Should AT&T and Verizon do more to combat hate speech?

[Tom007p]

Absolutely not, you're acting as if all these service providers aren't already sharing all their data with the government... I prefer the current system where you at least have the delusion of privacy.

[derpkitteh]

All the things you listed are categorized as socialism by the right.

"i do want a lot of socialist ideas though"

we need a mixed system to succeed. we have a bit of a mixed system already, but it could use more socialist elements to protect the citizens of the country. we also need hard, nearly-impenetrable borders so that we can afford to take care of our citizens.

[Najnaj]

Yes, idiots do vote, and they should be able to vote. Hell, I want more people to vote, so convince them to do it. As for those people that are brainwashed, I have stopped trying to be nice to them. I'm done pandering to my Trumpster mother who spams fake news. I call her a liar, I prove her wrong, and I make sure everyone who reads what she posts knows she's lying. When I found out a friend of mine was racist (he said he wanted to kick out all Mexicans, even the legal ones), I told him exactly how I felt, and said I hope he has a nice life. I told him to give me a call when he changed who he was, and I informed his employer of what he had said, and what he believes. Will he ever change? Probably not. But, I don't have to have someone like that in my life. I still think he should be allowed to vote, and hope he does vote. Forcing people and companies to not be biased is never going to work. I'd prefer to inform the world that they are biased and liars.

I agree with you but.... It isn't the bias I am against. Everyone should be allowed to think what ever idiotic shit they want and of course to vote. What I am against is the lying that happens at Fox and also to some extent at CNN. These entertainment shows that are being pushed as news. Everywhere else publishers are forced to display if something is paid commercial content and 80% of Fox news is paid commercial content so why do they not display this.

[Machismo]

I agree with you but.... It isn't the bias I am against. Everyone should be allowed to think what ever idiotic shit they want and of course to vote. What I am against is the lying that happens at Fox and also to some extent at CNN. These entertainment shows that are being pushed as news. Everywhere else publishers are forced to display if something is paid commercial content and 80% of Fox news is paid commercial content so why do they not display this.

The issue is that it's not usually outright lies, but skewing facts, hiding them, or simply ignoring them. They will push a bullshit agenda, by "asking questions" instead of making statements. Companies like Fox News, and even CNN don't lie all that often, given the amount of air time. They simply only show what they want to show. is it deceitful? Yes. Are they all actual lies... not exactly.

[Vash The Stampede]

Given that our friends on the left wing have made it clear that White Nationalism and Right Wing extremism is on the rise, do you think companies like AT&T and Verizon should do more to combat them? Why should we allow a hateful bigot to operate a mobile phone or have access to the internet? It seems like curtailing access to these would combat this massive problem.

A. Because free speech
B. Because that's your opinion that it's hate speech.
C. About as useless as Trump building a wall. Even if you were to somehow ban every Republican and Nazi you can find, they'll adjust and work around it. Just look at gab.

Better to educate people on your cause then to just shun those who don't agree, because that's worked well historically right?

[Cruor]

Your post is absolute delusional nonsense. Look at the facts, every military man that used to serve Trump's cabinet has resigned. A few months ago Trump supporters were frothing at the mouth about the FBI being part of the deep state and screeching about how they were being treasonous for making contingency plans in case Trump and his supporters would need to be removed from power by force if necessary to protect US democracy.

Thirdly I will counter your anecdotal fantasy with my own by stating that you dont even know what is hanging above your head.

Lastly, it is you who is an extremist and is trying to imply that every conservative and military has the same political opinions as you. Furthermore, military personnel swore an oath to remain politically neutral.

Why do you pretend to know anything when you aren't in the military or work with them? I'm not the ones asking to silence the left, it's the left asking to silence the right. They want the fight, I simply said they will lose. All I can say to you is enjoy Trump until 2024, and if the left ever does take the house, Congress and presidency, if you think all of the military would follow order to seize guns or some other nonsense you are mistaken... "swore an oath" lol... as if no army in history had ever sworn an oath then revolted when the leadership failed or went crazy...

[Polyxo]

Can be said the other way too.

If you remove those rights, then you remove their freedoms. Then you SHOULD by facto remove rights from heavily active political speakers too.

You have no right to have those do business with you.

[Doctor Amadeus]

the more you challenge people's beliefs the more they believe them and facts don't matter to change most peoples minds.
articles on the study's
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/no.../#.XQIlz497nmQ
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...ange-our-minds

ultimately this is what you see happening in society at large amongst the politically active, due to the internet and fast communication and exposure to opposing views its actually causing a daily dose of affirming a persons own views, entrenching them and pushing them further from the ability to compromise with the opposition, when a left wing user like gilrak has a pissy fight with a right wing user like videogames, what actually happens is both gilrak and videogames both leave further convinced and sure of there positions irregardless of what evidence or facts were thrown at each other. after a while it can become personal because they keep getting brought be degrees against each other or against the same argument over and over the level of frustration rises to a point where they simply will oppose each other or each other causes out of spite, which is why you see such anger thrown at morally good causes like men's mental health from the left and LGBT stuff from the right, its spiteful splash damage from a politics thats too active and confrontational.

personally i think it should be required that for one month a year talk of politics is banned all across the internet and all politicians, activists and commentators are muted. gives the cycle time to reset and every one to calm down, sounds radical but i think its needed.

theres an old saying "don't talk money, politics or religion" and theres good reasons for it.

@Doctor Amadeus

you might find those articles interesting btw.

You always have something interesting to say, and although we are polar opposites on the political spectrum everything you said makes both logical and reasonable, I will for sure read the links you provided.

[Nobleshield]

No, we need to tell people to grow a thicker skin and stop crying like babies when people say things they don't like.

[Doctor Amadeus]

No, we need to tell people to grow a thicker skin and stop crying like babies when people say things they don't like.

Accept when people say things you don't like right, like go somewhere else with your bullshit, like YouTube, guess if those preaching this bullshit grew a thicker skin and fucking developed their own shit instead of whining about other people whining (Invoking their right to free speech and expression.)

[Zan15]

Rofl at all the fools who want to censor "hate speech" aka any right wing views. You are going to have a really nasty wake up call when this revolution you want does happen, and you find out the majority of the military, police, defense industry and gun owners are on the right. The left would be crushed. Once you are on the run or in a prison camp maybe you will have time to reflect on how insane you were.

First no one wants anything close to what your little angry conspiracy mind has made up in your head

Besides war depends on funding and we know silly liburls have all the money and run the banks right dude...I mean that is why your type always cries about... /S

[Polyxo]

No, we need to tell people to grow a thicker skin and stop crying like babies when people say things they don't like.

Then stop whining when some company bans you.

[agentsi]

So imbeciles like the OP, want companies, who lie, cheat, steal, underpay their employees, provide terrible service both in terms of to their customers and the service itself tech wise, to regulate private speech between its customers.

How in the fuck, can someone be so stupid to even propose an idea like this. Wanting, a giant corporation to rule over your phone/service so you can feel safe from your eyes seeing something you disagree with.

When did people become so sensitive that even saying something you dislike, is now considered hate speech. Even when its not hate speech, people are calling it hate speech because they're overly sensitive.

This is disgusting. Truly.

[Kreo]

Good idea.
If you don't support reparations and BLM, that makes you white supremacist, aka enemy of the state. And enemy of the state should be automatically locked up.
Simple.

[Drusin]

So, does that mean you are upset that this site doesn't host a mass of videos of beheadings and child porn?

No, that's not what this site is for. I guess it could go in General OT but as an armchair website owner I think MMO-C would get in trouble with their advertisers if they allowed that kind of stuff on the site, I don't know though never run a website.

You either want to demand they show all those things, or you support censorship.

That's not how that works, if I want to see beheadings I'll go to a gore site lol. All sites don't have to host all material because I don't believe in censorship.

I'll let you decide.

I decide, no censorship

[Machismo]

No, that's not what this site is for. I guess it could go in General OT but as an armchair website owner I think MMO-C would get in trouble with their advertisers if they allowed that kind of stuff on the site, I don't know though never run a website.


That's not how that works, if I want to see beheadings I'll go to a gore site lol. All sites don't have to host all material because I don't believe in censorship.



I decide, no censorship

They are the ones complaining about censorship, I was simply pointing out that censorship happens all the time, when websites decide what they are going to host and display.

If you decide "no censorship then why are you not upset that they are not allowed on this site, or YouTube?

You are making my case for me, "censorship" is a bad word, even though it's done constantly with nobody giving a damn.

If you don't want censorship, then start your own website that doesn't censor at all. If you think that all sites don't have to show everything, then you are defending their freedom to sensor those things, and not have them on their sites.

[Lochton]

You have no right to have those do business with you.

And why not? And why judges that they are still committing hate speeches? WHo's going to judge them? Why are we permitted to it?

Are we then going to deny people in jail their phonecall? I'd rather have criminals muted than people being too loud mouthed..

[exochaft]

They are the ones complaining about censorship, I was simply pointing out that censorship happens all the time, when websites decide what they are going to host and display.

If you decide "no censorship then why are you not upset that they are not allowed on this site, or YouTube?

You are making my case for me, "censorship" is a bad word, even though it's done constantly with nobody giving a damn.

If you don't want censorship, then start your own website that doesn't censor at all. If you think that all sites don't have to show everything, then you are defending their freedom to sensor those things, and not have them on their sites.

Don't want to get too into the weeds on this, but there are two things at play here (completely ignoring how vague and nondescript hate speech is in practice, that's a whole post).

This goes back to the whole public platform and publisher duality that social media uses to suppress/ban anything they don't like w/o getting into legal problems. I have to bring it up every time since some people can't quite understand it, but their beloved defense of Section 230 was meant/intended for getting rid of things like child pornography or sex trafficking on their sites. In general, this Code was meant for sites to be able to take down content that was blatantly illegal despite being public platforms, and this is how it was sold to the public. However, the social media companies lobbied and even helped write this Code, and they intentionally made the wording way too broad to where they can basically get away with practices that any other company would be facing major legal issues if engaging in the same behavior. Instead of taking down or suppressing content that's actually or probably illegal in nature, this vaguely-worded Code is used in bad faith to take down anything they don't agree with despite being a public platform. That's what publishers do, but unlike publishers these sites aren't held liable for the content posted on their sites. I find it rather ironic that people who seem to openly hate large corporations treating their customers like crap and working with politicians to protect themselves are completely okay with this sort of activity. It's a prime example of cronyism.

Putting all that aside, another huge issue that could actually get these companies in trouble is deceptive business practices or similar issues that arise in their activities. The super simple version is this: these platforms actively go out and solicit their business and monetization models to companies and individuals, almost always with a promise of neutrality. What these platforms then do is use these companies/individuals to draw in more people to their site, and once they get enough people drawn to their platform via these companies/individuals, if they decide they don't like or agree with them, they'll shadow ban/suppress/throttle/etc. them. It's hugely deceptive, and sadly it's not really a secret that this behavior goes on (there's been a bunch of undercover work and document leaks done at several platform companies exposing this behavior). It's to the point where they aren't really even hiding it anymore. I think just yesterday someone on the "Right" was permanently demonetized and throttled on Facebook from several millions of viewers a day to sub-100k viewers because they posted a old news clip from CNN of the founder of the Weather channel refuting climate change, and the reason for the throttle was listed as something along the lines of this individual was not good for the community. However, that's just one example out of many that are public, and most probably don't get publicized because the companies/individuals aren't well known enough that it makes waves on a large enough scale. The entire ploy is to deceive people into the platform, and when the platform builds enough of a base to where people need/rely on your platform or creating new competition to your platform is extremely hard to impossible, the platform shows it true colors. It's actually a pretty common tactic of authoritarian regimes who come into power, where you put on a pretty face and sell people a false bill of goods, only to show your true nature when the populace can't do anything about it and your power is solidified.

While the above mostly applies to the social media aspect, it does apply to the main topic at hand. AT&T and Verizon have vast influence due to how many companies these corporations own, and it include many news outlets and network television stations. Also, many owners and operators of said companies have ties to the government and politicians, to the point of being buddy-buddy with them and engaging in "scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" behaviors that fall under the cronyism heading. The end-game of companies like AT&T and Verizon (and a bunch of other companies, including platforms) is corporate socialism, to where they'll have all the protections and support of the national government, and those in power will have their control and influence over the populace via these companies. It's not really a secret either, as this is why you see arguments of "too big to fail" being made by politicians when large corporations start getting into trouble, or if the government bails out companies that should for all intents and purposes go out of business. If these corporations reach this end-game, the debate process will even cease to exist and the government will always bail out companies associated with or favorable to the government.

In case people haven't guessed it, my answer is no.

[Machismo]

Don't want to get too into the weeds on this, but there are two things at play here (completely ignoring how vague and nondescript hate speech is in practice, that's a whole post).

This goes back to the whole public platform and publisher duality that social media uses to suppress/ban anything they don't like w/o getting into legal problems. I have to bring it up every time since some people can't quite understand it, but their beloved defense of Section 230 was meant/intended for getting rid of things like child pornography or sex trafficking on their sites. In general, this Code was meant for sites to be able to take down content that was blatantly illegal despite being public platforms, and this is how it was sold to the public. However, the social media companies lobbied and even helped write this Code, and they intentionally made the wording way too broad to where they can basically get away with practices that any other company would be facing major legal issues if engaging in the same behavior. Instead of taking down or suppressing content that's actually or probably illegal in nature, this vaguely-worded Code is used in bad faith to take down anything they don't agree with despite being a public platform. That's what publishers do, but unlike publishers these sites aren't held liable for the content posted on their sites. I find it rather ironic that people who seem to openly hate large corporations treating their customers like crap and working with politicians to protect themselves are completely okay with this sort of activity. It's a prime example of cronyism.

Putting all that aside, another huge issue that could actually get these companies in trouble is deceptive business practices or similar issues that arise in their activities. The super simple version is this: these companies actively go out and solicit their business and monetization models to companies and individuals, almost always with a promise of neutrality. What these companies then do is use these companies/individuals to draw in more people to their site, and once they get enough people drawn to their platform via these companies/individuals, if they decide they don't like or agree with them, they'll shadow ban/suppress/throttle/etc. them. It's hugely deceptive, and sadly it's not really a secret that this behavior goes on (there's been a bunch of undercover work and document leaks done at several companies exposing this behavior). It's to the point where they aren't really even hiding it anymore. I think just yesterday someone on the "Right" was permanently demonetized and throttled on Facebook from several millions of viewers a day to sub-100k viewers because they posted a old news clip from CNN of the founder of the Weather channel refuting climate change, and the reason for the throttle was listed as something along the lines of this individual was not good for the community. However, that's just one example out of many that are public, and most probably don't get publicized because the companies/individuals aren't well known enough that it makes waves on a large enough scale. The entire ploy is to deceive people into the platform, and when the platform builds enough of a base to where people need you or creating new competition to your platform is extremely hard to impossible, the platform shows it true colors. It's actually a pretty common tactic of authoritarian regimes who come into power, where you put on a pretty face and sell people a false bill of goods, only to show your true nature when the populace can't do anything about it and your power is solidified.

While the above mostly applies to the social media aspect, but it does apply to the main topic at hand. AT&T and Verizon have vast influence due to how many companies these corporations own, and it include many news outlets and network television stations. Also, many owners and operators of said companies have ties to the government and politicians, to the point of being buddy-buddy with them and engaging in "scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" behaviors that fall under the cronyism heading. The end-game of companies like AT&T and Verizon (and a bunch of other companies) is corporate socialism, to where they'll have all the protections and support of the national government, and those in power will have their control and influence over the populace via these companies. It's not really a secret either, as this is why you see arguments of "too big to fail" being made by politicians when large corporations start getting into trouble, or if the government bails out companies that should for all intents and purposes go out of business. If these corporations reach this end-game, the debate process will even cease to exist and the government will always bail out companies associated with or favorable to the government.

In case people haven't guessed it, my answer is no.

That "publisher versus platform" thing is actually a myth. This all points back to Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act. The act explicitly states that they are not liable for the content that other people post. Now, there are exceptions, like kiddie porn, and others... which is listed in Section 230. Nowhere in 230 does it say thaty cannot censor people, or that they are responsible for what they do not publish. Nowhere does it say that they cannot censor. Nowhere does it make any claims at all about a "platform." The only time it mentions them as a "publisher" is to state that they are not liable for what someone else posts.

The code was written, because an anonymous poster on a Prodigy forum made a claim against a company (that ended up actually being true). Prodigy was sued, and lost the case, even though they did not actually write the libelous (which was actually found to be true later on) comments. When Prodigy lost, the internet was in a very difficult spot, as all companies were liable for anything any user was saying. Think about that for a second. That would be the same as someone coming into your house or store, saying he was going to murder the president, and you being found liable for his comment. That's why the law came about.

As someone who has not been approached by YouTube to post content, I cannot make a claim for or against your claim that they reach out as a "neutral source." I don't see how they could be sued, because they are following their ToS. They are kicking people based on things that are justified by their own claims. So, if they are following the rules that posters know about, I don't see any way that they could be targeted in this manner. If you have evidence of the claims you are making in your second paragraph, I would love to see them. I have heard people say this, but just like Section 230, people are simply repeating the same false information.

Here's the Prodigy lawsuit:

https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4540

Here's Section 230:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

I know Ben Shapiro and Ted Cruz pushed the misinformation about Section 230, but I do not know if they are the ones who actually started it.

[Polyxo]

And why not? And why judges that they are still committing hate speeches? WHo's going to judge them? Why are we permitted to it?

Are we then going to deny people in jail their phonecall? I'd rather have criminals muted than people being too loud mouthed..

They judge. It's their platform.