“.. freedom of speech online must be defended against social media…”
Finally, an important politician is addressing this problem.
“They don’t care if this content or that content causes harm for the people at whom it is directed,” he said. “After all, these modern IT companies are more and more beginning to control people’s consciousnesses.”
Well said!
These remarks were made by non other than…. Vladimir Putin.
Wait a minute!!! … a Russian???... "this man has some nerve!!!"... "Isn’t the USA the foremost defender of “freedom of speech”?
https://www.rt.com/russia/514449-putin-speech-freedom-media/
I disagree with Putin’s comment on one issue though…. He blames the actions of social media on their desire to make a profit…
Social media in the US want to make a profit, of course (nothing wrong with that). However, the censoring that has been going on during the recent past goes far beyond profitability…… today, our social media, together with the MSM, are a political weapon… intent on ushering in a totalitarian state.
PS
here is a link that describes freedom of speech in the old Soviet Union and in modern Russia, in case you are interested..
https://law.emory.edu/eilr/content/volume-27/issue-2/comments/freedom-expression-russia.html
Whoever thought that Putin would be speaking out for freedom of speech and US social media giants would be at the other end of the argument.
I understand the objective in doing this. It really does effectively suppress violence and hate and disinformation.
However, the problem is that the gatekeepers of information, deciding what makes the cut and what doesn't are NEVER completely unbiased all the time.
As humans with political views, their cognitive bias will effect their thinking at times, even when they THINK that they are totally objective..............and they will make decisions that discriminate against those they disagree with.
And the more power they get, the less accountability..................the more biased they become in the name of imposing standards which match up with their personal belief systems.
It's not debatable. This always happens in similar realms because we are human beings, not robots.
So the question must be asked. Do the benefits from the restrictions in freedom of speech outweigh the negatives?
In this current, extraordinarily divisive, hateful and volatile....even dangerous environment, I think yes, they do.
But there is damage being done when those gatekeepers collude to censor legit news they don't like because it does not line up with their belief system.
The quintessential example was how they treated Trump and Biden in order to defeat Trump.....and it worked.
Everything Trump did was bad............spinning almost every story(from some sources) to make it look that way.
Nothing Biden did was bad, censoring and ignoring compelling evidence that showed otherwise.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/60077/
No doubt, the MSM got Biden elected with this way of reporting. It made all the difference in how millions of people voted.
So the effects can be extraordinarily consequential, with that one being the most profound example of it.
However, if this becomes the new reality of our future, the consequences could amplify.
A group was banned from twitter for hate speech.
The offending Statement regarding Rachel Levine "He's transgender, a man who think's he's a woman"..
Hate speech can be expanded to include all sorts of things.
History shows us there is never any benefit to outlawing ideas. Quite the contrary. The first amendment is first for a reason.
I'll add that it would not be acceptable even if there was a hint of an attempt of objectivity, but a quick look at what's "acceptable" from leftist puts that claim completely to rest. The bias is asstoundingly obvious.
Just like Mike can delete posts or ban posters, Twitter and other private companies can do whatever the heck they please, especially if the member is always lying, spewing dangerous divisive rhetoric, etc. I say so long to bad rubbish. Thank goodness there are no more trashy Trump tweets out there. He's already done enough damage as it is. The piece of sh*t can go f*ck off. His 2 months of lies about nonexistent widespread anti-Trump voter fraud lead to an insurrection and attempted coup that lead to deaths and injuries and almost to the death of Pence, Pelosi, and others. Easily THE worst POTUS ever!
As I kept warning you folks, it was much more than just being a meanie/jackass. As I said, he was downright dangerous to our democracy and to certain individuals. Go away, sh*thead.
This goes far far beyond Trump. Please stop using him as the basis for every argument.
I realize twitter, et al are not violating the 1st amendment. No question. And finally, we have liberals standing behind how the 1st amendment was actually written. But these are the same liberals who were screaming for that bakers head when he refused to bake a cake.
Anyway, there is a bigger question here. A baker can refuse service and the customer can go to the baker down the street. There are hundreds of alternatives within a short drive in most medium to large cities, even small ones.
When a behemouth like Twitter uses personal belief/bias to deny service, there really is no alternative. And oddly enough, when an alternative like Parler was attemtped, they were shut down as well. I am not sure what the answer is, but some very important questions are being raised.
You may not like what someone may have to say, but you'd better damn well support their right to say it. History is very unkind to societies that don't.
"This goes far far beyond Trump. Please stop using him as the basis for every argument."
I agree with Tim on this.
Larry, did you not notice that Trump is not the president anymore and that this post is not even about him? other than me mentioning briefly how the MSM is treating Biden differently?
You are welcome to continue to demonstrate how hate can affect an intelligent person's ability to participate in intelligent discourse if you want and come here to blow off steam if thats what you want. Just to let you know, statements like this actually cause the 100% opposite effect of that intended.:
"The piece of sh*t can go f*ck off. His 2 months of lies about nonexistent widespread anti-Trump voter fraud lead to an insurrection and attempted coup that lead to deaths and injuries and almost to the death of Pence, Pelosi, and others. Easily THE worst POTUS ever!
As I kept warning you folks, it was much more than just being a meanie/jackass. As I said, he was downright dangerous to our democracy and to certain individuals. Go away, sh*thead."
This comes from somebody that 100% agrees with you on the points but don't you agree, that stating this below is much more effective to communicate it and NOT cause divisiveness and alienate readers.....instead, possibly get them to see your side?
Amazon repeatedly notified Parler that they were allowing posts to stand that were a violation of the terms of service. Here are a few choice "free speech posts" that Parler refused to take down that conservatives are crying over:
"After the firing squads are done with the politicians, the teachers are next."
"Fry 'em up the whole FFing crew. Pelosi, the squad, Schumer, Soros, Gates, Adam Schiff. We are coming for you!"
"We're going to fight a war on January 20th. Form militias now!"
"On January 20th we need to start assassinating liberal leaders and liberal activists."
"Shoot the police that protect these S**tbag senators."
There are MANY more. Parler refused to budge.
Just stop with the free speech tears. It's sickens me. This won't get with a 100 miles of the Supreme Court.
joj,
In this current, volatile, divisive and very dangerous environment, I agree and as I mentioned earlier, I think censoring those sort of posts is more important than freedom of speech.
In the long run, however when we put TOO MUCH in the hands of censoring gatekeepers, their cognitive bias will end up imposing their belief system at times...........like what they did with the Hunter Biden story in October.
As somebody that has dealt first hand with totally bogus information that convinced readers here that the election was stolen, I see exactly how powerful and damaging (stealing peoples intelligence, is how I like to call it) that uncensored, convincing information from sources with nefarious intent can be.
Sometimes the raw truth is the most effective and is called for. No pussyfooting from me. I want folks to know how pissed I am. Most folks are tribalistic and won’t join my side unless they’re already there, regardless.
Another one who I’m all for shutting the hell up as much as possible is the GA Rep and nutjob/hateful bitch, Marjorie Greene. I won’t dignify her by calling her a lady as a lady she is certainly not. She’s an ignorant redneck. I hope the House takes away her committee assignments. Idiots like her are bringing down the formerly respectful GOP in favor of the Dems.
I agree with you on Greene's despicable statements.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blasted Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, referring to his party affiliation as "(Q-CA)" in an apparent reference to the QAnon conspiracy theory.
In a just world, they would be going after people like AOC and Bernie Sanders for lies that are causing millions of people to suffer from "eco-anxiety".
But's it's ok to intentionally scare the crap out of us with climate lies because that agenda lines up with the message the gatekeepers want to have imposed on us.
As you know, I have spent the last 3 months exposing Trumps lies on the fake election steal and am an objective, independent scientist/environmentalist, just asking for the truth, including authentic science and less hypocrisy.
MM, 30 billion more for climate change
Started by mcfarm - Feb. 1, 2021, 1:12 p.m.
This very divisive, hateful, profuse/productive lying machine is treated like a queen by many in the MSM with never any discussion about censorship.
AOC thought she was going to die
1 response |
Started by GunterK - Feb. 3, 2021, 7:51 p.m.
MM,
While a quote from 2019 of “world coming to an end in 8 years” is a bit hard to swallow,, a quote that is already in the past would be more compelling.
Also, is Bernie a liar if he believes the throngs of scientists?
Thanks, Mike.
I don’t know if this is the best thread for this. Hot off the press, Liz Cheney survived by a large margin of the GOP conference to remain leader. Thank goodness they didn’t vote her out for voting to impeach Trump the 2nd time.
"is Bernie a liar if he believes the throngs of scientists? "
joj,
No he wouldn't be a liar if that were the case. But it isn't. He is going well beyond embellishing and then calling it science. AOC is even worse.
People cut them slack because they are not scientists but they constantly claim to represent the authentic science and be authorities on knowing the science from the scientists and are supposedly just repeating it.
They are misrepresenting the science.
They are misrepresenting the scientists.
They are misrepresenting themselves as credible authorities on the topic...........because of their agenda.
Their words are followed by 100 million+ people because of their powerful positions. Even if they misconstrue or exaggerate the authentic science because of ignorance, they absolutely need to be accountable for fake news on climate.
I used to think that Bernie believed most of his hogwash on climate. If he does, then he is no less delusional than Donald Trump was about the election being stolen from him.
Sanders Touts $16 Trillion Climate Plan: Anti Science Bernie = the complete opposite of the truth! August 2019
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/37437/
Bernie Sanders fake climate scare: Major cities NOT going under water in 8 to 9 years. We do not have XX years to save the (greening up) planet from the climate optimum(fake climate crisis). January 2020.
Mike knows that I have criticized CNN a number times for being so anti-Trump, even though Trump asked for a lot of it with his awful rhetoric, and having double standards about crowds causing Covid spread. However, ever since the lies started about widespread anti-Trump election fraud, I have been near 100% with everything CNN has been saying. This includes the insurrection, the 2nd impeachment, and the awful GA rep Marjorie. I find myself loving just about everything they’ve said since the election.
Thanks Larry,
CNN has this one right on how Trump and numerous republicans acted since the election.......which, as noted above I have spent a great deal of time on here.
I'm wondering, at what point does something that happened a month ago, no longer justify being the top story for much of the day, every day?
Trump and the republicans definitely asked for it by behaving so diabolically but please, CNN stop pretending that you only want to unify the country, when you are doing your best with actions to tear it apart by obliterating the republicans.
I'm with you also on this decision below Larry.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/03/politics/liz-cheney-house-republican-meeting/index.html
I'm sure Tim knows what a protected class is. If you are going to operate in society you follow the agreed upon rules.
No one is denying speech, you just can't use my business to speak it. Go on the street corner and shout it out, no one will stop you. As much as they would like it, political parties are not a protected class.
With regards to Sanders, AOC and others constantly making exaggerated or even false anti science statements, then selling them as science but not being held accountable because this is what defines our world........that is exactly the problem.
People can manufacture whatever reality they want or say what they want because everybody is doing it.
If you're somebody that their message is targeting but not an authority on the subject or don't have access to the authentic facts but do align with them politically.........you believe whatever they say............and that's the reason they say it.
That's our world today and it's very wrong......even though it's become accepted by people that agree with you on your points/same belief system.
People on the other side will squawk about it but turn around and do the exact same thing.........use propaganda to steal the intelligence/brainwash their believers.
Most people can't know what to believe and just choose to believe sources that tell them stories, interpret the news, that they want to believe.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/537272-republicans-rally-to-keep-cheney-in-power
JOJ, you feel AMAZON, TWITTER, Et.Al. are justified, even righteous in their battle against "Hate Speech", and that's fine. Standards are good. But these standards are only applied to the right.
The left can stand in photos with the presidents severed head. They can urge people to storm the Whitehouse and hang the president. They can wish that the presidents son be locked in a cage with a child molester.
Here's a few of many directed at Sandland after his encounter with the "Native American"
I would put $1000 into a gofundme for someone to punch him right in the fucking mouth.
— David Dellanave (@ddn) January 19, 2019
LOCK THE KIDS IN THE SCHOOL AND BURN THAT BITCH TO THE GROUND.
— Uncle Shoes (@HouseShoes) January 19, 2019
The list goes on and on and on, and you know it.
Yet saying a "Transgender is a man who thinks he's a woman" will get you banned.
Please, spare me your hypocritical outrage.
"Protected class"? You mean under the 4th amendment, right?
Rules are fine if they are applied to everyone equally and fairly.
“"Protected class"? You mean under the 4th amendment, right?
Rules are fine if they are applied to everyone equally and fairly.”
I guess I was wrong, or maybe one of us is failing to communicate. Maybe lump this topic with tax law in the
”Laws I don’t understand for 100 please Alex”.
I'm familiar with the "Concept" of "Protected Class" as it applies to employment. I have also watched as it has been expanded to include all sorts of "designated victims". The fact is that I can't begin to understand how it could pass a constiutional test, particularly in view of the Equal Protection clause in the 4th amendment. The concept "We are all equal, but some are more equal than others" should be limited to Orwellian fiction, but we live in a world where Orwell is being removed from the fiction shelves.
Setting that aside, I can't begin to understand how "Protected Class" can now be injected into a discussion of the hopelessly biased execution of rules and standards on social media, but I am certain you'll be more than happy to explain.
Lord I don’t know where to start.
Here maybe :
“Anyway, there is a bigger question here. A baker can refuse service and the customer can go to the baker down the street. There are hundreds of alternatives within a short drive in most medium to large cities, even small ones.”
You may want to read the constitution, it’s pretty simple really. Wikipedia might help. Or a junior high text book.
Jebus.
I am quite familiar with the constitution. Are you?
The argument right now is that twitter, et al can enforce any standards they want as a private company. That's essentially true. Yet when a baker attempts the same rights, there is outrage.
So, do you feel the baker and Twitter have the same rights, or don't you?
“"Protected class"? You mean under the 4th amendment, right?”
”I am quite familiar with the constitution.”
Yeah, before we go any further you might read the fourth amendment and tell me what it has to do with any protected class.
And yes, I do have a basic understanding of the constitution; and yes, the baker and Twitter do have the same rights. It’s just that one topic has zero to do with the other. Zero, not remotely similar. Typical diversion.
Thats all I can do, sorry. I have reached my explanation capacity.
Sorry, I meant the fourteenth amendment. It was written in the 1860's to prevent discrimination against former slaves. It included protection for race, religion and sex, and it was largely limited to employment. They've since added a lot of liberal interpretations to it and somehow managed to include "Sexual Preference" under "Sex", which is a major major stretch IMO.
BTW, in the case of the Baker, the court sided with him, (and I guess by extension, Me).
In any event, the current debate is just how much latitude a private company has to regulate it's customers, and I would geuss even you would agree that there's quite a bit.
The question we're faced with, one that needs answers.. Should companies with essential monopolies have that same latitude, particualrly when those companies are providing a major form of comunication. When their customers really have no alternatives. Then, to aggrivate the situation and add some urgency, they are employing obvious bias in the enforcement of those rules. I think, at the least, they need to apply the same standards to all "customers", regardless of political leaning.
And I agree, you have exceeded your capacity.
Only way that would fly is if you classified them as “utilities”.
That would put the kibosh to any start ups as it would entrench their monopoly status. And as we know, there are plenty of places wackos can go with their insane gesticulations to stay out of the view of polite company.
What ever happened to republicans wanting to deregulate ? I thought that was the Reagan mantra. Now when private media companies want to self police their content and keep the crazy trains off they shout regulate ! Regulate !
So what if the most popular social media platforms are left leaning. Why is that? Could it be that the vast majority of people like it that way ? I see no reason whatsoever they need to be balanced. Please, feel free to leave.
Newspapers since their inception have had biases. Why aren’t we clamoring for the right wing media to give the other side equal voice ?
It’s like the dopers demanding to be allowed to sit at the cool kids‘ table. Screw it, the wackos can go sit by themselves.
I done, someone else can have the last word.
Ahahaha, just ran across this article.
Quotes : (subscription only, sorry no link)
Last week, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) issued a warning on the third-highest rated program on cable news.
“We have got to stand up and say ‘no’ to the mob,” Hawley told Fox News host Sean Hannity on Jan. 25. “Because if we don’t — if we don’t, then conservatives all across this country will be unable to speak, they’ll be unable to do business, they’ll be unable to be heard.”
Hawley’s warning came as he spoke to more than 3.1 million viewers.
On Jan. 10, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) bemoaned the power of tech companies to “wipe you out” as he spoke to more than 1.9 million viewers.
On Jan. 11, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) told Hannity that he was “concerned” about the First Amendment as he addressed more than 2.6 million viewers.
On Jan. 14, Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) told Hannity that he did not lose his legs serving in the Army so that companies could “silence whoever the hell you want” as he addressed nearly 3 million viewers.
And on Jan. 20, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) told Hannity that Democrats want to “cancel us from the public square altogether” as he addressed more than 3.1 million viewers.
Hawley, who appeared last month on the cover of the fourth-biggest U.S. newspaper by print circulation to claim he was being muzzled, just had his most successful fundraising month ever.
Childish tantrums. But hey, send them your money folks.
You were done before you started. Thanks for admitting it finally. Better late than never.
The vast majority don't like that social media platforms are engaging in biased left wing censorship. But this became a phenomena only after they'd established what are essentially monopolies. And when other platforms begin to take root, they are shut down. "Because they are dangerous" for alowing right wing speech that is the mirror image of left wing speech permitted on the left wing media.
BTW, even Newspapers are liable for upholding standards, in spite of the 1st amendment. I know you'll be supportive of any legal action taken for liailities these platforms are likely to face sooner or later. It's a litigious society after all.
The insincere, conspiracy theory believing, idiotic, dangerous, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic bitch Rep. Greene apologized in the House today. She’s such a joke. People like her are ruining the GOP. Wtf is going on in this country? She needs to be voted out in 2022.
well atleast Larry is willing {I think} to leave it to the voters///maybe, how knows but lately he seems to be quite sure of who can have opinions and who cannot.
WxFollower,I agree with your last comment. I also believe she is insincere.
As you know, I do pay attention to news (not conspiracy theories) presented by far right sites, to balance news coming from the other side... but I have never been to QAnon, and don't plan to do so in the future (even inforwars.com has spoken quite negatively of them for a long time)
I agree, Greene, is not a proper person to be in Congress.... but then, I could name a few other individuals who should be removed immediately.
I assume that the voters will make that call, when the time comes.
McFarmer, Nice edit long after the fact. So much for being "done".. But thats OK. I already knew what you meant by "Done".
Using anecdotal episodes of individual politicians you don't like or who's ideas you feel are just too dangerous to hear really has little/no bearing on the current debate. If I have to explain what the current debate is again, I'll be happy to.
many politicians lie for a living.
when their lies line up with our agenda/belief system..........they are good
when their lies dont affect our agenda/belief system........they are ok
when their lies offend our belief system, they outrage us!!