ISP censorship

[Cow Poke]

1) It's none of Apple or Google's business how another business operates. They should worry about themselves.
2) "lies, racism, misogyny, homophobia" are some of the uglier parts of free speech. You can't just have the niceties in this world
3) Nobody is shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater, besides being an overused and false example

"Fire in a crowded theater" is such a DUMB attempt at analogy. Whether or not there is actually a fire is very binary - either there is or there isn't, and the person who yells it either honest believes there is, or he's making it up to create panic. Further, the "crowded theater" is an actual physical condition, not a generic 'situation'.

[kccd]

1) It's none of Apple or Google's business how another business operates. They should worry about themselves.
2) "lies, racism, misogyny, homophobia" are some of the uglier parts of free speech. You can't just have the niceties in this world
3) Nobody is shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater, besides being an overused and false example

If Apple and Google are hosting other sites in their App stores, they have a right to insist that those sites follow the general rules. After all, a pharmacy is not obligated to offer for sale snake oil from a shady company.

The uglier types of speech can result in ugly and dangerous behavior, as we witnessed at the Capitol last week, and in countless attacks over the past years against Asians, Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks, trans-people, etc. Such language can also be seen as legitimizing hatred against other people, and propagating lies without corrections can get people to believe falsehoods that could endanger them, like claims that vaccines are dangerous or that masks are just a political statement with no health benefit. If you think it is wrong to block offensive and ugly speech, why are you here, where moderation prevents that kind of language?

I used the "fire" analogy because it is a common way of stating that some speech is just not covered by the right to free speech. And besides, the Constitutional right to free speech only obligates the government.

[Cow Poke]

If Apple and Google are hosting other sites in their App stores, they have a right to insist that those sites follow the general rules. After all, a pharmacy is not obligated to offer for sale snake oil from a shady company.

The uglier types of speech can result in ugly and dangerous behavior, as we witnessed at the Capitol last week, and in countless attacks over the past years against Asians, Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks, trans-people, etc. Such language can also be seen as legitimizing hatred against other people, and propagating lies without corrections can get people to believe falsehoods that could endanger them, like claims that vaccines are dangerous or that masks are just a political statement with no health benefit. If you think it is wrong to block offensive and ugly speech, why are you here, where moderation prevents that kind of language?

I used the "fire" analogy because it is a common way of stating that some speech is just not covered by the right to free speech. And besides, the Constitutional right to free speech only obligates the government.

The "fire" analogy is a very specific exception for a reason -- it is WAY overused.

[Ronson]

If Apple and Google are hosting other sites in their App stores, they have a right to insist that those sites follow the general rules. After all, a pharmacy is not obligated to offer for sale snake oil from a shady company.

What "general rules" are you talking about? There aren't any "general rules."

Apple and Google do not make rules for other companies.

The uglier types of speech can result in ugly and dangerous behavior, as we witnessed at the Capitol last week, and in countless attacks over the past years against Asians, Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks, trans-people, etc. Such language can also be seen as legitimizing hatred against other people, and propagating lies without corrections can get people to believe falsehoods that could endanger them, like claims that vaccines are dangerous or that masks are just a political statement with no health benefit. If you think it is wrong to block offensive and ugly speech, why are you here, where moderation prevents that kind of language?

What you are saying is that you want to curtail free speech. Not surprising, that's what all leftists want. Leftism is the enemy of liberty.

I used the "fire" analogy because it is a common way of stating that some speech is just not covered by the right to free speech. And besides, the Constitutional right to free speech only obligates the government.

The fire analogy is flatly false. If a theater is on fire then it is perfectly appropriate to shout "fire." And if it isn't on fire and nobody pays attention to the person yelling, no law has been broken.

[Cow Poke]

The fire analogy is flatly false. If a theater is on fire then it is perfectly appropriate to shout "fire." And if it isn't on fire and nobody pays attention to the person yelling, no law has been broken.

The danger, and it's very specific, is that people will panic and all try to come out the same entrance they came in -- causing hysteria and possible multiple injuries, people getting trampled to death, etc... It's a very specific exception because it's a pretty unique situation.... a group of people in a dark room with very limited ingress or egress, needlessly caused to panic.

[Ronson]

The danger, and it's very specific, is that people will panic and all try to come out the same entrance they came in -- causing hysteria and possible multiple injuries, people getting trampled to death, etc... It's a very specific exception because it's a pretty unique situation.... a group of people in a dark room with very limited ingress or egress, needlessly caused to panic.

But that would have to be the result, injury or death or destruction. So the crime isn't "shouting fire in a crowded theater" - but would be more like inciting a riot.

[Cow Poke]

But that would have to be the result, injury or death or destruction. So the crime isn't "shouting fire in a crowded theater" - but would be more like inciting a riot.

But the reasonably expected result is the very reason that it's not acceptable to "yell fire in a crowded theater" when there is no fire -- a very specific situation.

"Inciting a riot" is much more difficult to nail down and prove. It is not the same as "yelling fire in a crowded theater" when there is no fire.

[Ronson]

But the reasonably expected result is the very reason that it's not acceptable to "yell fire in a crowded theater" when there is no fire -- a very specific situation.

"Inciting a riot" is much more difficult to nail down and prove. It is not the same as "yelling fire in a crowded theater" when there is no fire.

IIRC, the original SCOTUS case where it was used as an example was later overturned. So I don't know where it stands today.

[Cow Poke]

IIRC, the original SCOTUS case where it was used as an example was later overturned. So I don't know where it stands today.

Interesting -- I'll check on that, because it comes up quite frequently, usually used where it really doesn't apply at all.

[LeaC]

1) It's none of Apple or Google's business how another business operates. They should worry about themselves.
2) "lies, racism, misogyny, homophobia" are some of the uglier parts of free speech. You can't just have the niceties in this world
3) Nobody is shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater, besides being an overused and false example

It's all a troubling development, but not unexpected. The move to call some speech hate speech and then to declare speech can also be violence has had predictable results. The left doesn't care about free speech anymore, let's be clear about this. I'm a leftist. If someone tells me X offends them, I'll avoid saying X, if the demand is not unreasonable. At least, I'll avoid saying it around them. But if lies, racism, misogyny, and homophobia were at the issue of Apple and Google's problem with Parler, then Twitter, Reddit, and Facebook would have been banned 1000 times over already.

But I believe Tech is controlling Democrats, not the other way around. It's not just conservatives that are being banned. It's also leftists like myself that don't agree with the popular narrative. The result is that only one, very narrowly framed left position is allowed to be heard, determined at the behest of our Oligarchic rulers. News that doesn't fit the narrative is also censored, even from mainstream sources. This pushes the media to only cover stories that are Twitter approved. This then convinces leftists that these are the only stories that matter, and the only side of the story. This also pushes Democrats in congress further and further into this narrow range of allowable ideas... it's a mess. We don't have free speech, media, and thus also, no democratic elections. Not because of voter fraud necessarily(some did exist, I'm not sure if it was enough to change the result) - that doesn't even matter. The people are too willfully and deliberately misinformed to make reasonable decisions about candidates.

I still think it can be fixed, but only if Google, Apple, and Amazon are taken out or reformed.

[Maranatha]

It's all a troubling development, but not unexpected. The move to call some speech hate speech and then to declare speech can also be violence has had predictable results. The left doesn't care about free speech anymore, let's be clear about this. I'm a leftist. If someone tells me X offends them, I'll avoid saying X, if the demand is not unreasonable. At least, I'll avoid saying it around them. But if lies, racism, misogyny, and homophobia were at the issue of Apple and Google's problem with Parler, then Twitter, Reddit, and Facebook would have been banned 1000 times over already.

But I believe Tech is controlling Democrats, not the other way around. It's not just conservatives that are being banned. It's also leftists like myself that don't agree with the popular narrative. The result is that only one, very narrowly framed left position is allowed to be heard, determined at the behest of our Oligarchic rulers. News that doesn't fit the narrative is also censored, even from mainstream sources. This pushes the media to only cover stories that are Twitter approved. This then convinces leftists that these are the only stories that matter, and the only side of the story. This also pushes Democrats in congress further and further into this narrow range of allowable ideas... it's a mess. We don't have free speech, media, and thus also, no democratic elections. Not because of voter fraud necessarily(some did exist, I'm not sure if it was enough to change the result) - that doesn't even matter. The people are too willfully and deliberately misinformed to make reasonable decisions about candidates.

I still think it can be fixed, but only if Google, Apple, and Amazon are taken out or reformed.

Nice analysis.

I also believe it is the media arranging the new social engineering. I don't see the democrats trying to stop it, they are encouraging it full throttle. Seizing the day, not letting their hyperbole crisis go to waste.

[LeaC]

Nice analysis.

I also believe it is the media arranging the new social engineering. I don't see the democrats trying to stop it, they are encouraging it full throttle. Seizing the day, not letting their hyperbole crisis go to waste.

I'm not entirely sure if the origins are the media, or the tech companies. It's become an ouboros and it's hard to say at this point. But absolutely the democrats won't stop it, it serves to keep getting them elected and solidifying their power. I think it's short-sighted, though. Either the tech companies will be dethroned and they'll lose power, or the tech companies will take over completely and render the party as little more than mouth pieces for whatever insane policies they come up with. Regardless, I'm never voting for them again. I suspect there's many current dems who feel the same way. There's a lot I disagree with the conservatives about, but when I really prioritize rights - freedom of speech is one I'm never willing to give up. And until the past two weeks, I didn't realize how bad it had gotten.

[Sparko]

You make it sound like Parler was banned because they are a conservative site. The fact is that Parler had become popular because it allowed posts with outright lies, racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc. and so it was banned because disseminating such things encourages more of the same, and gets people to believe irrational falsehoods. These types of postings are not conservative, they are radical and destructive. And Amazon and Twitter and Facebook have the right and responsibility to not allow people to use their sites to shout fire in a crowded theater.

You realize that twitter and facebook allow the same things right? Antifa and ISIS have used twitter to plan violence, and spread hate. The Ayatollah has a twitter account where he posts antisemetic trash.

[Maranatha]

I'm not entirely sure if the origins are the media, or the tech companies. It's become an ouboros and it's hard to say at this point. But absolutely the democrats won't stop it, it serves to keep getting them elected and solidifying their power. I think it's short-sighted, though. Either the tech companies will be dethroned and they'll lose power, or the tech companies will take over completely and render the party as little more than mouth pieces for whatever insane policies they come up with. Regardless, I'm never voting for them again. I suspect there's many current dems who feel the same way. There's a lot I disagree with the conservatives about, but when I really prioritize rights - freedom of speech is one I'm never willing to give up. And until the past two weeks, I didn't realize how bad it had gotten.

CNN is a clear example of one man controlling a media empire to his bias. Seems to me the democrats are far more powerful than the media, yet the media are the ones who control the narrative and can attack any politician it wants, or ignore what it doesn't like.

A good case in point is the oft repeated phrase "there is no evidence of voter fraud in the election." On its face it is ridiculous to me. And then you point out there has indeed been proven voter fraud, and they keep repeating the phrase over and over. As if their fingers are in their ears. We can't determine whether it could have effected the outcome without dealing with the problem honestly. The determination of whether it effected was fought against every step of the way.

I strongly agree, free speech needs protected. Without the free exchange of facts and knowledge, we are doomed to the Cortez's of this world, who I suspect would do more than just censor more than half the country.

Free speech means the gospel can be preached, the scriptures in their full strength. Truth can be told, whether from God or any subject. People can choose to not believe things, but it cannot be allowed to be censored and canceled, like china.

They are even trying to cancel dissenting opinion among themselves, calling for ouster of conservative politicians who supported Trump through the chaos that was the election. That's straight up commie. They can't let their hatred for Trump ruin everything.

Of course the scriptures tell us who is in charge down here. Just like God, the devil also works through people. Shadowy and public billionaires run everything. Their influence is the power. Or they build it from scratch, like Soros seeding attorney general's around the country.

[Sherman]

The whole "political correctness" thing came back to bite the liberals in the butt, along with Me Too, and Cancel Culture --- And just recently, Pelosi violated her own gender ban.

Much of the public is getting tired of the PC cancel culture. And the libs are the worst hypocrites in this regard.