-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Whether you like it or not that is EXACTLY what the founders of our country believed. And many Americans still believe it.
They also think that the government doesn't grant us "free speech " or any other "right". We are born with those rights. Government exists to protect those rights. There are systems of government in other countries where a different philosophy is part of the civic foundation. Most of those countries that are democratic are former monarchies or broke off from monarchies. Rights were granted by the King. In Ancient Rome they were granted by the Emperor and before that by the Senate and People of Rome. Only Roman citizens had rights recognized at law in Roman Courts. Only male Athenian citizens could vote and enjoy other rights. In the U.S. even non-Citizens are guaranteed several basic rights including life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness just to name three.
And yet you didn’t answer my questions. You have the natural right to think whatever you want but your expression is fully controlled by the government.
230 protections (which you are opposed to) are the only reason you are able to currently express many of your thoughts on the internet without the sites shutting down.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kamiliam
And yet you didn’t answer my questions. You have the natural right to think whatever you want but your expression is fully controlled by the government.
230 protections (which you are opposed to) are the only reason you are able to currently express many of your thoughts on the internet without the sites shutting down.
What ? My expression is NOT fully controlled by the government. Where is that coming from ?
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Our founders believed in "natural " rights. Ones we were born with. And that governments were established to secure those rights.
So we're born with free speech, but the founders decided to redundantly state that Congress (NOT PRIVATE ENTERPRISE!!!!) can't abridge free speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Twitter is a privately owned public platform . It was owned by its shareholders. By the end of the year it will be owned by Elon Musk.
You contradicted yourself within a span of three sentences. Anyway, it's still a publicly owned company. It held a public offering and you can still buy shares of it right now if you wanted. When Musk's transaction completes, Twitter will be privately held. As you yourself noted, this hasn't happened yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Many of the same people who were happy about previous decisions by Twitter staffers to ban various users like Trump and Berenson and not ban users like Farrakhan and other antisemites are now having conniptions over what Musk MIGHT do. Likewise , the same people who were happy over editorial decisions by Twitter staffers to ban discussion of Hunter's laptop among many other things that turned out to be legitimate , true and accurate are now screaming for government regulation of a privately owned platform. The same people who were gladdened by Twitter's protection under Section 230 when it was a public company are now having panic attacks over Musk's promise to show his critics "what free expression looks like. "
Sure, and there's hypocrisy on both extreme ends of the spectrum. But has anyone in this thread been one to completely change their view just because Musk is trying to buy Twitter?
The real lessons should be "People will rationalize their behavior yet condemn the exact same behavior from people on the other end of the spectrum. I should be wary of these people while not becoming one of them. Also, people are not monolithic, so I should not assume that anyone that leans towards that political ideology must also feel the same as the extreme members of that ideology."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
They also think that the government doesn't grant us "free speech " or any other "right".
It doesn't. It just says Congress won't abridge them. There's an obvious omission here that heavily implies that private people and enterprise can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
There are systems of government in other countries where a different philosophy is part of the civic foundation.
So when you typed that it was "universal" you meant...not everyone, i.e. a cohort that's decidedly "not universal."
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Our founders believed in "natural " rights. Ones we were born with. And that governments were established to secure those rights. The rights to " life ,liberty and the pursuit of happiness" do not mean much in a state of anarchy or where the strong can prey on the weak with impunity and without consequences. That is why we have government. Some call such rights "God given ". Jefferson said we are endowed with them by our "creator". I tried to leave religion out of the equation by using the term "natural rights".
No they didn't. It's unbelievable you would make such a statement. There's no way that you're not aware that many of our founders were slave owners. In 18th century America, the strong did prey on the weak. What do you think slavery was?
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Where the hell have you been ? Free speech applies EVERYWHERE to EVERYONE with very , very few exceptions. The First Amendment and similar state protections protect speech and speakers from government suppression, prosecution, limitation and punishment . Especially but not limited to "political" speech. Musk wants Twitter to be similarly constrained . Why not ?
No, free speech does not apply to private platforms. There are also limitations to free speech. Incitement to violence is against the law. Slander and libel are also against the law, but are handled in civil court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Stern would interview and talk to Carver and a few others and show how stupid, ignorant and ridiculous they were . Even those who may not have known much about the KKK or other hate groups. Remember David Duke ? And how many votes he got when he ran for office ? Apparently a lot of people did not get their "Eagle Alerts" and may not have known enough about the Klan.
From what I remember, David Duke won the white vote when he ran for governor of Louisiana. Duke got 38.8% of the popular vote. There have been governors who were members of the Klan. I think Woodrow Wilson was sympathetic to the klan. I know he was a vile, disgusting racist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Again who decides what speech and which speakers are allowed access to PUBLIC Platforms ? You ? Who decides who is "stupid, stubborn , ignorant " etc. ? You ? I love how you claim that free expression represents a threat to our democracy. So you want to burn down the barn to kill the mice of "lies and misinformation " ? Are you serious ?
Twitter and Facebook are not PUBLIC platforms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Many Republicans ( and others ) believed that the election was stolen based on last minute changes to voting and election procedures. Most of them have doubts or are less convinced when they are shown that the results in each and every state that changed their rules would not have changed i.e. there were not enough questionable votes to change the results. Most agree with me that Trump lost and Biden won. Now several states did pass laws to tighten up absentee and mail in balloting. So what ?
No, most Republicans believe the election was stolen due to voter/election fraud. It is not against the law to change voting and election procedures. Some of these changes were passed by Republican controlled legislatures. The reason they refuse to accept the results is not because of any changes to election procedures, but because their candidate lost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
History has proven over and over again that no lie lives forever. The more truthful "good" speech the better because it
invariably defeats "bad speech" while maintaining freedom . Whether you like it or not there are a lot of people out there who have different opinions and beliefs about things like Covid , Trump , Biden and the 2020 election. Your solution is to shut them up instead of countering their supposed "lies " and misinformation with "truth" and better information. Or just learning to agree to disagree with people you don't like and whose ideas you find repugnant. Welcome to the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Again, countering lies with truth and better information doesn't work with stupid, stubborn people. The majority of Republicans still believe Trump won the 2020 election. Tens of millions of Americans refuse to get covid vaccination based on lies and misinformation they see on the internet and in the right-wing media.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
What history books are you reading ? Or are you just making it up ? If only Hitler's lies and deranged thinking had been exposed , discussed and debated. Shutting up and intimidating Hitler's critics and opponents was the primary function of the S.A. aka The Brownshirts. Remember them ? Some of his critics were assassinated by Nazi goons and the S.S. As soon as he took power Hitler took total control of the media. Just like Lenin, Mao , Chiang , Pinochet , various juntas , Castro , Kim etc. etc.
During the 1930s, before hitler became dictator, Germany had free speech. After World War 2, West Germany banned the nazi party and nazi propaganda. The ban is still in place in Germany. Which worked out better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Btw, which conservatives are you equating with Hitler ? We can agree about Marjorie Taylor Greene. She is nuts. If you want Twitter to suppress or ban proven antisemites that's OK with me. We can start with AOC , Omar, Tlaib and the N.Y. Times.
Where did I equate any conservatives with hitler?
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dpacrkk
So we're born with free speech, but the founders decided to redundantly state that Congress (NOT PRIVATE ENTERPRISE!!!!) can't abridge free speech.
You contradicted yourself within a span of three sentences. Anyway, it's still a publicly owned company. It held a public offering and you can still buy shares of it right now if you wanted. When Musk's transaction completes, Twitter will be privately held. As you yourself noted, this hasn't happened yet.
Sure, and there's hypocrisy on both extreme ends of the spectrum. But has anyone in this thread been one to completely change their view just because Musk is trying to buy Twitter?
The real lessons should be "People will rationalize their behavior yet condemn the exact same behavior from people on the other end of the spectrum. I should be wary of these people while not becoming one of them. Also, people are not monolithic, so I should not assume that anyone that leans towards that political ideology must also feel the same as the extreme members of that ideology."
It doesn't. It just says Congress won't abridge them. There's an obvious omission here that heavily implies that private people and enterprise can.
So when you typed that it was "universal" you meant...not everyone, i.e. a cohort that's decidedly "not universal."
The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech ... ". Through other Amendments , legislation and jurisprudence, today it applies to other entities besides just Congress. Including under some very limited circumstances , private entities.
Musk's takeover of Twitter will take months to finalize but the Board of directors of Twitter voted to accept his offer.
I was not addressing S-webbers. I was talking about the ridiculous hypocrites on CNN and MSNBC not to mention the Washington Post and N.Y. Times.
As I said supra, in their private dealings people are free to be as censorious as they like. In their PRIVATE dealings. Twitter was more than just a private citizen and acted to control political debate.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
What ? My expression is NOT fully controlled by the government. Where is that coming from ?
I meant everyone who is residing in the United States. It is being controlled less then say Germany, but you are limited. News media and other orgs do have restrictions on their right to free speech. Have you never heard of the limits on your free speech? Especially from the courts which is the government just not congress.
And as has been pointed out the founders were only concerned with the rights of white Christian men. The constitution was also intended by the founders to be amendable.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Twitter is a privately owned public platform . It was owned by its shareholders. By the end of the year it will be owned by Elon Musk. Many of the same people who were happy about previous decisions by Twitter staffers to ban various users like Trump and Berenson and not ban users like Farrakhan and other antisemites are now having conniptions over what Musk MIGHT do. Likewise , the same people who were happy over editorial decisions by Twitter staffers to ban discussion of Hunter's laptop among many other things that turned out to be legitimate , true and accurate are now screaming for government regulation of a privately owned platform. The same people who were gladdened by Twitter's protection under Section 230 when it was a public company are now having panic attacks over Musk's promise to show his critics "what free expression looks like. "
You don't know that Twitter will be owned by Musk by the end of the year. The deal hasn't gone through yet. Trump and Berenson didn't abide by Twitter's terms and services. Twitter does not allow their platform to be used for inciting violence or lying about covid vaccines. The story on Hunter Biden's laptop was not legitimate. The NY Post was looking at a hard drive that was tampered with, and had multiple files that were added or deleted since the laptop was turned over to the FBI. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are dead because they believed lies and misinformation about covid vaccines. We had a violent insurrection based on lies about the election. The less access Trump, and lying nutjobs like Berenson have to social media platforms, the better.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
As I said supra, in their private dealings people are free to be as censorious as they like. In their PRIVATE dealings. Twitter was more than just a private citizen and acted to control political debate.
No, Twitter is a private platform. I don't understand why this is so difficult for you to understand. It's really not that complicated. Twitter's CEO and their board are not government officials.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eagle2
No they didn't. It's unbelievable you would make such a statement. There's no way that you're not aware that many of our founders were slave owners. In 18th century America, the strong did prey on the weak. What do you think slavery was?
THANK YOU ! I just won $20 . I KNEW you were going to say that and bet a buddy $20 you would post that exact argument. No joke. I am totally serious !
I never said our founders were perfect or paragons of logical consistency. When Jefferson said "all men " it was questionable that he included ALL men. Being a product of his time he clearly meant White men and freed blacks. Neither he nor the authors of our Constitution included women. There was actually a ferocious debate over whether to permit slavery as the Constitution was being discussed and formulated . The Southern states threatened to leave and form their own country unless slavery was permitted and slaves counted as 3/5's of a person for purposes of the Census. The best that the abolitionists could get in 1787 was a time limit on the slave trade i.e. it became illegal to import slaves after 1807. We had to fight a Civil War and pass the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to overturn the Dred Scott decision and enable everyone to enjoy equal entitlement to the rights of life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And then it took another hundred years or so to get many states to acknowledge those rights for blacks and enforce same with Federal Civil Rights and Voting Rights legislation. In 1942 Roosevelt and Earl Warren didn't recognize them for Japanese American CITIZENS.
So our imperfections and inconsistencies continued for more than 150 years after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written. For LGBT people it took over two centuries for them to fully enjoy liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Well hmmm, they SHOULD be free to enjoy their rights and in most places they are.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kamiliam
I meant everyone who is residing in the United States. It is being controlled less then say Germany, but you are limited. News media and other orgs do have restrictions on their right to free speech. Have you never heard of the limits on your free speech? Especially from the courts which is the government just not congress.
And as has been pointed out the founders were only concerned with the rights of white Christian men. The constitution was also intended by the founders to be amendable.
I am not allowed to FALSELY shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre or publish troop movements in time of war if that is what you mean. My right to free speech is not absolute if that is what you mean. Noe of my rights is absolute.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Through other Amendments , legislation and jurisprudence, today it applies to other entities besides just Congress. Including under some very limited circumstances , private entities.
Uh huh, which ones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Musk's takeover of Twitter will take months to finalize but the Board of directors of Twitter voted to accept his offer.
The board recommended the transaction to shareholders. It's still not a done deal. Also note that you typed:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Twitter is a privately owned public platform . It was owned by its shareholders. By the end of the year it will be owned by Elon Musk.
You acknowledge that the takeover will take months. You typed "will" meaning future tense two sentances after you typed "is" meaning present tense. It is impossible to be simultaneously currently privately owned and also to become privately owned by Musk in the future. This is the contradiction. It's also not really helping your case against the "demented boomer" comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
I was not addressing S-webbers. I was talking about the ridiculous hypocrites on CNN and MSNBC not to mention the Washington Post and N.Y. Times.
Cool. Take it up with them. It is decidedly convenient that you don't complain about the hypocrites on the other side of the political spectrum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Twitter was more than just a private citizen and acted to control political debate.
You have clearly uncovered a great injustice. The courts must know about this and rule to reinstate various banned personalities' social media accounts. ...Or maybe you're overreaching.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
THANK YOU ! I just won $20 . I KNEW you were going to say that and bet a buddy $20 you would post that exact argument. No joke. I am totally serious !
The guy that masquerades as a great businessman bordering on being a titan of industry is telling us he won $20. I would ask "do you think before you post?" but you might complain about personal attacks again.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
I am not allowed to FALSELY shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre or publish troop movements in time of war if that is what you mean. My right to free speech is not absolute if that is what you mean. Noe of my rights is absolute.
It also then isn’t natural.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
THANK YOU ! I just won $20 . I KNEW you were going to say that and bet a buddy $20 you would post that exact argument. No joke. I am totally serious !
I never said our founders were perfect or paragons of logical consistency. When Jefferson said "all men " it was questionable that he included ALL men. Being a product of his time he clearly meant White men and freed blacks. Neither he nor the authors of our Constitution included women. There was actually a ferocious debate over whether to permit slavery as the Constitution was being discussed and formulated . The Southern states threatened to leave and form their own country unless slavery was permitted and slaves counted as 3/5's of a person for purposes of the Census. The best that the abolitionists could get in 1787 was a time limit on the slave trade i.e. it became illegal to import slaves after 1807. We had to fight a Civil War and pass the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to overturn the Dred Scott decision and enable everyone to enjoy equal entitlement to the rights of life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And then it took another hundred years or so to get many states to acknowledge those rights for blacks and enforce same with Federal Civil Rights and Voting Rights legislation. In 1942 Roosevelt and Earl Warren didn't recognize them for Japanese American CITIZENS.
So our imperfections and inconsistencies continued for more than 150 years after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written. For LGBT people it took over two centuries for them to fully enjoy liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Well hmmm, they SHOULD be free to enjoy their rights and in most places they are.
Just highlighting that you covered a lot of ways the GOVERNMENT determined who was granted free speech. Not like it just existing.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dpacrkk
So we're born with free speech, but the founders decided to redundantly state that Congress (NOT PRIVATE ENTERPRISE!!!!) can't abridge free speech.
You contradicted yourself within a span of three sentences. Anyway, it's still a publicly owned company. It held a public offering and you can still buy shares of it right now if you wanted. When Musk's transaction completes, Twitter will be privately held. As you yourself noted, this hasn't happened yet.
Sure, and there's hypocrisy on both extreme ends of the spectrum. But has anyone in this thread been one to completely change their view just because Musk is trying to buy Twitter?
The real lessons should be "People will rationalize their behavior yet condemn the exact same behavior from people on the other end of the spectrum. I should be wary of these people while not becoming one of them. Also, people are not monolithic, so I should not assume that anyone that leans towards that political ideology must also feel the same as the extreme members of that ideology."
It doesn't. It just says Congress won't abridge them. There's an obvious omission here that heavily implies that private people and enterprise can.
So when you typed that it was "universal" you meant...not everyone, i.e. a cohort that's decidedly "not universal."
You are parsing words. I probably was a bit sloppy in my use of the words "private" and "public". Twitter is currently owned by its shareholders making it a "publicly held" company. Musk has an offer , approved by the Board of Directors, to buy all the shares and make Twitter a "privately held" company.
Private entities can control and limit speech up to a point. Employers and schools being two good examples. The various states cannot. The 14th Amendment made the entire Bill Of Rights applicable to the various states. Colleges and universities getting Federal funding may not take away certain rights from their students; including the rights of free expression and academic freedom. Efforts to do must survive strict scrutiny and must serve a compelling purpose.
In the U.S. , free expression is a natural right. it was not given to us by the government. The First Amendment was originally designed as a limitation on the National or Federal Government to preserve and protect the free exercise of the right. Some limitations have been developed by the SCOTUS to balance the exercise of that right with the requirements of an ordered and civil society; libel and slander laws being a good example.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dpacrkk
Uh huh, which ones?
The board recommended the transaction to shareholders. It's still not a done deal. Also note that you typed:
You acknowledge that the takeover will take months. You typed "will" meaning future tense two sentances after you typed "is" meaning present tense. It is impossible to be simultaneously currently privately owned and also to become privately owned by Musk in the future. This is the contradiction. It's also not really helping your case against the "demented boomer" comment.
Cool. Take it up with them. It is decidedly convenient that you don't complain about the hypocrites on the other side of the political spectrum.
You have clearly uncovered a great injustice. The courts must know about this and rule to reinstate various banned personalities' social media accounts. ...Or maybe you're overreaching.
The guy that masquerades as a great businessman bordering on being a titan of industry is telling us he won $20. I would ask "do you think before you post?" but you might complain about personal attacks again.
There are several lawsuits out there brought against Twitter by people including Berenson who were removed or suspended by Twitter. We will see.
The $20 was a friendly bet. I predicted both what would be posted and who would post it and I was right on both counts. I WISH I had the same prescience with my investment decisions. If only.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eagle2
You don't know that Twitter will be owned by Musk by the end of the year. The deal hasn't gone through yet. Trump and Berenson didn't abide by Twitter's terms and services. Twitter does not allow their platform to be used for inciting violence or lying about covid vaccines. The story on Hunter Biden's laptop was not legitimate. The NY Post was looking at a hard drive that was tampered with, and had multiple files that were added or deleted since the laptop was turned over to the FBI. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are dead because they believed lies and misinformation about covid vaccines. We had a violent insurrection based on lies about the election. The less access Trump, and lying nutjobs like Berenson have to social media platforms, the better.
As we have discussed , nothing Trump said or posted came close to a direct incitement of violence. Most of what Berenson posted about Covid issues was correct.
You are totally mistaken about Hunter's laptop. The N.Y. Post story about its contents has been proven to be 100% correct. So says the N.Y. Times and Washington Post. Both confirmed the existence of the laptop and of its contents that were reported by the N.Y. Post and Miranda Devine in her book "The Laptop From Hell". Who says files were added or deleted ? The FBI ? They have had their hands on it ever since it was turned over to them. The U.S. Attorney for Delaware ? Giuliani and his investigators downloaded the contents before the owner of the repair shop turned it over to the FBI. Nobody who examined the laptop or its contents ever said or implied that there were omissions or additions. None of the Bidens have ever claimed that. Dorsey now admits that suppressing the story and suspending the account of the N.Y. Post was a mistake.
Who is supposed to decide how much access Trump and Berenson get to social media ? Musk and 70% of Twitter users obviously think it should not be blatantly biased Twitter employees living in Silicon Valley.
Are you or anyone else seriously afraid that Musk will limit or control access of people that you like and agree with ? If not , then what are you worried about ? Clearly he intends to permit free and robust debate and that scares you why ? What is wrong with more voices being permitted to express more views ? Musk believes as I do that a truly free society permits and protects speech and expression that we do NOT like or agree with. For everyone from BLM and Anti-Fa on the left to the folks at National Review and MAGA hat wearers on the right. And everyone in between. And if there are some wingnuts on Twitter who go too far and actually incite violence or post truly dangerous disinformation we now have Biden's Ministry Of Truth to monitor them and refer them for further investigation and even prosecution as needed.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
You are parsing words.
What should we be doing with them? Are we supposed to psychically know what you really mean and ignore the words you use to convey your message?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
I probably was a bit sloppy in my use of the words "private" and "public". Twitter is currently owned by its shareholders making it a "publicly held" company. Musk has an offer , approved by the Board of Directors, to buy all the shares and make Twitter a "privately held" company.
This was a lot of sentences to avoid typing "I was wrong." Anyway, there's also the missing step of the shareholders needing to accept the offer too.
Side note: you've been openly critical of a certain someone's speech to the point of calling them senile over their word choice and message. You could stand to be introspective of your own "sloppy" word choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Private entities can control and limit speech up to a point. Employers and schools being two good examples.
Not to a point. They don't have to let you say/type/write anything at all. And people aren't immune from the consequences of their speech either. Also quick reminder of your admission to me:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Stoner
Quote:
Originally Posted by dpacrkk
For a simple example, (like Twitter) StripperWeb is also not part of the government and can abridge our "free speech." You even acknowledge in this private message thread that posts can be deleted. But I assure you that if my post was to be deleted, I would not complain about my rights like an inbred toothless hillbilly shouting "BUT MUH FREE SPEECH! HYUCK HYUCK!"
Hmmmm. You have a point about S-Web BUT it has not been made an essential part of the of the "public square " as Twitter has. Especially where political debate and discussion are concerned. Up to the 2020 election it did not make the sort of editorial decisions that blatantly favored one party over another.
It seems to me the distinction you draw is that one is more widely used than the other. Are you seriously trying to tell us you have to right to say "Hey Twitter, great work building a product that's widely used and accessible. But now that you've created something great, it's ours now. So hand it over and we don't care about your wishes!" If this is indeed the case, then be honest with yourself and drop all pretense: you don't care about liberty at all; in fact, you are against a private enterprise doing what they want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
In the U.S., free expression is a natural right.
...so not universally as you previously claimed? I am also not conceding it's a right for people even in the US.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eagle2
No, free speech does not apply to private platforms. There are also limitations to free speech. Incitement to violence is against the law. Slander and libel are also against the law, but are handled in civil court.
From what I remember, David Duke won the white vote when he ran for governor of Louisiana. Duke got 38.8% of the popular vote. There have been governors who were members of the Klan. I think Woodrow Wilson was sympathetic to the klan. I know he was a vile, disgusting racist.
Twitter and Facebook are not PUBLIC platforms.
No, most Republicans believe the election was stolen due to voter/election fraud. It is not against the law to change voting and election procedures. Some of these changes were passed by Republican controlled legislatures. The reason they refuse to accept the results is not because of any changes to election procedures, but because their candidate lost.
Again, countering lies with truth and better information doesn't work with stupid, stubborn people. The majority of Republicans still believe Trump won the 2020 election. Tens of millions of Americans refuse to get covid vaccination based on lies and misinformation they see on the internet and in the right-wing media.
During the 1930s, before hitler became dictator, Germany had free speech. After World War 2, West Germany banned the nazi party and nazi propaganda. The ban is still in place in Germany. Which worked out better?
Where did I equate any conservatives with hitler?
A long way back in this thread I laid out for you the test laid out by the SCOTUS for criminalizing so-called "incitement to violence". None of Trump's statements came close to that standard.
Do you know the main reason Duke lost when he ran for Governor of Louisiana ? The late Tim Russert exposed him on "Meet The Press" as incredibly ignorant about the main issues. Particularly the economy. He couldn't even name the largest industries in Louisiana. I don't live there and know they were agriculture, fishing , oil, shipping and tourism. Duke didn't. Hugo Black was a Klan member in the 1920's. So was Robert "Sheets" Byrd. In fact he was an Exalted Cyclops leading a local chapter of the KKK in West Virginia. Wilson was a despicable racist who resegregated the Civil Service among many other racial sins.
Unless you have a master plan to get rid of "stupid and stubborn" people you had best learn to accept that such people exist. And perhaps you might want to support better and more effective education and develop ways to open more minds to reason and alternative points of view. Just a suggestion.
There are lots of reasons why people have not been vaccinated. If they are young and healthy then the only person they are putting at risk is themselves. And a low risk at that. Getting their shots is not going to protect them from getting Covid or being infectious.
Germany may have banned the Nazi Party and Nazi propaganda but they still have plenty of skinheads and alt-right extremists. Especially among former residents of East Germany. When they break the law they are arrested and punished.
You are the one who brought up Hitler. He found a very fertile country for his ideas in Germany . He never won a single election. It was Hindenburg and the far right junkers who let him become Chancellor and then become Fuhrer after Hindenburg died. His authoritarian style played well across the social spectrum in post-W.W. I Germany. Few understood how dangerous he was until it was too late. Whether anything could have been done to prevent him from taking power is a question historians are still struggling with today.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dpacrkk
What should we be doing with them? Are we supposed to psychically know what you really mean and ignore the words you use to convey your message?
This was a lot of sentences to avoid typing "I was wrong." Anyway, there's also the missing step of the shareholders needing to accept the offer too.
Side note: you've been openly critical of a certain someone's speech to the point of calling them senile over their word choice and message. You could stand to be introspective of your own "sloppy" word choice.
Not to a point. They don't have to let you say/type/write anything at all. And people aren't immune from the consequences of their speech either. Also quick reminder of your admission to me:
It seems to me the distinction you draw is that one is more widely used than the other. Are you seriously trying to tell us you have to right to say "Hey Twitter, great work building a product that's widely used and accessible. But now that you've created something great, it's ours now. So hand it over and we don't care about your wishes!" If this is indeed the case, then be honest with yourself and drop all pretense: you don't care about liberty at all; in fact, you are against a private enterprise doing what they want.
...so not universally as you previously claimed? I am also not conceding it's a right for people even in the US.
Picky , picky , picky.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Picky , picky , picky.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Stoner
Your resort to name calling says far more about you and your lack of self confidence in your ability to debate issues.
Wishing well and formatting valedictions correctly,
dpacrkk
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Who is supposed to decide how much access Trump and Berenson get to social media ?
It's pretty simple: the people who own those platforms. Your argument that it's powerful/popular/whatever is irrelevant.
That these big tech companies have created products with such reach does not mean it should be confiscated on the sole basis that right-leaning engineers and product people are shit and can't create their own good equivalents. Recall that Parler had its data scraped before its deplatforming in what amounted to an interview question for mid-level software engineers. Beyond that, other such efforts (Parler, 8kun, Gab, Truth Social, etc) have all, very unsurprisingly, failed to be anything close to Twitter, Meta, Alphabet, etc. So congratulations!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Musk and 70% of Twitter users obviously think it should not be blatantly biased Twitter employees living in Silicon Valley.
This is misleading: it was not 70% of Twitter users. It was 70% of the people who voted in the poll, many of whom were people that follow Musk's Twitter account. This is selection bias.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/...1P7pcLGab2WpXg
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dpacrkk
It's pretty simple: the people who own those platforms. Your argument that it's powerful/popular/whatever is irrelevant.
That these big tech companies have created products with such reach does not mean it should be confiscated on the sole basis that right-leaning engineers and product people are shit and can't create their own good equivalents. Recall that Parler had its data scraped before its deplatforming in what amounted to an interview question for mid-level software engineers. Beyond that, other such efforts (Parler, 8kun, Gab, Truth Social, etc) have all, very unsurprisingly, failed to be anything close to Twitter, Meta, Alphabet, etc. So congratulations!
This is misleading: it was not 70% of Twitter users. It was 70% of the people who voted in the poll, many of whom were people that follow Musk's Twitter account. This is selection bias.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/...1P7pcLGab2WpXg
You are correct. That is a fair point and I can't find out how many Twitter users actually voted. I do know that nationwide 58% support Musk's takeover of Twitter according to the latest Harris poll. Also over 80% of Twitter users supported making the algorithms used to judge content transparent so everyone knows what is and is not permissible.
Musk has said he is going to try and use politically neutral standards and parameters. What is wrong with that ?
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dpacrkk
It's pretty simple: the people who own those platforms. Your argument that it's powerful/popular/whatever is irrelevant.
That these big tech companies have created products with such reach does not mean it should be confiscated on the sole basis that right-leaning engineers and product people are shit and can't create their own good equivalents. Recall that Parler had its data scraped before its deplatforming in what amounted to an interview question for mid-level software engineers. Beyond that, other such efforts (Parler, 8kun, Gab, Truth Social, etc) have all, very unsurprisingly, failed to be anything close to Twitter, Meta, Alphabet, etc. So congratulations!
This is misleading: it was not 70% of Twitter users. It was 70% of the people who voted in the poll, many of whom were people that follow Musk's Twitter account. This is selection bias.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/...1P7pcLGab2WpXg
Who actually did the deciding ? Twitter shareholders ? Nope. Dorsey and other officers ? Nope. It was Twitter employees using algorithms that nobody else could see. Could be a college drop-out using GIGO for all we know. We DO know a lot more conservatives got kicked off than any other political group.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
You are correct. That is a fair point and I can't find out how many Twitter users actually voted.
You can see it right below the poll. You're not really helping debunk that "demented boomer" assessment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Also over 80% of Twitter users supported making the algorithms used to judge content transparent so everyone knows what is and is not permissible.
It'd be interesting, but pointless. The median person wouldn't come close to understanding its implementation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Musk has said he is going to try and use politically neutral standards and parameters. What is wrong with that ?
Nothing. I even explicitly posted that I'm indifferent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Who actually did the deciding ? Twitter shareholders ? Nope. Dorsey and other officers ? Nope. It was Twitter employees using algorithms that nobody else could see. Could be a college drop-out using GIGO for all we know.
If that college dropout was capable enough to pass a software engineering interview at a big tech company, then they're very likely at least one standard deviation above the mean in IQ. Lack of a piece of paper doesn't change this. Similarly, ownership of a piece of paper doesn't make someone more capable than the aforementioned hypothetical engineer.
And you act like software engineering is unilateral, in other words that no Project Manager nor Product Owner came up with the feature, that no Senior/Lead/Architect assisted in its design, that the team didn't groom it, that the code didn't pass code review, that the feature didn't go through automated tests during the build process, that it didn't go through QA, and the code for the feature went into the master and release/production branches. Or you just want to cast doubt despite your glaring unfamiliarity of the software engineering process.
But by all means, question their work after you successfully pass even half the panel of algorithm and design questions that any engineer at a big tech company has to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
We DO know a lot more conservatives got kicked off than any other political group.
In order to conclude that there's a bias in moderation, you need to demonstrate that members of other parties break the rules at the same rate as conservatives. And that means on a large scale, not the few isolated incidents you keep citing. Would it honestly surprise you that members of one party break the rules more often?