I think the Trump crowd accept fringe views because they think that comes with freedom of speach. But yes, they wouldn't allow anyone they consider a public safety issue around (starting from ISIS).I'm pretty sure that most Trumpers would censor people on the left given the chance. They'd justify it in terms of public safety too. — five G
You are totally correct to be paranoid. For starters, ECHELON is (was) of similar age than I am. And I'm not a youngster anymore.I must confess that I'm personally a little paranoid about this kind of thing. — five G
That is totally true. So stick to your Guidelines, Baden. Really.Actually, it's not inconceivable the FBI will start asking sites like ours for IP addresses. — Baden
NOS, now you are only showing that Weimar-mentality. You just assume that they will use events as a pretext to remove civil liberties and and attack their opponents. This is the attitude discourse of a conspiracy theorist and a populist.I think you're right in regards to Weimar. There is an eerie similarity between the treatment of those involved in the protest and those involved in the Reichstag fire. It makes me wonder if Democrats and their GOP enablers are using the "insurrection" conspiracy theory as a pretext to remove civil liberties, particularly against their political opponents. — NOS4A2
You just assume that they will use events as a pretext to remove civil liberties and and attack their opponents — ssu
So I agree that legally it looks like there's no free speech violations, since the platform has power to remove whatever content they like. There is a rational kernel to the free speech argument though. Large social media sites effectively function as the social commons; they're how we chat, make friends, inform ourselves and so on. It is quite creepy that someone can be exiled from that commons with little to no oversight.
I think the free speech complaint "goes through" so to speak, but not in the terms it's originally articulated in. — fdrake
From the person who wrote the Patriot act, yes. — StreetlightX
What does Jim Sensenbrenner have to do with it? — Kenosha Kid
Either way, seems a bit hysterical to bemoan the loss of civil liberties of some future bill being looked into regarding domestic terrorism. If and when someone tries to introduce security legislation that actually impacts civil liberties, the question of whether the majority prefer the liberty or the security ought to be had then. — Kenosha Kid
Joe Biden, friend. — StreetlightX
Have you met the US Government? — StreetlightX
Sure. If Congress are going to pass any kind of sinister bill — Kenosha Kid
If Congress are going to pass any kind of sinister bill, not much anyone can do about it. — Kenosha Kid
Anti-terrorism is... bad? — Kenosha Kid
I'm sure the lists are incomplete. :D When serial liars become the go-to authority for a lot of people with zeal and guns, then it could well make sense for privately owned platforms to kick them off. — jorndoe
In any event, the power of mass media has always rested in the hands of the few. Historically, you first must have had a printing press, then the ability to print large scale newspapers and fliers, then access to the radio waves, then to the television waves and then to cable and such. Because market entry was difficult, the owners generally held to an ethic to be truthful, at least in the West.
This modern problem of giving every Tom, Dick, and Harry access to mass media via Twitter, Facebook and the like is something that must now be grappled with. The solution, as is now evident, is not to allow a free for all. I have no problem with the owners of mass media doing as they always had in the past: publishing only that which meets proper editorial standards. Such worked for probably 1000 years prior to tweets and insta posts. — Hanover
You think we should go back to how it was hundreds of years ago? — Metaphysician Undercover
It is quite creepy that someone can be exiled from that commons with little to no oversight. — fdrake
For sure, the bases of moderation and suspension/banning should be explicit in those T&C's. It is frustrating when platforms augment this with unofficial, ad hoc moderation (the Guardian being a prime example). But even if they don't, yes it's unfair, so what? That's a judgement on those platforms. As Pfhorrest said, simple solution is don't use them if you don't like them. — Kenosha Kid
The intuition: what kind of weirdo exempts themselves from society like this? — fdrake
This is the unfortunate bind in the US. Even if a net corporations would have tried to be impartial and would have upheld freedom of speech values, they likely would face even bigger wrath from the DNC and the incoming administration. Some YouTube or Twitter wouldn't be exactly favorites of the democrats if they would have allowed Alex Jones et al. use their platforms right up to last Wednesday. Americans simply don't consider any corporation to be impartial, but twist the narrative to what they want to portray.Although to be honest the US is probably a lost cause due to how money is married to politics there to an extent not possible in some of my favourite countries (Nordics, Germany and the Netherlands). — Benkei
I think perhaps you're both showing your age. — fdrake
But honest to God, true story, there is a retarded squirrel living in cage at the top of the stairs here who is far more interesting, to me, than most human beings. — Hippyhead
I agree that keeping in contact with people is still very much a useful thing. Now I simply prefer to use their Messenger application. The rest ("news" feed mainly, and the advertisements they bring, plus groups -- most of which are toxic) has become quite useless. I suggest this as a compromise to you if you're regretting not using it. It's basically text or, if people remember back, AIM (AOL Instant Messenger). — Xtrix
(1) Many lifelong friends no longer contact me. — fdrake
(2) I no longer get invited to any social gatherings I don't organise myself. — fdrake
That conclusion cannot be inferred from anything I've said. What I indicated was that there have been editorial standards for over 1000 years, and there's no reason to abandon standards entirely simply because mass media is now generally available to the public. — Hanover
Journalistic ethics can be arrived at and they ought be enforced if we wish for our journalism to be ethical. — Hanover
If we can demand that the medicine we take will cure us, that the cars we purchase start when we turn the key, that our computers properly link us to the internet, then we should similarly be able to expect the news reports we read to reflect what actually occurred. — Hanover
This is not meant to be insulting, because I've felt (and continue to feel) this way as well, but I think it's worth attempting to grow out of this kind of view. I think this attitude is a remnant of adolescent contempt. — Xtrix
I don't see a way out of this other than making attempts to educate them, and that can't be done if we hold them in contempt. — Xtrix
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.