Censorship

[GoAU 1,600]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

No, I am describing the motivation of people like Cruz and Hawley  to double down on Trumpism. 

If you want to know the percentage of those 70 million who proscribe to the lie the election was stolen, go back to the article I linked. 

And based on your profiling of the BLM, you have no standing to accuse others of "profiling".  There's statistics on the BLM protests also.  There were thousands of them across the country and they including a lot of white people.

At what point did I associate ANYTHING about race into the riots surrounding the BLM protests??  Either you are trying do hard to see something that isn’t there or you are trying to intentionally fabricate lies to lend credence to your arguments. I never said a word about the race of those who protested on those riots because it is completely irrelevant.  There were people of all sorts involved in both the protests and the riots.  I also brought up CHAZ / CHOP which was also a diverse group of idiots.  
 

Please don’t resort to trying to label me as a racist - it couldn’t be further from the truth, and it’s a disingenuous way to try and score “points” in a “discussion” like this.  

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

Yeah, and we've never had a problem with Facism. 

And it's completely insane that you would write off  an insurrection on our government - a direct attack on or constitution - and compare it to black (and white) people demonstrating because of police brutality based on race (there's statistics on that also).

For someone who is either current or ex-military, such reasoning is disturbing.  But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.  No doubt there were a lot of ex-military in the mob who assaulted our capitol - as well as a few active duty cops.

Don't you guys swear an oath to protect the constitution and defend our country from enemies both external and internal?

Facism?   This is another tired label that the left attempts to assign to people that disagree with their viewpoint.  What specifically has the Trump administration done to promote facism?   Although he openly disagreed with the biased main stream media, he never took action to suppress or limit the media.   He never took actions to acquire additional power - heck, he endured the BS SHAM of a nearly never ending empeachment trial of a dossier paid for by a political rival and fraudulent FISA warrants.  Facism also usually involves racism or nationalism - any examples or racial discrimination or persecution put in place by Trump or his administration?   There were people of all types that benefited by one of the strongest economies the nation has seen.  If he was trying to suppress minorities, he failed miserably on that front.  
 

Given the amount of criticism he faced on a daily basis for 4 years,  he sure didn’t do a very good job of suppressing dissent - for that matter, other than returning criticism, he didn’t try to stifle anyone at all.  
 

As for your comments about an “insurrection” I think you are really stretching and parroting the liberal talking points.  First, I’ve never “written off” what they did - they should be prosecuted.  Secondly, it would take a lot more than a small number of idiots storming the Capital to be an insurrection.   It’s not like they secured several blocks of a metropolitan area and announced their intent to form an “autonomous zone”, right?  
 

Free speech should never be distributing, but you and other liberals like you seem to be intimidated by free thought or speech.  You want others to limit both to what liberals declare as acceptable.  
 

And for your final question, yes I absolutely swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies - foreign and domestic.   Based on my experience, I’m not so sure we’d agree as to which party is the bigger enemy of the Constitution. 

 

[homersapien 11,373]

6 hours ago, GoAU said:

At what point did I associate ANYTHING about race into the riots surrounding the BLM protests??  Either you are trying do hard to see something that isn’t there or you are trying to intentionally fabricate lies to lend credence to your arguments. I never said a word about the race of those who protested on those riots because it is completely irrelevant.  There were people of all sorts involved in both the protests and the riots.  I also brought up CHAZ / CHOP which was also a diverse group of idiots.  

Yeah right, It's called BLACK LIVES matter.  You talk of them as if they are a terrorist organization.
 

Please don’t resort to trying to label me as a racist - it couldn’t be further from the truth, and it’s a disingenuous way to try and score “points” in a “discussion” like this.

BS, You are defending white nationalism starting with Trump.

Facism?   This is another tired label that the left attempts to assign to people that disagree with their viewpoint.  What specifically has the Trump administration done to promote facism?   Although he openly disagreed with the biased main stream media, he never took action to suppress or limit the media.   He never took actions to acquire additional power - heck, he endured the BS SHAM of a nearly never ending empeachment trial of a dossier paid for by a political rival and fraudulent FISA warrants.  Facism also usually involves racism or nationalism - any examples or racial discrimination or persecution put in place by Trump or his administration?   There were people of all types that benefited by one of the strongest economies the nation has seen.  If he was trying to suppress minorities, he failed miserably on that front.  

You need to study up on fascism. You are disturbingly ignorant.  This was a classic fascist -like effort to take over the presidency, after he lost the vote  The white nationalism is also very fascist.  I suggest you start with "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer.  It's pretty comprehensive.

And really Trump hasn't promoted white nationalism.  That's the basis of his campaign from the beginning.

If if you find it too tenuous to work through the Rise and Fall... at least check out some essays, many by experts on the matter:

Senior Trump Official: We Were Wrong, He’s a ‘Fascist’

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/01/capitol-riot-senior-trump-official-calls-him-a-fascist.html 

Fascism Scholar: Strongman Trump Radicalized His Supporters; Turning This Back Will Be Very Hard

https://www.democracynow.org/2021/1/11/trump_impeachment_pelosi_pence

 

I've Hesitated to Call Donald Trump a Fascist. Until Now | Opinion

https://www.newsweek.com/robert-paxton-trump-fascist-1560652

When it comes to Trump supporters’ fascism, America cannot afford appeasement

https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/article248371475.html

How fascist is Donald Trump? There’s actually a formula for that.

Grading the billionaire on the 11 attributes of fascism.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/10/21/how-fascist-is-donald-trump-theres-actually-a-formula-for-that/

Just How Dangerous Was Donald Trump?

He failed to bend the state to his will, but he still broke the country.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/14/opinion/trump-fascism.html

Expert compares Trump's politics to fascism

https://www.cnn.com/videos/media/2020/08/30/compares-trump-politics-to-fascism-rs-stelter-vpx.cnn

The American Abyss

A historian of fascism and political atrocity on Trump, the mob and what comes next.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/magazine/trump-coup.html

The Fascism this Time: and the Global Future of Democracy  (book review)

https://www.amazon.com/Fascism-this-Time-Global-Democracy/dp/0578732939/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiArvX_BRCyARIsAKsnTxOGEa4wywiMyXvljPOi6PuxljTwIMkiF9lFqw73b-tqwXPernomg1AaAuyOEALw_wcB&hvadid=409940212294&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9010472&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=11841794244672996689&hvtargid=kwd-409343267224&hydadcr=20555_11116603&keywords=trump+fascism&qid=1610439885&sr=8-2&tag=googhydr-20

It Happened Here

Trump’s movement is a uniquely American fascism, built on a century of American imperialism.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/09/capitol-riot-united-states-imperialism-trump/

Bear in mind that I am using the term Fascist in the sense of ideology.  I am NOT comparing him directly to Hitler or Mussolini.  Trump was too incompetent to actually succeed in taking power.

 

 

 

6 hours ago, GoAU said:

 

The impeachment trial was a sham.  Trump was at least guilty of obstruction of justice, and everyone KNOWS he offered the Ukrainian president a quid pro quo to dig up dirt on Biden.  But, you're the one who also insists Trump never incited a mob to commit sedition, so maybe you're in denial about that also.
 

Given the amount of criticism he faced on a daily basis for 4 years,  he sure didn’t do a very good job of suppressing dissent - for that matter, other than returning criticism, he didn’t try to stifle anyone at all.  
 

As for your comments about an “insurrection” I think you are really stretching and parroting the liberal talking points.  First, I’ve never “written off” what they did - they should be prosecuted.  Secondly, it would take a lot more than a small number of idiots storming the Capital to be an insurrection.   It’s not like they secured several blocks of a metropolitan area and announced their intent to form an “autonomous zone”, right?  

I don't know what YOUR definition of insurrection is, but storming the capitol with professed intentions of hanging the vice president and the speaker of the house seem to qualify to me.
 

Free speech should never be distributing, but you and other liberals like you seem to be intimidated by free thought or speech.  You want others to limit both to what liberals declare as acceptable.  

BS.  Last I heard the government hasn't tried to limit free speech.  Private companies art not obligated to host such (pro Trump) organizations such as Qanon.  If you think the government can FORCE companies to accommodate  such content, we are right back to Fascism- with a little Communism thrown in for good measure.  The constitution - the one you swore to uphold - doesn't allow that.
 

And for your final question, yes I absolutely swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies - foreign and domestic.   Based on my experience, I’m not so sure we’d agree as to which party is the bigger enemy of the Constitution. 

Gee, that's a hard one huh? 

We've got a POTUS who refuses to admit he lost the election, unleashed a seditious mob in an attempt to overturn the results, and most Republicans still support him. 

 

 

 

[GoAU 1,600]

1) I wasn’t the one who named the organization - Black Lives Matter is a name they chose.  I merely used the name of their organization and the results of their activities.   You do the same thing with regards to labeling all conservatives or Trump supporters.   Your hypocrisy is almost comical.  
 

2) I won’t deny having a bias toward nationalism, but it sure isn’t WHITE nationalism.  I am confident we live in (at least for now) the greatest nation on earth and I refuse to apologize for it.  You stereotype as much as any racist does, the only difference is you just base it off something different than melatonin.  
 

3) Ahhh, I get it - now you are saying Trump was a racist only AFTER the election??   You run around spitting out terms like racist and fascist like you get paid royalties for them.   After all, ANTIFA has only been around since November, right?   Must just be an idea...

3) It’s ironic you bring up the Ukrainian “quid pro quo”.  What was Trump going to personally gain in that arrangement? Using leverage to further the good of the nation isn’t quid pro quo in this case, unless he was personally benefitting.   Doing something to benefit our nation doesn’t apply, as that is exactly what he was elected to do.  What exactly is your stance on Biden bragging about withholding aid unless they fire the prosecutor that was investigating his sons company?   That is the exact definition of quid pro quo and he bragged about it on national TV.  Your hypocrisy knows no bounds, does it?  
 

4) You keep baiting me to defend the storming of the Capital and I won’t do it - those people are more than capable of making their own choices and need to face the consequences of that.   Trump never told them to storm that building.  
 

5) Once again, you are putting words into my mouth.   I never said the government had to force companies to say anything. I do feel using the Sherman Anti Trust act as done by Parler over a coordinated effort by Apple, Google and AWS to prevent competition is an interesting approach.  And I will also say that several big companies acting unilaterally to suppress people based on ideological opinions is every bit as wrong as public business refusing to do business with someone over sexual orientation.  
 

6). No matter how many times you say it, I will not defend the mob, as a matter of fact I’m going to ignore it going forward because you are like a broken record.  They made their own choice, it was wrong, and Trump never once incited them to break the law.  As to the assaults on the Constitution - based on Bidens own platform, I would say he’s about to get started.  

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Going back to my questions earlier, I'm still trying to nail down exactly what you're saying here and why you're mad about the actions of these social media companies.

You believe that Twitter (or Facebook or Instagram), can develop a platform, pay for all the coding for all the functionality behind it, pay for all the server space and network redundancy to keep it up and running, pay for all the advertising and marketing to get people to try it and use it, but have no control or ability to moderate what is said on it?  They just have to let anything go because "free speech?"

Or you do agree that they have every right to enforce a Terms of Service agreement and to moderate content on their platform?

 

[GoAU 1,600]

To clarify, are you speaking towards companies such as Twitter banning individual users, or companies like AWS, Apple and Google for targeting entire platforms, such as Parler?

On a similar note, do you believe all business have the ability to pick and choose which customers they do business with?

[aubearcat 2,137]

36 minutes ago, GoAU said:

 

On a similar note, do you believe all business have the ability to pick and choose which customers they do business with?

Yes, within certain parameters. “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service “ and more recently, “Mask Required “. As someone posted earlier, I didn’t think the cake bakery should have been forced to violate their faith views by baking a cake nor should any other company be forced to violate it’s views to satisfy the political views of some. The President is still a sitting President and if he has something he wants/needs to say, he can put out a press release or call a press conference. 

[GoAU 1,600]

Do you feel these decisions to ban the President from Twitter, etc were politically motivated, or were strictly based of inference from his rhetoric?   Do you think the standards are equivalent?   
 

Before people start chiming in about the President should be held to a higher standard - I’m not necessarily disagreeing, but that should be extrapolated to ALL elected officials.  There are plenty of equally inciteful social media posts made by Democratic leaders, yet their accounts have nowhere near the same scrutiny.  
 

im looking forward to similar “Fact Checking” during that guys term - his verbal diarrhea throws out all kind of garbage.   

[aubearcat 2,137]

25 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Do you feel these decisions to ban the President from Twitter, etc were politically motivated, or were strictly based of inference from his rhetoric? 

Politically motivated, yes. Did he justify those motivated moves by being a jackass, yes. It goes back to free market processes. He’s super rich. He should develop his own media platform to express his thoughts. He can do it in conjunction with Newsmax, OAN, or go it alone. I’ve also noticed other right leaning commentators are still on Twitter. James Woods, Candice Owens, Michelle Malkin, Hodge Twins. Politicians Cruz, Klacick,...etc. it’s not as if every dissenting political view from those of the big 3 social media platform owners have been silenced. 

[GoAU 1,600]

57 minutes ago, aubearcat said:

Politically motivated, yes. Did he justify those motivated moves by being a jackass, yes. It goes back to free market processes. He’s super rich. He should develop his own media platform to express his thoughts. He can do it in conjunction with Newsmax, OAN, or go it alone. I’ve also noticed other right leaning commentators are still on Twitter. James Woods, Candice Owens, Michelle Malkin, Hodge Twins. Politicians Cruz, Klacick,...etc. it’s not as if every dissenting political view from those of the big 3 social media platform owners have been silenced. 

So, him being a “Jackass” is enough of a reason to ban?   You are supporting discrimination based on political ideology?   The double standard applied is ridiculous.  
 

CAN they do whatever they want with their business- one can make that case.  SHOULD they - probably not.  But why even pretend to be ethical, right?
 

But that’s one of the many differences between the left and the right.  The conservative side believes in freedom of speech, even if I’m you find it disgraceful, detestable and just wrong.  Flat out calls directly advocating or threatening violence are a criminal act on their own.  The standard is there and is clear.  For example, as detestable as I find it I believe people should have the freedom of expression to burn the flag - a horrific statement, but not illegal. 
 

The liberal side lives to squash or ban the opinions of those they don’t agree with, hide behind innocuous terms such as “hate speech” to justify the gradual but steady erosion of your rights.  And like lemmings off the cliff - the liberal masses just fall right in line.   

[GoAU 1,600]

Ahh yes, time for the daily facepalms and thumbs down comments from Icanthearyou. 
 

you should change your name to Icanttype or Icantformulatethoughtsonmyown.  
 

LOL - troll.

[aubearcat 2,137]

Just now, GoAU said:

So, him being a “Jackass” is enough of a reason to ban?   You are supporting discrimination based on political ideology?   The double standard applied is ridiculous.  
 

CAN they do whatever they want with their business- one can make that case.  SHOULD they - probably not.  But why even pretend to be ethical, right?
 

But that’s one of the many differences between the left and the right.  The conservative side believes in freedom of speech, even if I’m you find it disgraceful, detestable and just wrong.  Flat out calls directly advocating or threatening violence are a criminal act on their own.  The standard is there and is clear.  For example, as detestable as I find it I believe people should have the freedom of expression to burn the flag - a horrific statement, but not illegal. 
 

The liberal side lives to squash or ban the opinions of those they don’t agree with, hide behind innocuous terms such as “hate speech” to justify the gradual but steady erosion of your rights.  And like lemmings off the cliff - the liberal masses just fall right in line.   

Yes, they can ban. It’s the owner of the the site’s discretion. It’s not like social media is an essential good like food, water, medicine...etc. Again, I’m basing it on free market principles. 
If you believe that I’m basing my comments off of a liberal/conservative mindset, you’re very mistaken.  I’m not beholden to a political ideology. I’m beholden to what I believe is right and wrong and I don’t believe any of the social media platforms have done anything wrong. @aujeff11was banned from posting here and it’s nothing to do with politics. It’s the prerogative of the site owner. 
This has ZERO to do with the 1st Amendment. Social media is not a right. Again, the President can still speak his views or whatever in any numerous of ways but so many are side ways because he can’t Tweet...big deal. If that’s the worst thing that happens in 2021 we’re in pretty good shape. 

[aubearcat 2,137]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/2013/title-13a/chapter-11/section-13a-11-7/

You can’t say anything you want, especially in public, and holler freedom of speech. Also, being booted from social media wasn’t done by the government it was done by a privately owned company.  If you attempt to force a private company to submit to your desires/will isn’t that...socialism? 🤭

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

45 minutes ago, GoAU said:

So, him being a “Jackass” is enough of a reason to ban?   You are supporting discrimination based on political ideology?   The double standard applied is ridiculous.  

If the platform thinks so, yes.  They are making a business decision here.  And banning him does not impugn his right to free speech.  Most important five words of the 1A are the first five:

"Congress shall make no law"

Show me where Congress has stopped anyone's freedom of speech here and then we have a legitimate debate on the 1A.

48 minutes ago, GoAU said:

But that's one of the many differences between the left and the right.  The conservative side believes in freedom of speech, even if I’m you find it disgraceful, detestable and just wrong.  Flat out calls directly advocating or threatening violence are a criminal act on their own.  The standard is there and is clear.  For example, as detestable as I find it I believe people should have the freedom of expression to burn the flag - a horrific statement, but not illegal. 

 

BS.  Colin Kaepernick says hi.

51 minutes ago, GoAU said:

 The liberal side lives to squash or ban the opinions of those they don’t agree with, hide behind innocuous terms such as “hate speech” to justify the gradual but steady erosion of your rights.  And like lemmings off the cliff - the liberal masses just fall right in line.   

Would help if you were making an intellectually honest argument.  "Hate speech" has been codified many times as protected speech by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Learn your history man.  Start by reading National Socialist Party of America v Village of Skokie.  It's literally a case where the Supreme Court upheld that Nazis could march and chant through a Jewish community without repercussion from the U.S Government.  They ultimately chose to march in Chicago instead, but the laws absolutely protect hate speech.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

4 hours ago, GoAU said:

To clarify, are you speaking towards companies such as Twitter banning individual users, or companies like AWS, Apple and Google for targeting entire platforms, such as Parler?

I'm mostly thinking of Twitter, Facebook, and the like, but Apple and Google are certainly under no obligations to let just anything go either.

 

Quote

On a similar note, do you believe all business have the ability to pick and choose which customers they do business with?

Generally speaking, yes.  What criteria or circumstance would you propose where a private company should be forced to do business with someone (besides the obvious such as not allowing a business to refuse to do business with someone because they are black for instance)?

[GoAU 1,600]

2 hours ago, aubearcat said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/2013/title-13a/chapter-11/section-13a-11-7/

You can’t say anything you want, especially in public, and holler freedom of speech. Also, being booted from social media wasn’t done by the government it was done by a privately owned company.  If you attempt to force a private company to submit to your desires/will isn’t that...socialism? 🤭

 

I have said before, and will say again, I am 100% fine with the “it’s their business, it’s their choice”.  It’s a Could / Should question, and although I think they are wrong, it is clearly their right.  
 

Just don’t play both sides of the coin.  
 

I do have a comment that is related to this that I’ll attach in a response to Titan below regarding AWS, Apple and Google.  

[aubearcat 2,137]

I say they should if it’s their prerogative. I don’t think it’s an issue to get twisted up about. 

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

BERLIN, Jan 11 (Reuters) - German Chancellor Angela Merkel has reservations about the way President Donald Trump’s Twitter account was suspended, her spokesman said, adding that legislators, not private companies, should decide on any necessary curbs to free expression.

The intervention by Steffen Seibert, her chief spokesman, reflects concern in Berlin and much of Europe at the power giant social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook have to shape public discourse.

“The right to freedom of opinion is of fundamental importance,” Seibert told reporters at a regular government news conference in Berlin on Monday.

“Given that, the chancellor considers it problematic that the president’s accounts have been permanently suspended.”

Germans are wary of infringements of free speech, partly thanks to memories of the Communists and of Adolf Hitler’s Nazis, totalitarian regimes that ruled on German soil during the 20th century, both of which used violence and censorship to seize and hold power.

https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-germany-twitter-idUSL8N2JM4ES

Even the Germans are wary of the infringement of free speech.  What does that tell you about who the real totalitarian Nazis are?  What is next shutting down book stores because they sell book you don’t like?

Exactly when do people on the left recognize it has gone too far?

[GoAU 1,600]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

If the platform thinks so, yes.  
 

 

BS.  Colin Kaepernick says hi.

OK, so business discriminating on who they service or not, is OK - got it.  Whether it is political opinion, gender, religion, race, age, etc.  I am fine with that approach and let the free market system address this people that make stupid choices like discriminating.  
 

ahh, Colin Kapernick.  First, he absolutely has every right to disagree, take a knee, or protest to his heart’s content.  I also have the right to disagree with his opinion. The issue, in my opinion is whether he has the right to protest at his place of employment, while doing his job.  My issue with the NFL is that they allowed the stupidity.   Let an employee at Mc Donald’s launch a protest while at work, on the clock, in front of the customers and see what happens.  

[GoAU 1,600]

7 minutes ago, aubearcat said:

I say they should if it’s their prerogative. I don’t think it’s an issue to get twisted up about. 

Definitely not twisted up - sorry if I came across that way.  I enjoy rationale dialogue with others that aren’t just echo chambers.  The frustration comes when you get labeled as a racist, racist, etc just because you disagree.  Not saying you did that.  

[TitanTiger 20,482]

We Need More Social Media Bans

Actually, de-platforming is good.

A few years ago I was invited to sit on a panel at the Gathering of the Twitters. It was an all-hands, week-long festival for the company and sitting right up front was @Jack. He even took a picture of me and tweeted it out. It was kind of surreal. 

Anyway, the other journalists on the panel talked about how they integrate Twitter with their work. I used my time to to make the case that Twitter should ban people from the platform more aggressively and ignore any complaints from the media—especially from conservative media—for doing so.

There was some nervous laughter in the convention center at this. My argument was that Twitter was not a public utility, that the user experience on the platform was degraded by the presence of bad actors, and that the people who run Twitter are just as qualified to make judgments about what’s useful for a healthy community as anyone else. Because this wasn’t rocket science. It wasn’t even moral philosophy. They didn’t need Chidi Anagoney: 99.9 percent of the cases where a user ought to be banned were little more than common sense.

I made this argument again in 2018 after Apple, Facebook, and YouTube kicked Alex Jones off their platforms. Because if we’re going to try to harness the benefits of new technology, we have to be clear-eyed about attempting to mitigate its dangers. This is the process that has followed the implementation of basically every new technology, ever—from the printing press to the automobile to the vaccine to the telephone.

There was never any reason to believe that social media should be different, that it should be allowed to remain in a state of nature, forever.

---

We have seen the societal benefits of social media and we have seen the societal costs. It would be madness not to try to decrease the latter and increase the former.

Such attempts will be imperfect and ongoing. They will require some actions taken independently by private companies and some actions taken by government. There will be constant re-balancing.

But anyone who says that tech companies must simply throw their hands in the air and let the masses do what they will is either a salesman, a nihilist, or a fool.

Twitter and Facebook are American companies. They are headquartered in America. They are subject to the laws of the United States. They have a vested interest in the United States continuing to exist as a stable democracy, because that means that these companies will be subject to the rule of law—which will allow them to operate in an environment that is reasonably predictable and rational.

Over the last few months, many people—including the president of the United States—have used these platforms to advocate for an overturning of the government. They have used these platforms to organize an attempt to throw out the results of a free and fair election and install Donald Trump as an illegitimate, autocratic leader.

Had this attempt been successful, it would have been the end of American democracy and, consequently, the failure of the rule of law. This would have had dire consequences for Twitter, Facebook, and every company in America because it would have meant that they were no longer subject to the predictable process of the rule of law, but rather existing at the pleasure of a strongman.

Should Twitter and Facebook be forced to provide their free services to people trying to destroy the government which provides stability for their business?

The Constitution is not a suicide pact and neither are the Terms of Service.

---

The arguments against de-platforming are not strong.

The first is that it is tantamount to “censorship.” This is obviously immaterial—private companies are not compelled to promote speech and do not have the power to stop speech. Censorship is a government function.

The second is that tech companies do not apply standards with perfect uniformity. Here is the thing about “standards” created by private companies: They are not “laws.” A law must be applied uniformly because it is backstopped by the full power of the state. A “standard” created by a private company is nothing more than a guideline used to explain what are, by definition, subjective judgments.

What’s more, these “standards” do not exist in order to protect the imaginary “rights” of individual users.

They exist in order to make the experience of the wider community better by discouraging users whose behavior is detrimental to the platform.

It’s best to think of terms of service agreements less like “laws” and more like player contracts in the NFL: They are inherently one-sided and subject to alteration.

The third objection is a question of reasonable accommodation: If Twitter kicks Donald Trump off, does he have recourse to other forms of communication?

The answer here is clearly: yes.

While Trump complains about not being able to tweet, here are some of the ways he could communicate with the public:

• Walk into the press briefing room at literally any minute of the day or night and start talking.

• Call in to Fox, or Newsmax, or OAN—again, at any moment.

• Write an op-ed and send it to the Wall Street Journal to run on their opinion page.

• Tape a video, or a podcast, and post it on WhiteHouse.gov.

These modes of communication require more than an iPhone and two thumbs, but not much more. And their potential reach is roughly equivalent. This is little more than a case of Trump asking one bakery to make him a cake for White Pride Day, being refused, and having to walk across the street to another bakery, which readily obliges him.

---

The most salient underlying fact of the internet is that it reduces marginal cost to zero. And because of this, the reasonable accommodations available for Trump are available to basically everyone.

You got kicked off of Twitter?

Start a blog. Publish until your heart’s content. Anyone with a phone, anywhere in the world, can read your Very Important Thoughts.

And these reasonable accommodations persist pretty far down the stack.

What if you are so odious that your blog’s web host kicks you off? You buy a box and set up your own server in your closet. It requires slightly more effort than putting a site on GoDaddy, but it’s neither expensive nor technically difficult. May I suggest the Hooli Box 3, Signature Edition? It’s a great value.

What if you’re trying to monetize your audience and you are such a deplorable that Stripe, PayPal, Square, Visa, and MasterCard refuse to serve you? How ever will you capture revenue? It’s impossible!

Oh, wait. It’s not. You can use bitcoin. Or you can just have your users mail you a check. Like everyone in the world did, for decades, until about 5 minutes ago.

In order to lose the ability to make reasonable accommodations you need to get all the way down to the level of ISP’s and banks refusing service.

https://thetriad.thebulwark.com/p/we-need-more-social-media-bans

[GoAU 1,600]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm mostly thinking of Twitter, Facebook, and the like, but Apple and Google are certainly under no obligations to let just anything go either.

 

Generally speaking, yes.  What criteria or circumstance would you propose where a private company should be forced to do business with someone (besides the obvious such as not allowing a business to refuse to do business with someone because they are black for instance)?

I can understand the Google, and Facebook angle a lot better than Google, Apple, and AWS.   They acted in conjunction to suppress an entire platform, in essence unfair business practices that are being looked at in a lawsuit referencing the Sherman Anti Trust Act.  I think that’s a very interesting approach.  There are also allegations that AWS violated their own service agreements with regards to the timing behind severing the service to Parler. 
 

There are all sorts of potential issues that can arise (and have).  A good example would be the bakeries that were attacked from not baking same sex wedding cakes.  Other examples could be discrimination based on gender - some gold courses were criticized for not allowing female members.  Obviously race has come up in the past in our country.  
 

Before anyone puts words in my mouth, I oppose any sorts of stereotyping - be it racism, sexism,  homophobia, etc.  ANY mindless stereotyping of individuals is a testament of ignorance.  That being said, there are a lot of grey areas here, and just going along with this type of behavior because people agree with it in the here and now, is intellectually dishonest and sets a very slippery path forward.  

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

27 minutes ago, GoAU said:

OK, so business discriminating on who they service or not, is OK - got it.  Whether it is political opinion, gender, religion, race, age, etc.  I am fine with that approach and let the free market system address this people that make stupid choices like discriminating.  
 

Race, age, and gender are not reasons to discriminate as those are things that people don't choose, as codified by law and the Court.  You do, however, choose your opinions and a business is not required to offer you their platform to spout said opinions.  Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.  I certainly can't walk into a private golf club and start talking **** without expecting to be thrown out immediately.

27 minutes ago, GoAU said:

ahh, Colin Kapernick.  First, he absolutely has every right to disagree, take a knee, or protest to his heart’s content.  I also have the right to disagree with his opinion. The issue, in my opinion is whether he has the right to protest at his place of employment, while doing his job.  My issue with the NFL is that they allowed the stupidity.   Let an employee at Mc Donald’s launch a protest while at work, on the clock, in front of the customers and see what happens.  

He absolutely has the right to protest at his place of employment.  His employer can then choose whether or not that's punishable.  Now the NFL, being a collectively bargained league with unions, is a different animal than a random McDonald's employee who is an at will employee and can be fired for basically any reason.  If a McDonald's worker wants to be able to protest without punishment, create a union and negotiate.

Advice: Your arguments need to be stop being so grandiose, because it literally takes two seconds of though to poke holes in them.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Some folks should read this.  Really good primer from a couple of 1A lawyers spelling out what the law does and does not protect.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/12/politics/first-amendment-explainer-2021-trnd/index.html

[homersapien 11,373]

7 hours ago, GoAU said:

1) I wasn’t the one who named the organization - Black Lives Matter is a name they chose.  I merely used the name of their organization and the results of their activities.   You do the same thing with regards to labeling all conservatives or Trump supporters. It is what it is.   Your hypocrisy is almost comical.  BS. I call it like I see it. You - on the other hand can't see it in the first place, what with your head up your ass and all.
 

2) I won’t deny having a bias toward nationalism, but it sure isn’t WHITE nationalism.  Good for you. But that's true for a large segment of MAGAs - the ones Trump most relies on. The rest are simply gullible - useful idiots . 

I am confident we live in (at least for now) the greatest nation on earth and I refuse to apologize for it. I do to.  And I am not apologizing for anything - I am concerned we have so much unfinished business. We're not perfect. The promise is not completely fulfilled, this is no time to rest on our laurels.

You stereotype as much as any racist does, the only difference is you just base it off something different than melatonin.  Yep, observation and data.
 

3) Ahhh, I get it - now you are saying Trump was a racist only AFTER the election??  No, he's been racist all his miserable life.  It's the way he was brought up. (Again, facts.)

You run around spitting out terms like racist and fascist like you get paid royalties for them. No, it is what it is. 

After all, ANTIFA has only been around since November, right?   Must just be an idea... Sorry I don't get your point.

3) It’s ironic you bring up the Ukrainian “quid pro quo”.  What was Trump going to personally gain in that arrangement? Dirt on Biden's son which he anticipated using in the next election. He feared Biden as an opponent, for good reason. In case you hadn't noticed, he was constantly harping on Hunter Biden.   Where have you been?  Listen to the tape for chrissakes.

Using leverage to further the good of the nation isn’t quid pro quo in this case, unless he was personally benefitting. Good grief. He was fishing for anything he could use for his own personal political gain.  It's called extortion.  

Doing something to benefit our nation doesn’t apply, as that is exactly what he was elected to do. No this wasn't for the country it was for Trump.  It harmed the country - made us appear like just another country with an authoritarian crook as our leader.

What exactly is your stance on Biden bragging about withholding aid unless they fire the prosecutor that was investigating his sons company? That is the exact definition of quid pro quo and he bragged about it on national TV.  Your hypocrisy knows no bounds, does it?    He was following U.S. national - and international policy - in trying to force out a totally corrupt Ukrainian politician. It had nothing to do with Biden personally.  You really don't know much about this, do you?  Do your homework

 

4) You keep baiting me to defend the storming of the Capital and I won’t do it - those people are more than capable of making their own choices and need to face the consequences of that.   Trump never told them to storm that building.  See, there you go.  You are defending Trump for his responsibility for inciting it. And he WAS responsible.  To say otherwise is another one of those head-up-the-ass statements.
 

5) Once again, you are putting words into my mouth.   I never said the government had to force companies to say anything. Well if you claim these companies are violating the first amendment, that's exactly what you are implying.

free I do feel using the Sherman Anti Trust act as done by Parler over a coordinated effort by Apple, Google and AWS to prevent competition is an interesting approach. That will fail legally. 

And I will also say that several big companies acting unilaterally to suppress people based on ideological opinions is every bit as wrong as public business refusing to do business with someone over sexual orientation.  Different issue altogether.
 

6). No matter how many times you say it, I will not defend the mob, as a matter of fact I’m going to ignore it going forward because you are like a broken record. No, you're just defending Trump who is personally responsible for the mob.

 They made their own choice, it was wrong, and Trump never once incited them to break the law.  Wrong.  Absolutely wrong.

As to the assaults on the Constitution - based on Bidens own platform, I would say he’s about to get started.  Yeah, I'm hardly surprised you would say he's about to "get started".  (As if Trump hasn't used the constitution as toilet paper all along - where did that money for "the wall" come from again?)

  We shall see.

 

[homersapien 11,373]

4 hours ago, GoAU said:

The liberal side lives to squash or ban the opinions of those they don’t agree with, hide behind innocuous terms such as “hate speech” to justify the gradual but steady erosion of your rights.  And like lemmings off the cliff - the liberal masses just fall right in line.   

Having a POTUS constantly promulgating a LIE about a "fraudulent election" that was "stolen" by our electoral system is a little more concerning than a "opinion' you disagree with. 

Perhaps Twitter and Facebook had (justifiable) concerns about the danger that Trump's lies and propaganda presented to the country.

As was mentioned, there are still plenty of right wing voices remaining on these platforms who are free to express their opinions but they don't command the allegiance of millions of simple-minded, armed acolytes primed for insurrection.

Trump represents a clear and present danger to our country.

We had a clear and unambiguous demonstration of that last week.