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.
Once upon a time, people carried on public discourse in the town square, in bars, etc. Welcome to 2019. The new town square is Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Snap Chat, Twitch, Instagram, Reddit, Pinterest, LinkedIn, etc. Each is specialized. Each is very useful. None of them believe in free speech. All of them censor ideas they don't like.
When anyone or any idea is silenced, no matter how mean, weird, crazy, offensive or wrong-headed, you know that free speech does not exist. The maxim, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (Evelyn Beatrice Hall), cuts directly to the soul of what makes Western Civilization great. The idea that it is wrong to just shut people up or make their life harder just for being who they are.
If there was ever any doubt that the largest, most powerful entities on the Internet were collaborating to censor wrong-think, one needs look no further than Alex Jones and InfoWars. At the behest of CNN's Oliver Darcy, more than 50 of the biggest social media platforms went from, "Sure he's a bit weird, but he's not breaking the rules here." to "Heathen!! Blasphemer!! Ban him!! Ban him immediately!!" Getting effectively banned from the town square in just one week? Then they do it again and again and again and again to other people. The Proud Boys. It's Going Down. Luis Farrakhan. The Krassenstein brothers. Lauren Southern. Gavin McInnes. Carl Benjamin. Sometimes they ban you here and there. Sometimes they ban you everywhere. Sometimes they don't ban you. Sometimes they just meddle to ensure that your voice can't be heard "due to technical difficulties.
Latest example: Lauren Southern's documentary on human trafficking into Europe, titled Borderless. This is the "Emergency Backup" copy that was re-uploaded by Lauren. We'll see how long before "a glitch" takes that one down too.
Nobody got notifications that the video was up. After it was up on YouTube, you only get "This Video is Unavailable." I'm still getting that on my phone right now. Just another video that violates the unwritten laws against wrong think. We live in an age where all illegal immigration is noble and good. Human trafficking gets ignored. Rapes, murders and Europe's inability to absorb every impoverished person on the planet gets ignored.
Why do the people who own and operate the public square of today get to censor anything? They're a platform and subject to the same rules as a telephone company. They're not supposed to be censoring or curating anything. Doing so makes them a publisher and subject to the laws and rules of being a publisher.
Because they KNOW better than all us ignorant savages who lack the intelligence to make our own judgement. I for one welcome not having to think for myself. Thats Sarcasm for the one person out there who will take me seriously. Yes I'm looking at you.
There is a difference. The new town square is privately owned. The old town square was city owned. Both have rules, but the city owned ones, shockingly, were more fair.
Social media outlets such as Facebook and Google have become a public utility and with their dominance of the market are now stifling free speech. They can and should be regulated like other public utilities and anti-trust laws should be used to break them up.
Social networks should address the real issue of click bait. Sure, Alex Jones is a bit over the top on occasion, but he does it for the views. CNN runs extremist stories for the same reason.
Social networks should address the real issue of click bait. Sure, Alex Jones is a bit over the top on occasion, but he does it for the views. CNN runs extremist stories for the same reason.
Yes, there is little difference between Infowars and CNN, in reality. They both run outrageous claims and falsify stories for $$$.
There is a difference. The new town square is privately owned. The old town square was city owned. Both have rules, but the city owned ones, shockingly, were more fair.
A phone company is also privately owned, but they're not allowed to ban people from having a phone or a phone conversation, especially for the kinds of reasons that these people are being banned, silenced and censored. You can't be punished for who you talk to or what you say on the phone. You just talk on the phone and that's that. Nobody regulates who can or can't talk on phones.
A phone company legally falls into the category of platform, and is not legally allowed to interfere with people's right to speak. They can't tell you what can or can't be said using their service.
Publishers are another category. They can and do curate what is allowed on their platforms because they are legally responsible for all content coming out of them.
If these companies are privately owned, that's fine. From there, we just have to determine whether they are platforms or publishers. If they are publishers then curating, censoring and the like are fine. And if, for example, YouTube is a publisher and ISIS uses their platform to radicalize people, then they are on the hook for some pretty massive lawsuits. If Russians use your platform for illegal operations, then you are now complicit in their crimes. If one person defames another person on Facebook, then Facebook is now guilty of defamation for allowing it to happen. That's the life of an entity legally defined as a publisher.
If they are a platform then everyone gets to speak and insofar as it doesn't break the law, you have to allow it. Because these platforms are too massive to competently curate and edit everything on the platforms, then it would seem a lot more logical for them to opt for the platform status.
As it stands right now, they claim to be both, and that's not something they should legally be allowed to get away with.
No, Facebook is not the new town square. Facebook is a business. We never went to K-Mart to tell others your thoughts.
When was the last time that the phone company -- a privately owned entity -- let you know that one of your phone conversations was in violation of their terms of service? Do you know of anyone who got their phone services taken away for hate speech?
When was the last time that the phone company -- a privately owned entity -- let you know that one of your phone conversations was in violation of their terms of service? Do you know of anyone who got their phone services taken away for hate speech?
The conversation on the phone is between two consenting people. If one no longer is, they can hang up. What a phone provider decides to offer as a service is completely irrelevant as to what another business decides to offer.
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.
