ISP censorship

[Sparko]

It's amazing how fast it went from having "safe places" to avoid being triggered by views they don't like to going on the offensive and doxing and canceling anyone who holds a view they don't like.

[Cow Poke]

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

I actually think it was one of the things Trump was actually good at --- the simple "Merry Christmas" was a winner for me... I was getting so tired of the forced "happy holidays".

[Cow Poke]

It's amazing how fast it went from having "safe places" to avoid being triggered by views they don't like to going on the offensive and doxing and canceling anyone who holds a view they don't like.

Which was what prompted my "inside every liberal" thread, allowing, of course, for the fact that not ALL liberals are like that, but it sure seems that the ones who are in charge in politics are!

[Sparko]

Which was what prompted my "inside every liberal" thread, allowing, of course, for the fact that not ALL liberals are like that, but it sure seems that the ones who are in charge in politics are!

The idiots in congress just pander to the loudest voices. They constantly try to virtue signal how woke they are, no matter how ridiculous the effort is. Like banning gender from congress. As soon as the voices change, so do they. After a summer of "defund the police" coming from congress, they are all "law & order"

[kccd]

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

Maybe it is "overused", because it clearly and understandably makes the specific point that some speech is dangerous and should be restricted.

[kccd]

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

Apple and Google do not make rules for other companies.



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.



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.

I am not advocating for restrictions on free speech when it comes to voicing opinions on, say, political issues.

I do think that there are justifications for restricting fact-free speech that claims that drinking arsenic will cure diabetes, or that hydroxychloroquine cures covid, or that safety measures like mask wearing are communist plots, or that this POTUS election was stolen and people need to seek a second amendment solution. Such posts should be flagged and and the people posting them warned and blocked if they refuse to stop those false and dangerous claims.

The problem is that when people are shouting fire and there is none, there will always be people who believe the claim and then engage in dangerous behavior.

[Sparko]

I am not advocating for restrictions on free speech when it comes to voicing opinions on, say, political issues.

I do think that there are justifications for restricting fact-free speech that claims that drinking arsenic will cure diabetes, or that hydroxychloroquine cures covid, or that safety measures like mask wearing are communist plots, or that this POTUS election was stolen and people need to seek a second amendment solution. Such posts should be flagged and and the people posting them warned and blocked if they refuse to stop those false and dangerous claims.

The problem is that when people are shouting fire and there is none, there will always be people who believe the claim and then engage in dangerous behavior.

I agree when it comes to advocating violence or deadly actions of any sort. But not just ideas like "the election was stolen" - that is a matter of opinion. There was enough fishy stuff going on during the election in the eyes of conservatives to warrant a closer look. The democrats did the same thing in the last election. I draw the line at rioting and looting, or attacking government buildings and people, no matter if it is the left or the rightwingers.

What I see now on facebook is that even mentioning that the election was stolen or rigged is being banned. That is wrong.

[Ronson]

I am not advocating for restrictions on free speech when it comes to voicing opinions on, say, political issues.

That is an incredibly narrow allowance, and not always clearly identifiable.

I do think that there are justifications for restricting fact-free speech that claims that drinking arsenic will cure diabetes, or that hydroxychloroquine cures covid, or that safety measures like mask wearing are communist plots, or that this POTUS election was stolen and people need to seek a second amendment solution. Such posts should be flagged and and the people posting them warned and blocked if they refuse to stop those false and dangerous claims.

And by what measure do you decide truth from lies? And are the "lies" deliberate or honest mistakes? And why would you want to allow billionaires to make these decisions for you, what you can hear or not hear, and crushing competitors that disagree with them?

The problem is that when people are shouting fire and there is none, there will always be people who believe the claim and then engage in dangerous behavior.

Incitement to violence is a crime. You don't need to split hairs beyond that and strangling the First Amendment.

[Cow Poke]

Maybe it is "overused", because it clearly and understandably makes the specific point that some speech is dangerous and should be restricted.

No, it does not --- it makes the point that VERY SPECIFIC speech CAN be dangerous in very SPECIFIC circumstances. Those who hide behind this try to use this to justify all kinds of other censorship.

[Psychic Missile]

I don't know exactly. It would need to be explored.

Then why be against something if you're unable to offer an alternative?

The latter. As with Parler, companies are saying that they don't like how they run their company so they are banning them from their store shelves. If it was one or two instances it wouldn't be as big a deal, but it appears to be a concerted effort to crush upstart companies.

How do you differentiate between companies each individually deciding not to host content for liability, optics, offensiveness, etc. and companies conspiring to prevent competition?

[LeaC]

Then why be against something if you're unable to offer an alternative?



How do you differentiate between companies each individually deciding not to host content for liability, optics, offensiveness, etc. and companies conspiring to prevent competition?

I would say, by not claiming responsibility for content hosted by clients. If Twitter or Facebook isn't responsible for the threats or calls to violence that aren't taken down from their site, then neither is Amazon or Google or Apple. And neither is Parler. Prosecute them for hosting illegal content, but have the courts making the decisions about it. This whole idea of "optics" needs to die. Let companies provide their services and run their own business.

[Ronson]

Then why be against something if you're unable to offer an alternative?

Wow. Seriously?

[Ronson]

I would say, by not claiming responsibility for content hosted by clients.

I used to see that disclaimer quite often on PBS, where it would pick up documentaries from all over the English-speaking world and air them, and not taking responsibility for their content.

If Twitter or Facebook isn't responsible for the threats or calls to violence that aren't taken down from their site, then neither is Amazon or Google or Apple. And neither is Parler. Prosecute them for hosting illegal content, but have the courts making the decisions about it. This whole idea of "optics" needs to die. Let companies provide their services and run their own business.

Agreed. But since the actions of these Big Tech companies aren't really about protecting themselves legally, we know it is more about supporting and squelching opinion they do not like.

[LeaC]

Agreed. But since the actions of these Big Tech companies aren't really about protecting themselves legally, we know it is more about supporting and squelching opinion they do not like.

Completely agree. I think at this point some decentralized solution is better. IE, creators having complete control of their own content via blockchains. But I haven't looked too much into it yet.

[Psychic Missile]

Wow. Seriously?

What you're essentially arguing for is regulation preventing companies from acting in their own interest for the sake of preserving financial and legal liability because conservative investors aren't interested in backing alternatives. It's very heavy handed and completely opposed to libertarian ideology, and if you aren't able to even offer a solution, you come across, at least to me, as having had an emotional, knee-jerk reaction and immediately, without thinking it through, wanting a solution solely to appease self-interest.