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

[Vorkreist]

It's simple, Trumpsters don't care about honest debate, neither to the white nationalists. You try and whine about how it should only be about policy, and yet, here you are, with your argument as "We won, so we're right."

Nah, the Trump administration has embraced national socialism.

- - - Updated - - -



Who is trying to ban people from the internet?

YouTube is not the fucking internet.

- - - Updated - - -



So, you are saying you hate capitalism, and want the government to control the means of production... good, thanks for admitting it.

They are a private company, let them decide whom they serve as customers. Your hatred of capitalism is noted.

That is not what I'm saying. I'm for capitalism but not when certain entities like mega-corps the likes google / facebook / twitter get to control all the public discourse.
You can have capitalism and also not allow mega-corps to literally take over the world and act against common sense needs like freedom of speech.
Stop acting like you love capitalism so much, you're leftist who only suddenly decided to defend capitalism because all the political censorship currently favouring far leftist crap.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you have any evidence of this?

Do you have evidence against it? We can both throw stupid questions.

- - - Updated - - -

You really do want to stifle their free speech and freedom of association, don't you.

It's a shame you also oppose private-property rights.

- - - Updated - - -



The polls agree with you, which is why I want him to back up his claim.

- - - Updated - - -



I absolutely believe in free speech. That's why I think companies should also be free to speak, and refuse business to people whom they do not wish to serve. Free speech does not mean others are obligated to give you a free megaphone, or provide you with a massive, attentive audience.

Are people outraged that YouTube doesn't show explicit porn or pro-ISIS propaganda? I don't hear a lot of whining about that. People have free speech, as do business owners, including YouTube. Every one of them can still operate their own website.

You are so full of shit its reeking past the moon. Stop sucking on the mega-corps just because they do leftist propaganda, censorship of non-left and thought policing . Tomorrow might be different. Also I'm still amazed how the fuck can you compare what they do. Political discourse manipulation that literally decides election to aawww ZUCC's "freedom of association" is more important to me than the freedom of speech of all the millions of people using those platforms.

[Machismo]

Beheadings likely because of advertisers.
Child porn because it's illegal


I most certainly give a damn but I can't bitch about everything I give a damn about all the time lol, you'll see my opinion in votes though


Nah, not about that small business life



OK then have sites show everything ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I personally don't have any problem with ANY content at all I'll just ignore it and MMO-C is pretty well segregated into subforums so I doubt I'd see it anyways.

Yes, and this is also because of advertisers, that's the point. They are allowed to dump things from there site, because it's their property. If they think it will impact their business, by turning away other customers or advertisers, that's their prerogative.

That's the thing, sites like this with their "segregation" would also be censoring people. You have stated you are too lazy to bother to do what you want to force others to do... that's hypocrisy.

- - - Updated - - -

That is not what I'm saying. I'm for capitalism but not when certain entities like mega-corps the likes google / facebook / twitter get to control all the public discourse.
You can have capitalism and also not allow mega-corps to literally take over the world and act against common sense needs like freedom of speech.
Stop acting like you love capitalism so much, you're leftist who only suddenly decided to defend capitalism because all the political censorship currently favouring far leftist crap.

- - - Updated - - -



Do you have evidence against it? We can both throw stupid questions.

- - - Updated - - -




You are so full of shit its reeking past the moon. Stop sucking on the mega-corps just because they do leftist propaganda, censorship of non-left and thought policing . Tomorrow might be different. Also I'm still amazed how the fuck can you compare what they do. Political discourse manipulation that literally decides election to aawww ZUCC's "freedom of association" is more important to me than the freedom of speech of all the millions of people using those platforms.

And yet, we are having public discourse without them, and there are thousands upon thousands of other sites where you can have it. People just choose to go to those sites to have discourse, because that's where more people go. That's a feature, not a bug. And no, they are not the ones attacking freedom of speech, the people trying to force them to platform other speakers are the ones against freedom of speech. You are attacking freedom of speech, that's the point. As for calling me a leftist who just suddenly found the desire to defend capitalism, you are soooooo fucking wrong. I have always defended capitalism in these threads, so I would love for you to prove that claim you made. Find a single instance where I'm not supporting capitalism and the free markets.

As for me asking for your evidence from the other post, you made the claim... not me. Here, I'll quote it again, so you can back that up:

The goal post is moving more and more each day. The far leftards realized the majority of the people are against their deranged views so they come up with new labels for everyone even center or left whos not on board with their insanity.

Since you have demonstrated a clear trend of making bullshit claims without backing them up, I don't see this changing. As the Hitch said, what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Let me know when you can back up your claims.

I don't give a shit if Facebook, YouTube, and Google decide to stop doing business with all leftists, they should be free to do that. They should be free to tell literally everyone to go piss up a rope, and they will run their businesses how they like. You are always free to start your own fucking website, it's cheap and fast. Yes, business owners should also have freedom of association. I don't give a shit if it's Zuckerberg, or the guy who owns the bar down the fucking street. They should both be ble to kick out whomever they want.

- - - Updated - - -

What is really needed is social accountability. All digital activity needs to be traceable back to your SSN, since that amounts to our national ID number with a cross reference to your state ID or driver's license. Let people use handles for various websites but the services all need to have those links on file for law enforcement and social systems. After that, of course, your social standing should be awarded or deducted points to indicate how reliable you are.

That's not really social accountability, that's authoritarian bullshit, because you want the government to do it. Let's not try and defend the bullshit antics of the Chinese government.

[shadowmouse]

That's not really social accountability, that's authoritarian bullshit, because you want the government to do it. Let's not try and defend the bullshit antics of the Chinese government.

Is it? Put it in perspective, I'm guessing OP isn't in China. While I'd like to think the whole thread is left v right flame bait, consider:

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.

That goes *well* beyond what I posted and suggests that there are those who would indeed be on board with something like that. And that's how it starts. We used to have planes hijacked, it was a risk of flying. Now? Flying is still risky, but people are trained to accept taking off their shoes, getting their genitals kneaded, and all the rest. In the name of our "wars" on Drugs and Terrorism (conveniently never vanquished and unable to surrender) an increasing range of limits have been accepted. I wasn't particularly subtle about filing the serial numbers off that social accountability suggestion, but expect it to be coming to you dressed up as protection from fake news and hate speech. It will be the bullshit antics of corporations and US government agencies, but it will be the same thing dressed up a bit different and it is coming. Nor will the current stacked judiciary do much to stop it.

[Machismo]

Is it? Put it in perspective, I'm guessing OP isn't in China. While I'd like to think the whole thread is left v right flame bait, consider:



That goes *well* beyond what I posted and suggests that there are those who would indeed be on board with something like that. And that's how it starts. We used to have planes hijacked, it was a risk of flying. Now? Flying is still risky, but people are trained to accept taking off their shoes, getting their genitals kneaded, and all the rest. In the name of our "wars" on Drugs and Terrorism (conveniently never vanquished and unable to surrender) an increasing range of limits have been accepted. I wasn't particularly subtle about filing the serial numbers off that social accountability suggestion, but expect it to be coming to you dressed up as protection from fake news and hate speech. It will be the bullshit antics of corporations and US government agencies, but it will be the same thing dressed up a bit different and it is coming. Nor will the current stacked judiciary do much to stop it.

And you are seeking even more authoritarianism... no thanks.

[Drusin]

That's the thing, sites like this with their "segregation" would also be censoring people.

Moving a thread from one place to another isn't censoring in my book. Put your thread in the right place and they won't mess with it.

You have stated you are too lazy to bother to do what you want to force others to do... that's hypocrisy.

Nah, it'd be hypocrisy if I had a website and used some form of censorship.

[Machismo]

Moving a thread from one place to another isn't censoring in my book. Put your thread in the right place and they won't mess with it.


Nah, it'd be hypocrisy if I had a website and used some form of censorship.

Great, put it in the right place, on your own website. That way, nobody will mess with it.

So, you are too lazy to do what you are requiring of others. If you really cared about not censoring, you would have started a website, and hosted it all. Apparently, there's plenty of people who would love to go to that site you want so badly, so make it.

Luckily, they own their own websites, and can run them how they see fit. Freedom is fucking awesome.

[Galactis]

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.

I'm a left liberal and I will say absolutely not. Businesses that restrict protected free speech should not be allowed to period. I don't care if it's hate speech, violence, etc; Free speech is free speech.

[Endus]

I'm a left liberal and I will say absolutely not. Businesses that restrict protected free speech should not be allowed to period. I don't care if it's hate speech, violence, etc; Free speech is free speech.

So it's only free speech when it's some people, and not free speech when it's other people, and you make that determination based on what, exactly?

Because that's what you're arguing for, here. Restrictions on freedom of speech (as well as freedom of association and right to control one's property).

[Galactis]

We should only give access to internet to the people who say things I agree with!

Also. hire Kim as advisor, he's good at that kind of thing.

I am really good at cooking, I will make your favorite food every Friday evening. May I have access? lol

- - - Updated - - -

So it's only free speech when it's some people, and not free speech when it's other people, and you make that determination based on what, exactly?

Because that's what you're arguing for, here. Restrictions on freedom of speech (as well as freedom of association and right to control one's property).

Nope, that's not what I said. One should not assume something that is unstated, and out of context because, it is not stated. Freedom of speech period. Youtube, or Facebook, should not be allowed to ban others for exercising free speech.

[Endus]

Nope, that's not what I said. One should not assume something that is unstated, and out of context because, it is not stated. Freedom of speech period. Youtube, or Facebook, should not be allowed to ban others for exercising free speech.

It's exactly what you said. You argued for restricting the freedoms of those who own certain corporations. Including restricting their freedom of speech.

If that bothers you, engage in some better self-reflection to try and understand exactly what you're suggesting, and what it means.

If you prevent Youtube from banning content, you're restricting Youtube's freedom of speech. And if corporate personhood bothers you, then it's a restriction of the freedom of speech of the individual owners of Youtube. You are forcing them to use their property to communicate certain messaging, against their will; that's exactly what a breach of free speech looks like.

[Galactis]

It's exactly what you said. You argued for restricting the freedoms of those who own certain corporations. Including restricting their freedom of speech.

If that bothers you, engage in some better self-reflection to try and understand exactly what you're suggesting, and what it means.

If you prevent Youtube from banning content, you're restricting Youtube's freedom of speech. And if corporate personhood bothers you, then it's a restriction of the freedom of speech of the individual owners of Youtube. You are forcing them to use their property to communicate certain messaging, against their will; that's exactly what a breach of free speech looks like.

Businesses are not people, and not subject to the same freedoms in my eyes. Sorry but, the individual freedoms of all citizenry are above a businesses. I'm for allowing all persons to be allowed to say whatever they want. By YT, FB, taking those posts, videos, down. That is a violation of Constitutional Law. All of those people can file claims against those businesses.

[Machismo]

Businesses are not people, and not subject to the same freedoms in my eyes. Sorry but, the individual freedoms of all citizenry are above a businesses. I'm for allowing all persons to be allowed to say whatever they want. By YT, FB, taking those posts, videos, down. That is a violation of Constitutional Law. All of those people can file claims against those businesses.

Please, show us exactly which law they are breaking.

As for your comment about speech. That means you think a Christian website should be obligated to host gay porn, or pro-Islamist propaganda. As you said:

"I'm for allowing all persons to be allowed to say whatever they want. "

So, let me know when you are outraged that this site doesn't host explicit porn, or when a bar kicks out a patron for yelling racist shit at everyone else, and pisses on the floor.

[Endus]

Businesses are not people, and not subject to the same freedoms in my eyes. Sorry but, the individual freedoms of all citizenry are above a businesses.

I pre-emptively answered that.

Ignoring corporate personhood changes nothing in this respect; it just means you're attacking the rights and freedoms of Youtube's owners, rather than Youtube itself. You're still attacking their rights and freedoms.

You're not "for allowing all persons to be allowed to say whatever they want". You're calling for that right to be restricted for those who own these services.

[Machismo]

As long as big corporations and very rich people stomp you and it's not that state, it's all good. One cannot ignore the poor souls like Zucc and Jack Conte/Dorsey and their rights. These vulnerable poor dudes right to associate and speech must be FIERCELY protected.

You have been offered alternatives, and you said you didn't want them.

It's a shame you hate freedom of speech and association so much.

[Endus]

As long as big corporations and very rich people stomp you and it's not that state, it's all good. One cannot ignore the poor souls like Zucc and Jack Conte/Dorsey and their rights. These vulnerable poor dudes right to associate and speech must be FIERCELY protected.

If you're going to violate your principles because the targets are wealthy, then you don't actually believe in or support those principles, at all, in the first place. It's about power and control, not principle, for you.

[Galactis]

Please, show us exactly which law they are breaking.

As for your comment about speech. That means you think a Christian website should be obligated to host gay porn, or pro-Islamist propaganda. As you said:

"I'm for allowing all persons to be allowed to say whatever they want. "

So, let me know when you are outraged that this site doesn't host explicit porn, or when a bar kicks out a patron for yelling racist shit at everyone else, and pisses on the floor.

They can yes, business reserves the right to not serve anyone. A person can walk in piss on the floor and walk out, yes.

I pre-emptively answered that.

Ignoring corporate personhood changes nothing in this respect; it just means you're attacking the rights and freedoms of Youtube's owners, rather than Youtube itself. You're still attacking their rights and freedoms.

You're not "for allowing all persons to be allowed to say whatever they want". You're calling for that right to be restricted for those who own these services.

An individual outside the scope of business practice has individual freedom of speech to say whatever they want. Meanwhile, a business who takes away others freedom of speech by removing individual content made by an individual citizen. That is a violation of freedom of speech. The businesses owners' freedom of speech has not been violated.

[Jomibo]

Freedom of speech is to protection against the government taking legal action against you for speech. There's nothing in the constitution that *obligates* a business to give you a platform to speak from. Posting on a social media website owned by anyone that isn't you isn't a "right".

[Machismo]

They can yes, business reserves the right to not serve anyone. A person can walk in piss on the floor and walk out, yes.



An individual outside the scope of business practice has individual freedom of speech to say whatever they want. Meanwhile, a business who takes away others freedom of speech by removing individual content made by an individual citizen. That is a violation of freedom of speech. The businesses owners' freedom of speech has not been violated.

That's not what I said. Your argument is that a person could walk into a business, yell racist shit at everyone, and piss on the floor... and the business would not be legally able to kick them out. Your argument is that this site should be required by law to host explicit porn. Your argument is that a Christian website should be obligated by law to advertise gay porn, and pro-ISIS propaganda.

That's what your argument has boiled down to, I just want you to confirm it.

[Dziubla]

I wonder when did the left move from tolerance and free speech to censoring ALL THE THINGS that are even slightly to the right of the far left.

I still have SOME hope that this is a troll thread, but with every new thread just like this that appears, that hope diminishes.

[Machismo]

I wonder when did the left move from tolerance and free speech to censoring ALL THE THINGS that are even slightly to the right of the far left.

I still have SOME hope that this is a troll thread, but with every new thread just like this that appears, that hope diminishes.

When did the right decide that corporations and capitalism are evil?

I'm asking this as a pro-capitalism conservative.