifa rioters to organize, yet they remain up and making profit off those riots.
Nope, that's not why Parler was removed. The Tech Monopolies were afraid that after T-45 was banned from Twitter he'd show up on Parler. That's why they were removed.
Parler had 10 million new app downloads the day it was banned by Apple and Google, then the next day it was de-platformed by Amazon.
The flimsy excuse that Capitol Rioters had used Parler to organize was untrue. In fact, Capitol Rioters used Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to communicate with and incite each other, yet those platforms remain up and running. Incidentally those platforms were and are used by BLM and Antifa rioters to organize, yet they remain up and making profit off those riots.
Trump was banned from Twitter for violating their rules of service, namely the false information thing. They ban people for this every day. They just legally couldn't do it until he was a private citizen.
Yes, like I said, the other platforms have people posting things like this too, but there is an effort to stop it, a policy against it, and a system in place to report it, etc. Parler doesn't have any of that. It was a free for all - that was it's appeal. And the mere fact that groups on both sides of the spectrum still have and use those other platforms proves that they still have free speech within the confines of the law.
Knowing no such thing. There may or may not have been public backlash, boycotts, being 'blacklisted' by other businesses, etc. What sort of legal repercussions do you think a privately owned business should face for banning someone for not following the TOS? Be specific please.
That's quite a leap there, and not an accurate one.
maybe not that big of a leap...........anyone say on, facebook or twitter who has a job of "policing" what is allowed to be posted,and using that premise to "ban" someone from any of those platforms........I would consider that a "clerk" who weilds more power than he should...........
There are still a lot of left-leaning intellectuals who are on the side of free speech but the reality is they are treated like Trotsky by the current crop of neo-Stalinist Red Guards in charge of speech policy on university campuses, in government, and in social media.
My post several pages ago reflects just this. The debate over free speech is not really between left and right but more like between those who support control of free speech if it sounds harmful or offensive and those who do not. You could be on the same end of the political spectrum as another individual and yet seriously disagree with that other individual over the right to free speech. Nowadays, thanks in large part to the censors in education, government, and social media (OK maybe calling them neo-Stalinist Red Guards may be a bit too far but I do get your point ), one has to carefully choose language, vocabulary, and sometimes even subject matter so as not to offend any one group. Then you have to apply the correct categorical proposition "all" or "some" so that your statements pass the logic test.
Take for instance this statement:
"Blacks are often vocal critics of economic disparities because their communities have too often been the most disenfranchised."
There is definitely valid debate over this statement and sure enough there is someone out there who will be offended if they heard it spoken and will want the speaker or author of the statement to retract it. Note that the sentence implies that "all" Blacks are often vocal critics and that "all" of their communities have too often been the most disenfranchised by not inserting "some", "most", "likely" or any other word that diffuses the statement. Yet others will argue that the author or speaker is not being offensive or accusatory but merely making a statement and therefore not obligated to modify or retract a word of it. These individuals could all agree to the same idea but disagree with how the sentence was put forth. Do you see how just one sentence can open a can of worms? Those who want all speech to be modified to fit their narrative will of course shame others who disagree with them into keeping silent while those who may not agree with the statement but regard it as just the way the author said it will just say leave it be.
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.
), one has to carefully choose language, vocabulary, and sometimes even subject matter so as not to offend any one group. Then you have to apply the correct categorical proposition "all" or "some" so that your statements pass the logic test. 