The Stuff removed / changed / pulled relating to Trump

[Houseman]

Your gym is stupid then. Maybe they ought to have stuff like call lists, mailing lists etc.. to ensure customers can get important information.

I agree.

They don't. You can hop on Facebook, Instagram, Gab, Parler (if it ever comes back up), Tumblr and half a dozen other more or less famous social media services that provide similar services. Even if you don't want more social media, you are not silenced. You can still use other channels to communicate. You really need to stop pretending as if being excluded from one social media platform is "silencing".

Let me rephrase: "Twitter shouldn't have the unilateral right to just silence somebody on their own platform, just because they feel like it."

Like I asked Agema:

How would you like it if Russia or China bought of Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc.?
Can you see the potential for harm, there? Could you see how those "platforms" could be misused in order to spread propaganda or suppress truth?
Assuming that you can see the potential for harm, what safeguards do you think should be implemented to protect us from that?

All the President needs to do is just make some IT intern create a basic news feed that he can fill with his inane rantings at his pleasure if he desperately wants to do it Twitter style.

That right there is a barrier to entry that should not be necessary. Like paying a toll before you can enter the town square.

The word you're looking for is "less convenient", because the President of the United States has plenty of ways to communicate. Once again: The White House has its own website, which it uses to communicate things relating to the President and the governing of the USA.

Making things less convenient is a tactic of suppression. For example: Voter ID.
If you make something harder, there's a chance they'll simply not do that thing anymore, which can be beneficial depending on one's goals.

Or if you'd like, we can use segregation as an analogy. "Use your own water fountain!"

 

[Seanchaidh]

When was that? I don't recall.

Or just repeal 230, a government protection that protects them from getting sued for user-based content on the basis that they're a "platform", not a "publisher".
That'd solve the problem real quick.

 

[Houseman]

quotes

That's not me declining to support your proposal. I just offered an alternative for your consideration. That said, I'm not fully on-board with the government owning all these virtual spaces. Regulation seems preferable to ownership.

 

[Agema]

They technically aren't, but they should be. It's how a lot of people communicate with families. A lot of businesses rely on them for communication. It might be viewed as the modern equivalent to the public square.

Families did not communicate via the public square in days of yore: they sent letters, telephoned, or visited each other's houses. And even now, families can do pretty much anything via some form of non-public communication system (like email) that they can over social media.

Needing social media is like needing a car. Is it absolutely vital for life? No. Might life be made significantly more difficult without it for some people? Yes.
People lived for thousands of years without it, yes, but society has changed over the course of a thousand years. Now, some businesses rely exclusively on social media. Getting locked out of those means getting locked out of those businesses.

Many businesses also rely on rented properties to carry out their operations. No-one argues they can refuse to be evicted if they break the terms of their tenancy.

Although this is perhaps getting away from the core issue. You're not complaining about censorship because businesses are inconvenienced. Businesses are overwhelmingly sensible enough to not publicly incite riots against the legislature (although some CEOs individually might not be so wise).

You're talking about censorship because right-wingers are annoyed that they're not free to call black people n******s and encourage each other to attack government buildings and intimidate democratic representatives.

I don't have a Twitter account either, but that doesn't stop you from reading tweets, like the ones posted in this topic. You are still being influenced, to a degree, by the speech that twitter allows or disallows.

I'm also still being influenced by the fucktard currently clogging up the White House (at least for a few more days), too. That's life.

I always ask the following whenever this subject comes up:

How would you like it if Russia or China were in charge of Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc.
Can you see the potential for harm, there? Could you see how those "platforms" could be misused in order to spread propaganda or suppress truth?
Assuming that you can see the potential for harm, what safeguards do you think should be implemented to protect us from that?

If nothing else, please answer these questions, as this is what I believe to be the crux of the matter.

I am remarkably relaxed about China and Russia owning social media sites. (They already do, it's just not that many people in the West have taken them up.) I think more diversity in the market rather than a handful of Californian tech giants is a good thing.

 

[Houseman]

Families did not communicate via the public square in days of yore: they sent letters, telephoned, or visited each other's houses. And even now, families can do pretty much anything via some form of non-public communication system (like email) that they can over social media.

Regardless: The internet and social media sites involving millions of people should be viewed as the public square.

Many businesses also rely on rented properties to carry out their operations. No-one argues they can refuse to be evicted if they break the terms of their tenancy.

There's a lot of regulation and legality involving what are and aren't acceptable terms of tenancy. A landlord can't just kick out a tenant on a whim.
It isn't completely "my private land, my rules!"

There's very little, if any regulation and legality involving what is or isn't against a website's Terms of Service.

You're talking about censorship because right-wingers are annoyed that they're not free to call black people n******s and encourage each other to attack government buildings and intimidate democratic representatives.

We shouldn't only speak up against censorship just when it's our turn to get censored. "First they came for the socialists..."
Their freedom of speech is our freedom of speech.

I am remarkably relaxed about China and Russia owning social media sites. (They already do, it's just not that many people in the West have taken them up.) I think more diversity in the market rather than a handful of Californian tech giants is a good thing.

Then you lack imagination or otherwise fail to see the danger. What would happen is that your opinions and all the information you use to inform those opinions would be manipulated until they are approved of by those governments. That's the worst case scenario.

 

[Agema]

We shouldn't only speak up against censorship just when it's our turn to get censored. "First they came for the socialists..."
Their freedom of speech is our freedom of speech.

I have said before and I say again, the right to say what you like does not extend to the demand that everyone should have to hear you.

Unfortunately, that is what a lot of the argument about "censorship" on social media really is: that people should be required to listen to you.

Then you lack imagination or otherwise fail to see the danger. What would happen is that your opinions and all the information you use to inform those opinions would be manipulated until they are approved of by those governments. That's the worst case scenario.

So you're actually for censorship, then, as long as they're Chinese and Russian?

How confusing!

 

[Avnger]

Regardless: The internet and social media sites involving millions of people should be viewed as the public square.

Other than your feelings being hurt, why is that? You have the right to speak your mind. You don't have the right to speak your mind on twitter.

 

[Houseman]

I have said before and I say again, the right to say what you like does not extend to the demand that everyone should have to hear you.

Unfortunately, that is what a lot of the argument about "censorship" on social media really is: that people should be required to listen to you.

What about the freedom to hear?
Is it okay for someone to say "you aren't allowed to listen to this" and plug your ears?

The freedom to speak and the freedom to hear are one and the same. It follows, that the freedom to be heard is also included in this. Whether or not you want to listen is your freedom, nobody else's. Nobody else should be able to take that away "for your own good", but that's what these companies are doing.

For example, a Supreme Court justice said:

"As the majority correctly demonstrates, in a variety of contexts, this Court has held that the First Amendment protects the right to receive information and ideas, the freedom to hear as well as the freedom to speak... The freedom to speak and the freedom to hear are inseparable; they are two sides of the same coin. But the coin itself is the process of thought and discussion." - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/408/753/

Students protesting a guest speaker to the extent that they deny her entry into the facility is denying all three, the right to speak, the right to be heard, and the right to hear.

I am not saying that people should be required to listen. I am saying that they should be allowed to make that decision on their own, not have it be made for them.


Just like making it more inconvenient for certain populations to vote is voter suppression, making it more difficult for people to be heard is speech suppression.

So you're actually for censorship, then, as long as they're Chinese and Russian?

No, I'm saying that they'd censor and suppress what they don't like, and elevate what they do like. I'm not advocating censoring China or Russia.

Other than your feelings being hurt, why is that?

Because the potential for harm is such that it requires regulation in order to continue to be safe.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Other than your feelings being hurt, why is that? You have the right to speak your mind. You don't have the right to speak your mind on twitter.

Except the argument could be made that other platforms are being shut down on the grounds of people saying things others don't like too.

As has been expressed before it builds and builds.

How it's goes.

"Oh go to another platform just build your own"
"Oh just go build your own distribution service because Google and Apple stores won't carry you"
"Oh you built your own distribution system and now payment providers are pulling out? Just build your own payment provider"
"Oh you built your own payment system, the banks are now refusing to process your money gotta build your own bank now"
And it can get worse to the point of needing your own country because politicians decide you bank isn't allowed to exist anymore one way or another.

 

[Agema]

What about the freedom to hear?
Is it okay for someone to say "you aren't allowed to listen to this" and plug your ears?

So you have a right to demand that a book publisher publish your novel in print, do you? If you approach a university with a speech you want to give, they are obliged to book you a lecture theatre and fill it with students?

No, I'm saying that they'd censor and suppress what they don't like, and elevate what they do like. I'm not advocating censoring China or Russia.

Oh yes, you are.

Rather than allow people to make up their own minds about what Russia and China say, you are demanding that we control what information comes from there. If conservative Americans can spread lies, conspiracy theories, disinformation and encourage direct action that leads to political violence under free speech, then so should anyone else - including Russia and China.

 

[Houseman]

So you have a right to demand that a book publisher publish your novel in print, do you? If you approach a university with a speech you want to give, they are obliged to book you a lecture theatre and fill it with students?

Of course not.

Rather than allow people to make up their own minds about what Russia and China say, you are demanding that we control what information comes from there.

Again, no I'm not. This is a baseless accusation.

 

[ObsidianJones]

I don't consider this a victory. I consider this scary.

At worst, I believe they have retreated to safe spaces and private plotting areas.

 

[Agema]

Of course not.

But what about your right to be heard? It's being denied.

Again, no I'm not. This is a baseless accusation.

You are saying Russia and China can't be allowed to control media, because they might lie to us. But how do you propose to stop that without censoring them? The USA can't reasonably demand the entire world's social media is handed into its possession. If you want to ban them, that's censorship.

 

[Houseman]

"Misinformation drops 73 percent after Trump is banned"
"Censorship produces a chilling effect that scares people into shutting up under fear of being banned."

Wow, what a revelation!

But what about your right to be heard? It's being denied.

Your right to be heard is violated when, for example, a group of students invite a speaker, but then a group of other students block you from coming.

You are saying Russia and China can't be allowed to control media, because they might lie to us. But how do you propose to stop that without censoring them?

Spreading lies is one thing. Censoring the truth is another. Stopping them from censoring/suppressing the truth would fix it.
The best remedy for bad speech is MORE speech.

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."- Justice Louis Brandeis, Whitney v. California

 

[Agema]

Your right to be heard is violated when, for example, a group of students invite a speaker, but then a group of other students block you from coming.

That concept of freedom to be heard doesn't apply to a social media account, then.

The best remedy for bad speech is MORE speech.

That sounds more like a natty slogan than a evidentially-derived fact.

 

[Avnger]

Spreading lies is one thing. Censoring the truth is another. Stopping them from censoring/suppressing the truth would fix it.

Who defines "truth" vs "lies" for any given topic in your fantasy world? The companies themselves? Each national government? A supranational entity such as the UN? Media companies? Each individual user?

 

[Schadrach]

Are you arguing the people that stormed the Capitol Building and killed a cop *didn't* use Parler to discuss, plan out, communicate about and celebrate their attacks? Or are you arguing that Parler itself should face no consequences for that activity?

One could reasonably argue that the biggest tech companies routinely do things like that to no punishment, and use anything that slips by on a competitor as an excuse to eliminate competition. Ask yourself this - how much criminal activity has been talked about or posted on Twitter, Facebook, etc? How about showing up in Google search results or on YouTube? Hell, I think you'd be shocked by the sheer volume of both support for pedophilia and actual child pornography that gets posted to Twitter but somehow isn't worthy of "consequences" while Google/Apple are already leveraging their control of mobile platforms against Minds without there being a Capitol Riot or similar event that can be connected to it.

That sounds more like a natty slogan than a evidentially-derived fact.

One sourced by paraphrasing Obama, no less.

 

[Houseman]

That concept of freedom to be heard doesn't apply to a social media account, then.

someone banning you is removing your freedom to be heard and the audience's freedom to hear.

That sounds more like a natty slogan than a evidentially-derived fact.

Tell that to the supreme court justice who said it.

Who defines "truth" vs "lies" for any given topic?

Nobody should. Hence, nobody should be censored or suppressed for spreading anyone's definition of a lie

 

[Agema]

One sourced by paraphrasing Obama, no less.

Dude, it's way older than that. It''s been rattling around for decades if not centuries.

someone banning you is removing your freedom to be heard and the audience's freedom to hear.

So a publisher ending your book contract or deciding not to start a new print run is an offence against not just your human rights, but everyone else's, too. Got it.

Tell that to the supreme court justice who said it.

Argument from authority. Did he supply a proper explanation, and if so what is it?

 

[Houseman]

So a publisher ending your book contract or deciding not to start a new print run is an offence against not just your human rights, but everyone else's, too. Got it.

If it's because they disagree with your speech and don't want your message to be spread, yes, exactly.
Kind of like how a publisher ending your book because of your ethnicity is discrimination, and an offence against your rights.

Should a publisher be forced to carry your book even if they hate your ethnicity or gender?

Why do people see violations of the right to vote in things as small as a change to the rules making it slightly more inconvenient, but they don't see how making it more and more inconvenient to speak and to hear certain viewpoints is a violation of free speech?

"If you don't like it, make your own website" - Perfectly fine
"If you want to vote, just get a photo ID" - Not okay.

Argument from authority. Did he supply a proper explanation, and if so what is it?

Oh, now it's an "Argument from authority", but we all remember how you were happy to take judges at their word when they dismissed election fraud cases.
But it's just an opinion. You asked "But how do you propose to stop that without censoring them?" and I answered: Not with censorship, but with more speech.