OT: The News Thread

[LeafGm]

I’m all for breaking up these big online/social media platforms so that they’re not all owned & controlled by the same few big corporations.

I’m less comfortable with forcing anyone to provide a platform for someone with a lengthy history of peddling pseudoscience and dangerous misinformation, like RFK Jr.

 

[BeLeafer]

 

[MindzEye]

There are longstanding laws that can be used to deal with dangerous/illegal speech.

And breaking those laws are breaches of the TOS of the social media sites. Why shouldn't the platforms be able to remove people in breach of their ToS

 

[BeLeafer]

And breaking those laws are breaches of the TOS of the social media sites. Why shouldn't the platforms be able to remove people in breach of their ToS

Let the courts decide, not tech oligarchs.

 

[BeLeafer]

Pro-censorship is a very, very slippery slope.

 

[MindzEye]

Let the courts decide, not tech oligarchs.

The courts of which country? Whose laws are legitimate and whose aren't? 1A is far broader than most freedom of expression legislations worldwide

 

[MindzEye]

Pro-censorship is a very, very slippery slope.

So is allowing dangerous bullshit to propagate, as we have seen recently.

 

[BeLeafer]

The courts of which country? Whose laws are legitimate and whose aren't? 1A is far broader than most freedom of expression legislations worldwide

In the case or RFK Jr., he's an American citizen living, I believe, in NYC.

 

[BeLeafer]

So is allowing dangerous bullshit to propagate, as we have seen recently.

Who decides what is and is not dangerous bullshit -- you?

 

[BeLeafer]

I mean, I regard all the New Red Scare to be really, really dangerous bullshit. But I've never called for it to be censored nor is that any kind of solution to it.

 

[Wayward DP]

Let the courts decide, not tech oligarchs.

so only the courts should be able to ban people from social media? is that your position?

 

[Wayward DP]

Who decides what is and is not dangerous bullshit -- you?

science

 

[BeLeafer]

so only the courts should be able to ban people from social media? is that your position?

My position is, yes, if you want to ban speech do it through the courts. It matters not whether it's on social media or elsewhere.

In terms of social media, they need to break up the tech companies. They control way, way too much speech.

 

[BeLeafer]

science

Soviet Marxism used to be called "science," as did engenics programs, slavery etc.

 

[Wayward DP]

My position is, yes, if you want to ban speech do it through the courts. It matters not whether it's on social media or elsewhere.

In terms of social media, they need to break up the tech companies. They control way, way too much speech.

we clearly do not agree on what "banning speech" means, which is a crucial issue. to me, deplatforming is not "banning speech". if you go into a restaurant and start yelling at the top of your lungs about the pedophilia ring in the basement, they're allowed to kick your ass out.

whether or not tech companies should be broken up is an entirely separate issue.

 

[BeLeafer]

You are comparing apples and oranges. It's completely flacious to suggest that what might happen in a privately owned space like a restaurant is anything like a platform used by 100s of millions of people.

 

[Wayward DP]

You are comparing apples and oranges. It's completely flacious to suggest that what might happen in a privately owned space like a restaurant is anything like a platform used by 100s of millions of people.

so I had to look up flacious before I realized... it is not a word?

and I bolded the salient part of your post. your issue seems to be with the size, scope and power of tech companies. and somehow you have conflated that with their ability to enforce rules and terms of service.

so when the Skydome kicks out drunk and/or belligerent fans, unacceptable limitation on free speech?
if someone wants to tweet "MURDER NANCY PELOSI", unless the courts do or say anything, twitter taking any action whatsoever is an unacceptable limitation on free speech?

 

[LeafGm]

we clearly do not agree on what "banning speech" means, which is a crucial issue. to me, deplatforming is not "banning speech". if you go into a restaurant and start yelling at the top of your lungs about the pedophilia ring in the basement, they're allowed to kick your ass out.

whether or not tech companies should be broken up is an entirely separate issue.

Yeah, this is the key point for me.

“Free speech” means that, as long as you’re not calling for violence, you are entitled to spread your ideas as far as your own voice will carry them, without fear of prosecution.

But nobody else owes you a megaphone.

 

[zeke]

whether or not tech companies should be broken up is an entirely separate issue.

Yup.

And the conflating of these two separate issues is entirely intentional and misleading.

 

[Neurospasm]

Yeah, this is the key point for me.

“Free speech” means that, as long as you’re not calling for violence, you are entitled to spread your ideas as far as your own voice will carry them, without fear of prosecution.

But nobody else owes you a megaphone.

Violence is not the proper term here. People could then spout off racist remarks for all to hear and there would be no outcry about it.