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

[Bollocks]

Umm, I do? Where are you getting this stuff? You assume too much, and you overestimate yourself.

- - - Updated - - -



How isn't it?

- - - Updated - - -



You didn't answer my question. Where did Theo mention legal enforcement?

It doesn't answer my question. Nevertheless you are told about this changes and you agreed (when creating an account) the fact that it can be changed to their will.

[babyback]

Free speech does not and never has meant that you are allowed to say anything and everything.
There are some limits and they need to be enforced. I am sick to death of all the shithead racists, for example. Cutting their access to posting shit is beneficial.

Yes you are allowed to say and express what ever you like with freedom of speech. It is however totally fine for companies etc to enforce their own rules to not allow you to express anything in an environmen they own.

[Machismo]

Yes it is. Obligation to government is not the only obligation.

They have an obligation to their shareholders. If their shareholders are unhappy with something, then they will change. They don't have any real obligation to their users.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

I'm not being dishonest, not at all. You are demanding they change, I'm simply inquiring how you wish to make such a demand.

Its dishonest to make shit up, bro. You keep throwing words and thoughts in peoples mouths... thats dishonest.

[purebalance]

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.

Clearly you didn't read the article then because if hate speech limitation is entirely the choice on those sites, how did they get threatened with a lawsuit for not responding to hate speech claims? So clearly it applies to them and they weren't doing what they "should" and decided to up the ante.

[Bollocks]

If you don't like how a company operates, don't spend money on them. Companies care about profits, so if they lose profits, they will change their business model.

This so much this.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

He didn't in what I quoted. So I answered his comment without involving legal force. Done playing gotcha yet?

I'm not playing gotcha, it just gets old when people keep saying "government intervention!" when I don't see anyone actually saying that.

[willemh]

Free speech always had it's limits. Its forbidden to walk around in KKK uniform and preach all black people should be exterminated. It's forbidden to dress up in Nazi uniforms and speak about how Jewish people are the source of all evil. That is exactly what hate speech is.

But obviously certain people dont see the difference between 'freedom' and responsible governing while protecting those that obviously can't handle full freedom from hurting themselves or their fellow citizens. Similar to how guns should not be available to a convicted serial killer after he get's out of prison. Similar to how you should loose your drivers license if you drive like a mad man.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

It's not the same position, while we are both criticizing them, I am not demanding nor expecting that they they change their model. You are. I have repeatedly explained this to you. Your repeated statement of "they are the same thing" does nothing to actually demonstrate that they are and instead demonstrates a difficulty you appear to have in reading and understanding.

Its the same thing. But if all you can do is talk shit, then have a good day!

[Machismo]

Its dishonest to make shit up, bro. You keep throwing words and thoughts in peoples mouths... thats dishonest.

I didn't make anything up, go back and read what I wrote... then read it again. I never stated what you did, merely pointed out IF someone takes a specific stance, then that's what you are. Little words can make a big diference.

[PC2]

They don't have any real obligation to their users.

Wrong, they do have obligations to their users. If they break their stated policy they may cause financial damage to a user, they have an obligation to not cause damage by lying.

[Reeve]

I'm not playing gotcha, it just gets old when people keep saying "government intervention!" when I don't see anyone actually saying that.

It gets old for you, so you play gotcha with me. If you weren't playing gotcha, there would have been no reason to hammer the "You didn't answer my question. Where did Theo mention legal enforcement?" point home a second time when I'd already essentially conceded that I answered the wrong question and adjusted my answer to fit the bounds of non-legal situations.

[Dug]

It's not dishonesty and just saying "I never specifically said that!" doesn't mean you're not implying it. If you don't like a website "censoring" certain views, what do you want to be done? If you say nothing then you're complaining just to complain. Say what you actually mean.

[kail]

And here I though the far right promoted business freedoms.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

I didn't make anything up, go back and read what I wrote... then read it again. I never stated what you did, merely pointed out IF someone takes a specific stance, then that's what you are. Little words can make a big diference.

Okay man. You know what you did. You keep implying bullshit, and its dishonest, at best.

[Pangean]

You're right, I am. Because what they're doing is dishonest.

So they weren't the same were they? Holy shit that took you long enough to understand. And were they being dishonest? Don't know. Don't really care. But expecting that they change while not expecting that talk radio and Fox news to change as well shows a selective outrage. And I am sure I will see you demanding that they change as well right?

[babyback]

If you don't like how a company operates, don't spend money on them. Companies care about profits, so if they lose profits, they will change their business model.

I know and that's what I try to tell people here who think Facebook will act in a moral way and stick to their values if their profits will decrease.

If companies would decide to stop investing money in Facebook due to their policies they'll change them faster than a blinking eye.

[Deleted]

And here I though the far right promoted business freedoms.

They do? And I don't think anyone here have mentioned it being particularly opposed in that side of the spectrum or said that they specifically as a far right person dislike this?

[Machismo]

Wrong, they do have obligations to their users. If they break their stated policy they may cause financial damage to a user, they have an obligation to not cause damage by lying.

If their recourse is via government, then that is the demand you are eventually going to make... government intervention. WHich takes me back to my original assertion. If you wish to demand via the government, then you are opting for authoritarianism. If you wish to demand via your wallet (and theirs), then you are opsting for freedom.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

It gets old for you, so you play gotcha with me. If you weren't playing gotcha, there would have been no reason to hammer the "You didn't answer my question. Where did Theo mention legal enforcement?" point home a second time when I'd already essentially conceded that I answered the wrong question and adjusted my answer to fit the bounds of non-legal situations.

I wouldn't call that a concession, but okay.

And yeah, your post about exterminating anyone who doesn't agree with your new rules is rather terrible.