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.
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.
Your post is as good a place as any to espouse my opinion. The big question? WHO is qualified or all knowing that they are the last word on what is "false information"?
I think ALL viewpoints/opinions should be allowed. Our True Freedom of speech is being allowed to see or hear ALL peoples viewpoints even if total lies or if it is misinformation. It is up to the individual to choose for themself what is true or not true. The biggest danger is the slow and incremental insidious growth of large and uncontested "social media" platforms who pick and chose our information for us. THAT is not freedom of speech.
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.
Yet, Twitter doesn't feel the need to ban Louis Farrakhan or the Ayatollah of Iran for the "false information thing."
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.
Wrong again. T-45's personal account was banned from Twitter while he was still POTUS. They even took down a tweet from the official POTUS account that they didn't like.
Quote:
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.
The "mere fact" that people are capriciously suspended, banned, shadow banned, and demonetized by Big Tech monopolies because they peacefully express their political opinions proves that there is no free speech in social media.
Yet, Twitter doesn't feel the need to ban Louis Farrakhan or the Ayatollah of Iran for the "false information thing."
That's funny stuff.
When Twitter expanded their rules against hateful conduct on their site in 2019, they ordered Farrakan to delete an earlier antisemitc post he had made and abide by Twitter's rules, else face the consequences. Since then, Farrakan has reportedly chosen to abide by the rules. If he breaks them on Twitter's site, his account will be suspended. Click here for more information
As for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Twitter is no doubt already in the process of instituting a policy for banning the accounts of world leaders and government officials who justify atrocities. Click here for more information
Your post is as good a place as any to espouse my opinion. The big question? WHO is qualified or all knowing that they are the last word on what is "false information"? I think ALL viewpoints/opinions should be allowed. Our True Freedom of speech is being allowed to see or hear ALL peoples viewpoints even if total lies or if it is misinformation. It is up to the individual to choose for themself what is true or not true. The biggest danger is the slow and incremental insidious growth of large and uncontested "social media" platforms who pick and chose our information for us. THAT is not freedom of speech.
If that were to happen, all platforms carrying all viewpoints, there would be endless duplication which would be highly inefficient, to say nothing of the obligations of private parties to comply with laws, and their own rights to decide what they carry.
I see nothing wrong with free speech, however, much of it is fueled by bias news media sources that arent reporting all of the facts, only the facts they want you to know. If people knew all of the facts, were able to make an informed opinion, I dont think we would be having this conversation right now. Partial facts promote false opinions. False opinions lead to a divide amongst society. A divide in society creates hate. Hate is the downward spiral to society.
I see nothing wrong with free speech, however, much of it is fueled by bias news media sources that arent reporting all of the facts, only the facts they want you to know. If people knew all of the facts, were able to make an informed opinion, I dont think we would be having this conversation right now. Partial facts promote false opinions. False opinions lead to a divide amongst society. A divide in society creates hate. Hate is the downward spiral to society.
If you believe that the news media sources are biased, then do you not also believe that the non-news media sources are biased, as well?
We do have media fact-checkers that legitimate and professional news media sources will answer to. I don't know of any non-news media sources (such as Alex Jones, the Pillow Guy, your auntie's Facebook page, etc.) that answer to media fact-checkers.
If you believe that the news media sources are biased, then do you not also believe that the non-news media sources are biased, as well?
We do have media fact-checkers that legitimate and professional news media sources will answer to. I don't know of any non-news media sources (such as Alex Jones, the Pillow Guy, your auntie's Facebook page, etc.) that answer to media fact-checkers.
I do, the ironic thing is that a fact is not bias, the person reporting them is. The more there are opinionated pieces reported via news media, the more there will be non-news media to contradict what they are saying. If we knew we could count on the news for facts, dealing with people claiming free speech, going against what the news was telling us, could be taken with a grain of salt and not really a big deal.
You can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater but then you'll get arrested.
There are responsibilities with freedom of speech.
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.
