Right... what seems to confuse people is I am suggesting that speech protections be moved beyond that to wrestle away that control from major corporations. It feels like people are waiting for me to use a talking point and when I fail to just go with the counter talking point even though it no longer applies..
Any attempt to wrest that control from those corporations is a deliberate attack on property rights, freedom of association, and freedom of speech.
Their property rights because it's their property you're trying to control the use of.
Their freedom of association because you're mandating who they do business with.
Their freedom of speech because what's posted through their services is, fundamentally, that corporation's speech, in part.
It isn't a defense of anyone's rights.
@Krakan
You have inspired me... I got a pi zero w for 10$ and a USB hat for it for 10$... I think my project will be creating a portable social media server... I think I have a 32 gig card laying around somewhere...
You think I can do it?
Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
Rivial the major companies in a realistic way and sure?
Again my argument comes down to reach if you can shut people out of the market and restrict what they can do on the available platforms you in turn wield the ability to control speech.
Nothing about your weird argument applies to that.
- - - Updated - - -
Again please read my posts.
If Congress wants to pass a law protecting speech on corporate platforms, they can do that. An example is FCC fairness doctrine. However, the GOP has been actively trying to do away with stuff like Section 230 which actually enables more freedom of speech on the internet. The problem is that all of these complaints are simply people angry that think their side is being unfairly punished when it's people who have violated policies they agreed to.
If there is a concern of corporations dominating the market then Congress should investigate for monopolies. But all of these complaints about Parler and Twitter users being banned are without merit since they violated the policies they agreed to. Even if there was some kind of legislation to protect political speech on corporate platforms, it's unlikely that it would have any impact in this case since these issues were regarding posts advocating violence.
Last edited by wunksta; 2021-01-14 at 03:21 PM.
Freedom of speech has never included any entitlement to any kind of "reach" in any respect, ever.
It was the right to stand in the street and shout into the sky without legal consequence. That's it. That's the limit of the "reach" you're entitled to.
- - - Updated - - -
Does he not know the little blue arrow tag leads people right back to the post you're quoting, so they can read it in full?
Everytime people whinny about free speech, just a reminder that most of the conspiracy theorists on the right are STILL on Twitter. Right from your Andy Ngos to your Candace Owens to your Comicsgate freaks like Ethan Van Sciver. Twitter has banned the most obviously dangerous ones. The rest of the psychos are still doing what they do. So the pearl clutching is getting old and sad as fuck.
What? I’ve worked at major companies... you have used content I worked on. I’m not sure what a person that seems to know nothing about IT, can say about technology they are not aware of being realistic. It is realistic... millions do it every day... realism in this regard, is completely beholden to your ignorance of IT... I hope no politician or pundit prays on said ignorance of IT...
What reach? Freedom of speech does not entitle you to an audience and putting government as the regulator, will not help you. Imagine if Trump isn’t president next week... imagine it’s a democrat and they control all of federal government... what would happen to conservative voices, when democrats regulate social media? Imagine such a thing... what audience are they going to get, with democrats regulating them? Just scream freedom... that’s all your argument is...Again my argument comes down to reach if you can shut people out of the market and restrict what they can do on the available platforms you in turn wield the ability to control speech.
Yeah, explaining how shit works, so you are not as susceptible to lying, is weird... imagine if you actually knew what you were talking about... the horror your favorite pundits and politicians must feel at that thought... what if their listeners knew better... the horror...Nothing about your weird argument applies to that.
Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
Like that one Qanon nutcase member of Congress yesterday, wearing a facemask saying "CENSORED", who was literally being given a microphone and a time alottment to speak her piece, which was broadcast internationally in realtime.
Totally censored.
These people have no clue what the word actually means. They're just angry that they're being held to account for their own poor behaviour.