Jump to content

Censorship


Farmer Brown

Recommended Posts

This is an honest question. Do you all see the ban of conservatives, from social media platforms, as the restricting of free speech. Good ole Tim Cook, is part of it also. Apple, Google, Twitter, Facebook, are all complicit in censorship. Whether we agree or not, I wouldn't restrict your right of expression, and freedom of speech, for a minute. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 245
  • Created
  • Last Reply
7 minutes ago, Farmer Brown said:

This is an honest question. Do you all see the ban of conservatives, from social media platforms, as the restricting of free speech. Good ole Tim Cook, is part of it also. Apple, Google, Twitter, Facebook, are all complicit in censorship. Whether we agree or not, I wouldn't restrict your right of expression, and freedom of speech, for a minute. 

If I were encouraging people to take physical action against the government based on a huge pack of lies, I would absolutely expect you to take away my platform. 

Two notes: 1) Private companies refusing to sanction the operation of these platforms in no way violates the First Amendment. The First Amendment applies to government restriction of free speech, 2) Even the First Amendment has limits. Promotion of illegal activity is not covered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Leftfield said:

Two notes: 1) Private companies refusing to sanction the operation of these platforms in no way violates the First Amendment. The First Amendment applies to government restriction of free speech, 2) Even the First Amendment has limits. Promotion of illegal activity is not covered.

This ^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then these platforms shouldn't have the protection that they do. Also, Trump didn't tell those people to storm the capitol. You are a little misinformed on that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Farmer Brown said:

Then these platforms shouldn't have the protection that they do. Also, Trump didn't tell those people to storm the capitol. You are a little misinformed on that. 

The only protection they are afforded is that they can't be held liable for something a random poster puts up on a Twitter, Facebook, etc.  That's it.

As a user, you agree to the terms of service.  Don't abide by them and you can get shut down.  This is no different than a restaurant refusing service.

Republicans, conservatives, POTUS, etc can all still freely express their opinions and ideas in this country.  There plenty of public airwaves that have to allow for equal time by law.  But there is zero requirement that a private company has to let them do it on their platform.

It's amazing to me how many love to talk about free enterprise and then, when it affects something they don't like, want the government to reign it in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Farmer Brown said:

They shouldn't have section 230 protections, if they are private, if I understand that correctly. 

See above.  You don't understand 230.  Repealing 230 would actually offer more restrictions on speech via social media because the companies aren't going to take the risk of being sued for something a random person says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Farmer Brown said:

Also, Trump didn't tell those people to storm the capitol. You are a little misinformed on that. 

So you're going to go the route of amateur lawyer on this, saying he never actually told them to attack, right? 

If you dismiss his actions and rhetoric that led to those people's actions as having no effect, then I believe we're going to disagree on a great number of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Farmer Brown said:

This is an honest question. Do you all see the ban of conservatives, from social media platforms, as the restricting of free speech. Good ole Tim Cook, is part of it also. Apple, Google, Twitter, Facebook, are all complicit in censorship. Whether we agree or not, I wouldn't restrict your right of expression, and freedom of speech, for a minute. 

Here's a piece that discusses how social media is critical to organizing a national fascist movement:

https://www.vox.com/2021/1/9/22220716/antifa-capitol-storming-far-right-trump-biden-election-stop-the-steal-hawley-cruz

But to respond directly, it's not censorship by definition as we are talking about private companies instead of the government.

Accordingly, I would call it "patriotic" of them to restrict such content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Farmer Brown said:

Then these platforms shouldn't have the protection that they do. Also, Trump didn't tell those people to storm the capitol. You are a little misinformed on that. 

The first amendment? 

Got dang has the right lost its way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Farmer Brown said:

Then these platforms shouldn't have the protection that they do. Also, Trump didn't tell those people to storm the capitol. You are a little misinformed on that

You are absolutely wrong. 

I am sure the clip of Trump's speech is available on youtube.

Plus, if you go to the link I provided above, you will not that a great many of the MAGA rioters are upset because they understood what Trump told them to do.  Now they are pissed that Trump seems to be backing off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AUDub said:

The first amendment? 

Got dang has the right lost its way. 

I have never seen people who are so confused.:no: 

Apparently, cognitive dissonance is a requirement to join the MAGAs as a rank and file member.

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Farmer Brown said:

This is an honest question. Do you all see the ban of conservatives, from social media platforms, as the restricting of free speech. Good ole Tim Cook, is part of it also. Apple, Google, Twitter, Facebook, are all complicit in censorship. Whether we agree or not, I wouldn't restrict your right of expression, and freedom of speech, for a minute. 

No.

You do not have an intrinsic right to someone else's platform when you incite and directly call for violence and murder of your opposition or those you deem disloyal.  No private company owes you a stage and a bullhorn to broadcast such things.  If you wish to stand in the road and say things I don't like, that's your right.  But if you're in my living room and you say those same things, I'm well within my rights to escort you out the front door and you have not been censored.

The internet is a big place.  Set up your own website and attract your own followers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Farmer Brown said:

They shouldn't have section 230 protections, if they are private, if I understand that correctly. 

What's really stupid about this argument is that Twitter, Facebook and the like are actually doing it right under Section 230 protections.  Even though they can't be held liable for things you say on the platform, they see it as their responsibility to not allow you to use the platform to incite violence and call for the murder of public figures and when they are made aware of it, they take it down and ban the accounts that post it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is ample evidence on twitter, where others from the other side of the political spectrum, are allowed to do these very things, yet, they aren't restricted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Farmer Brown said:

There is ample evidence on twitter, where others from the other side of the political spectrum, are allowed to do these very things, yet, they aren't restricted. 

The right gets away with it with aplomb too. Hell, we owe the spread of QAnon to big tech. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Farmer Brown said:

There is ample evidence on twitter, where others from the other side of the political spectrum, are allowed to do these very things, yet, they aren't restricted. 

There's also ample evidence on Twitter of them at least trying to curtail such activity - but they are not omniscient and people on the Left have complained for years about the abuse from alt-right folks that goes on there.  Kathy Griffin recently reposted that photo her her with the severed head of Trump.  Twitter suspended and locked her account until she deleted the offending content.  She deleted and eventually they reinstated her.  That's how it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, AUDub said:

The right gets away with it with aplomb too. Hell, we owe the spread of QAnon to big tech. 

Exactly.  If Facebook and Twitter were so good at shutting down right-wing speech, QAnon never would have spread beyond weirdo sites like 8Chan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

It's amazing to me how many love to talk about free enterprise and then, when it affects something they don't like, want the government to reign it in.

The irony is how folks on the left will (on a dime mind you) turn into absolute free market capitalists the moment big tech censorship is brought up. “It’s a private company! If you don’t like it, make your own platform.” However, a few years ago they were screaming “bake the ******* cake!!” 

 

The hypocrisy is quite amusing. Twitter can engage in censorship all it wants, but to act like there isn’t a double standard and a huge left wing bias in Silicon Valley is just ignoring reality. 
 

The question you have to ask yourself (and answer honestly as difficult as that may be) is, would you have no reaction at if someone on the left was banned from social media simply for expressing an opinion? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, woodford said:

The question you have to ask yourself (and answer honestly as difficult as that may be) is, would you have no reaction at if someone on the left was banned from social media simply for expressing an opinion? 

This is disingenuous. We're not talking about being banned for expressing opinion, as I'm sure these platforms are not. We're talking about people spouting misinformation (some deliberately), presenting conspiracy theories as fact, using violent rhetoric and promoting unlawful acts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

This is disingenuous. We're not talking about being banned for expressing opinion, as I'm sure these platforms are not. We're talking about people spouting misinformation (some deliberately), presenting conspiracy theories as fact, using violent rhetoric and promoting unlawful acts. 

That’s all very vague and could be interpreted a number of ways. This boils down to “if I don’t agree with it, it shouldn’t be expressed” lmao 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, woodford said:

That’s all very vague and could be interpreted a number of ways. This boils down to “if I don’t agree with it, it shouldn’t be expressed” lmao 

Not really. The proper way to phrase this is "if it could harm our business, we don't want to host it."

Twitter and the like are not utilities.

For a free speech warrior, you sure are a dumbass. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, woodford said:

That’s all very vague and could be interpreted a number of ways. This boils down to “if I don’t agree with it, it shouldn’t be expressed” lmao 

In what way is that vague?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, woodford said:

The irony is how folks on the left will (on a dime mind you) turn into absolute free market capitalists the moment big tech censorship is brought up. “It’s a private company! If you don’t like it, make your own platform.” However, a few years ago they were screaming “bake the ******* cake!!” 

I defy you to do a search of my name on this forum with the word cake in the field. 

I think you're an ignoramus. 

36 minutes ago, woodford said:

The hypocrisy is quite amusing. Twitter can engage in censorship all it wants, but to act like there isn’t a double standard and a huge left wing bias in Silicon Valley is just ignoring reality. 

They're about money. Hell they practically pulled teeth to keep Trump on the platform in light of numerous TOS violations.

37 minutes ago, woodford said:

The question you have to ask yourself (and answer honestly as difficult as that may be) is, would you have no reaction at if someone on the left was banned from social media simply for expressing an opinion? 

Depends on the opinions being expressed. 

Once again, you are an ignoramus. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, woodford said:

This boils down to “if I don’t agree with it, it shouldn’t be expressed” lmao 

Good to know the party you're supporting is all about free expression:

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-john-mccain-arizona-phoenix-cindy-mccain-76bf32f57a0b7169d1fbc312a8929e65

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...