Free speech to be blocked under guise of stopping hate speech.

[chewie49]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...ithin-24-hours

I saw this link on my facebook thread. It is, to me, a very scary thing and a very sad thing to see. I left the following comment: "all these authoritarians love to trample a persons free speech under the guise of stopping hate speech. but i wonder what the cheerleaders of these policies will say when they get accused of hate speech when the definition starts to expand..."

I understand these sites have the right to police themselves since you have to agree to their terms of servers. Fine, I say, I'll find a social media plateform that holds free speech as their primary concern. And this is primarily why I'm here; I need suggestions. Is there such a thing?

[Kujako]

Freedom of Speech only pertains to the Government, not private entities. They have the right to "limit speech" on their sites, just as you have the right to not let me paint swastikas on the side of your house.

[Deleted]

Freedom of Speech only pertains to the Government, not private entities. They have the right to "limit speech" on their sites, just as you have the right to not let me paint swastikas on the side of your house.

Ah the private company boys, sure man, tell me what if google decided to only show far right news, far right perspective in the political search results?
Would it be good? They are private company.

You could say, well people can switch to another search engine, but you would be one damned idiotic fucker who didnt make a good buck in his life.
To think at a global scale that people will switch to another search engine in the span of a a year for example is beyond retarded.


So think of what you are saying unless you are just a propaganda tool.
Sure they are private companies, but they should stay in the spirit of freedom of speech when they have such manipulative power and address large portion of populations.

And people should protest against them if they dont stay in that spirit(both left and right, if they trully have the peoples interest in mind).






OT: The way some people think is... i didnt even think id live in such times.

[PC2]

Freedom of Speech only pertains to the Government, not private entities.

Yeah I think "free expression" better represents the idea that morally/ethically everyone should be able to express themselves without having to be silenced for disagreeing.

[Dug]

Ah the law guys, sure man, tell me what if google decided to only show far right news, far right perspective in the political search results?
Would it be good? They are private company.

You could say, well people can switch to another search engine, but you would be one damned idiotic fucker who didnt make a good buck in his life.
To think at a global scale that people will switch to another search engine in the span of a a year for example is beyond retarded.


So think of what you are saying unless you are just a propaganda tool.
Sure they are private companies, but they should stay in the spirit of freedom of speech when they have such manipulative power and address large portion of populations.

And people should protest against them if they dont stay in that spirit(both left and right, if they trully have the peoples interest in mind).

Who's stopping you from protesting it? Go ahead but its within their legal right to limit speech on their platforms. Try to change that if it bothers you so much

[Strangebrew]

Hello 1984.
Hello Russia.
Hello China.
Hello North-Korea.

[TwoNineMarine]

Yeah it's ridiculous. It's a sad state of affairs.

Plus watching the infractions and bans be handed out like candy to those who oppose illegal immigration and such is hilarious. And if anyone says anything negative about Muslims it's an infraction.

But you can say more or less what you want about Christianity about you're good. Plus nation bashing is an infractable offense yet it happened yesterday against the US and Endus didn't infract that person. Quite hilarious.

[Zan15]

Ah the private company boys, sure man, tell me what if google decided to only show far right news, far right perspective in the political search results?
Would it be good? They are private company.

You could say, well people can switch to another search engine, but you would be one damned idiotic fucker who didnt make a good buck in his life.
To think at a global scale that people will switch to another search engine in the span of a a year for example is beyond retarded.


So think of what you are saying unless you are just a propaganda tool.
Sure they are private companies, but they should stay in the spirit of freedom of speech when they have such manipulative power and address large portion of populations.

And people should protest against them if they dont stay in that spirit(both left and right, if they trully have the peoples interest in mind).

Fox news says hi
How about drudgereport and their billion views a monrh

Msnbc...
Cnn

Cns...

Etc etc...

Private companies...all slanted

Crying about not being able to drop hate speach is a new one...outside of the kkk and religious groups.

[Ranger382]

Yeah it's ridiculous. It's a sad state of affairs.

Plus watching the infractions and bans be handed out like candy to those who oppose illegal immigration and such is hilarious. And if anyone says anything negative about Muslims it's an infraction.

But you can say more or less what you want about Christianity about you're good. Plus nation bashing is an infractable offense yet it happened yesterday against the US and Endus didn't infract that person. Quite hilarious.

Well, Christianity is a vicious hate filled group of people that go around and blow children up. While the U.S sponsors terrorism and .....wait ..a ....minute.... did I get that wrong?

[Cerus]

Ah the private company boys, sure man, tell me what if google decided to only show far right news, far right perspective in the political search results?
Would it be good? They are private company.

You could say, well people can switch to another search engine, but you would be one damned idiotic fucker who didnt make a good buck in his life.
To think at a global scale that people will switch to another search engine in the span of a a year for example is beyond retarded.


So think of what you are saying unless you are just a propaganda tool.
Sure they are private companies, but they should stay in the spirit of freedom of speech when they have such manipulative power and address large portion of populations.

And people should protest against them if they dont stay in that spirit(both left and right, if they trully have the peoples interest in mind).






OT: The way some people think is... i didnt even think id live in such times.

Protecting speech only against government action IS the spirit of constitution. Our founding fathers meant to protect us from an overreaching government. They NEVER intended it to apply to private parties. Stand on a public space and protest. Yes. Stand on someone's lawn and protest. No.

[Kujako]

not much that can be done until laws are pushed forward that force sites such as the ones you mention to follow the laws of the country they are hosted in.

Ironically, laws forcing companies to allow everything to be posted would be against the 1st amendment since said companies have freedom of speech, which not only covers the freedom to speak, but also the freedom to keep quiet.

[xskarma]

Let's stay away from discussing moderation, it's on the forbidden topics list for a reason. Further discussion of moderation will not be tolerated.


If you have a problem with moderation, take it up with a blue (global) moderator.

[judgementofantonidas]

Yeah it's ridiculous. It's a sad state of affairs.

Plus watching the infractions and bans be handed out like candy to those who oppose illegal immigration and such is hilarious. And if anyone says anything negative about Muslims it's an infraction.

But you can say more or less what you want about Christianity about you're good. Plus nation bashing is an infractable offense yet it happened yesterday against the US and Endus didn't infract that person. Quite hilarious.

takes a number of infractions to get a ban

[Theodarzna]

Freedom of Speech only pertains to the Government, not private entities. They have the right to "limit speech" on their sites, just as you have the right to not let me paint swastikas on the side of your house.

That attitude would essentially make "Freedom of Speech," moot and non-existent. More over, Freedom of Speech is an ethical principle, beyond just a piece of legalese.

Your view would leave it conceptually vacant and empty, freedom to speak would then be left only to those with powerful mobs, lots of money or both.

[Chiquihuite]

Freedom of Speech only pertains to the Government, not private entities. They have the right to "limit speech" on their sites, just as you have the right to not let me paint swastikas on the side of your house.

1000% this. Businesses have a constitutionally protected right to make their own rules about what happens on their property (physical or virtual). You're free to dislike it, but they are in no way violating your First Amendment rights. Peoples' failure to understand this distinction boggles my mind.

[Ratyrel]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...ithin-24-hours

I saw this link on my facebook thread. It is, to me, a very scary thing and a very sad thing to see. I left the following comment: "all these authoritarians love to trample a persons free speech under the guise of stopping hate speech. but i wonder what the cheerleaders of these policies will say when they get accused of hate speech when the definition starts to expand..."

I understand these sites have the right to police themselves since you have to agree to their terms of servers. Fine, I say, I'll find a social media plateform that holds free speech as their primary concern. And this is primarily why I'm here; I need suggestions. Is there such a thing?

Freedom of expression is always circumscribed by other people's rights. You can be opposed to things without resorting to foul language, gross overgeneralisation, slander, libel, and distortion. The fact that they are private businesses aside, I think it's a good thing that social media are not lawless spaces and that includes limiting people's right to be horrible to others.

[judgementofantonidas]

Ironically, laws forcing companies to allow everything to be posted would be against the 1st amendment since said companies have freedom of speech, which not only covers the freedom to speak, but also the freedom to keep quiet.

freedom of speech is not freedom of deletion

[Deleted]

Good to see people stand up for the rights of terrorist to have free speech

Seriously, of all the articles to spin such a topic around, this one was likely the worst one could have found.

[The Penguin]

Off the top of my head Facebook springs to mind. Yes it's a private company, but it's also so huge and widely used that it is a foregone staple of society at this point. When such things become staples of society, I think it behooves the Government to step in and require certain things of such private companies much as we have anti-Trust laws in the USA.

Much like Movie Stars lose some expectation of their private image when they have become public figures (having traded their privacy for success), the same ought apply to businesses that grow to truly titanic proportions where people post their thoughts. Their size is lauded as success, but with that size comes responsibilities for the public's good and the good of the Country's founding principals.

Failure to provide basic things like free speech, excess moderation should on such sites result in punitive fines and correction of said issues.

[Dezerte]

I can get behind the idea that every person has a right to an opinion. But not that every person has a right to a podium, that gets messy quickly.