Free speech and the internet

JackStraw

tel522 wrote I presume you have been to the USA ,ya a beautiful country ,but a fair percentage of the population are very strange imho ,wandering around with guns ,radical Christians of various shades , some areas worse than somalia . Some Americans are very well educated and well traveled , but the rest ,mainly herr trumpff supporters ,are as "thick as a brick" , imho . A scary country .

I agree it is a scary country indeed and really, not my style at all. Some beautiful natural parts for sure but the culture there is all messed up. I did go to America two years ago and was so excited to go to California, the land I heard so much about in the famed movies of Hollywood. Boy was I shocked when I got there only to find out the streets are littered with literal shit, drug needles and homeless encampments as far as the eye can see. Granted, I can't speak for all of California as I only went to Los Angeles and San Francisco but I just couldn't believe how shitty is it was. And I thought California was supposed to be the role model for freedom, progressive politics and open-mindedness? Maybe they should focus less on exporting entertainment and more on their own people because it looked like they were suffering badly.

Mark

Back to the topic of censorship, I really don't see any problem with private media companies blocking public dissemination of obviously malignant information on their platforms, especially when it is false, extremist and incites violence. After all, shouting 'fire' in a crowded movie theatre is not protected by first amendment free speech, so already there are limits. And there is no constitutional right to post whatever you want on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc or indeed on this board, right [USER=1]@admin[/USER]? These free services are run by private (ie non-government) media companies and all have their content rules and conditions of use, to which users agree when they sign up. If you want to exercise your free speech in the US, you can. Just get up on your roof or stand on the corner of Fifth Avenue and Broadway in NYC and shout pretty much whatever you want, no problems. Or go on publicly funded television channels and create your own content. Lots of whackos there saying and doing all kinds of crazy stuff. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I really don't see this as a slippery slope issue about constitutionally protected free speech, rather just the exercise of common sense (finally) by non-governmental commercial media companies who are merely enforcing rules already agreed to by all users. Sure, there may be some selective enforcement (though this often cuts both ways, as we saw initially with Trump who if he were not president would have been banned from Twitter long ago), but if that's the case and it bothers you, then go find another platform that you like. There's bound to be one somewhere.

JackStraw

Markit wrote Nah, lets not. Cause you are completely wrong and your ideas are misguided and based on a completely blinkered and retarded view of events in the last 5 years (1 leading up to his 'victory' - he lost the popular vote, but we can leave that).

And this is how a civil war starts. You think I'm completely wrong and retarded and I think you're completely wrong and retarded. Neither of us will budge so let's just kill each other then. Isn't life great in the post-internet era? :)

JackStraw

Markit wrote The internet is a utility just like water, electricity, trash and streets and needs to be regulated not by the market but by government. I'm sick of all the calls for "light" or "hands off" government from either stroke, left, right or middle. Or that the "market" will regulate it or the wealth will trickle down! I call Bullshit on all that!! What the world needs is a benevolent, socialist government giving everyone a UBI (Universal Basic Income), complete medical health coverage and free education! The money is there so tax the mother feckers and fecking use it!

Hmmm....interesting. My question is, where would the tax money come from if the GDP shrinks? According to macroeconomic theory, a prosperous economy that is growing relies on advances in technology, increasing capital, and a growing labor force. UBI will effectively shrink the workforce, thus having a negative impact on economic growth (GDP growth specifically). When GDP shrinks, so would tax revenue. Less tax revenue means less money to invest in these large, socialist programs you speak of. So where exactly would the money come from then? I guess we could always print it but then we'll end up like modern-day Venezuela.

Foamcrest

And none us would be using words or thoughts like this pre Trump....that’s his legacy

Markit

Boy that escalated quickly! See therein lies the whole problem, I wouldn't even consider violence as an option and that's your first "go to" Bet you're an avid NRA follower too? Think Fox News really provides "News"?

Mark

Interesting, though not surprising, that online misinformation about election fraud dropped 73% in the week after Trump was de-platformed from social media...https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/16/misinformation-trump-twitter/

Mark

JackStraw

Mark wrote Interesting, though not surprising, that online misinformation about election fraud dropped 73% in the week after Trump was de-platformed from social media...https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/16/misinformation-trump-twitter/

Interesting, though not surprising that the Washington Post would know a thing or two about misinformation seeing as the Jeff Bezos-owned publication makes misinformation their specialty over the last few years. if you're going to cherry-pick a source to back up your claim, make sure it's at least a reputable one not owned by the second richest person in the world who uses it to promote his best interests.

sakumabali

Markit wrote The internet is a utility just like water, electricity, trash and streets and needs to be regulated not by the market but by government. I'm sick of all the calls for "light" or "hands off" government from either stroke, left, right or middle. Or that the "market" will regulate it or the wealth will trickle down! I call Bullshit on all that!! What the world needs is a benevolent, socialist government giving everyone a UBI (Universal Basic Income), complete medical health coverage and free education! The money is there so tax the mother feckers and fecking use it!

I find it quite amusing that there are so many foreigners living on Bali talking about a "benevolent" government at "home" which arranges Basic Income, health coverage etc. Let's leave aside the affordability for now. Do you (an universal you) think the government at "home" would include expats living overseas? I guess not. "benevolent" countries might exist here & there but they want you to spend the charity dollars in their system. They don't want you to spend the dollars somewhere else, that's why these people have to show their faces that often in an office (so the government can monitoring your moves) .

Mark

Don't really agree with the logic of the previous post. Trump would have been kicked off Twitter years ago for violating content policies, save for an exception that Twitter makes for country leaders - Twitter has admitted this on many occasions. And the post above, while heinous, quotes a 1991 statement from Iran's then leader, posted by the current leader in 2018, who apparently enjoys the same latitude on Twitter that Trump did until last week. The problem is that Trump, at a public rally just before Congress certified his election loss, incited violence and insurrection towards the government of the United States, all because his malignant narcissism couldn't handle losing a free and fair election (as already verified by his own hand-picked election security guy at Homeland Security, as well as the courts in over 50 lawsuits - many of them presided over by judges he himself appointed). This came on top of hundreds of his tweets falsely claiming that the election was stolen from him, rigged, or otherwise fraudulent. In fact, it is likely that unless he resigns in the next few days and is pardoned by 'President Pence', he will be criminally convicted for his insurrection incitement on January 6. Moreover, it is also possible that social media companies like Twitter, Facebook etc, could face legal liability for allowing this sedition, violence and insurrection to be communicated and planned on their platforms by users, so by blocking Trump they are looking to cover their asses legal-wise. Finally, right or wrong, I really doubt that the Twitter board gives a toss when a loony Iranian leader quotes another long dead loony Iranian leader's quote from 30 years ago, but they are of course very concerned about what happens when there is possible coup attempt in the US, where they and their families live, and whose laws regulate them. Is this all fair in a perfect world? Probably not, but if the world was fair, Trump would have been put in prison and/or bankrupted long ago (I mean permanently, as he has declared bankruptcy many times already). In any case, the past week without hearing from the most toxic and inept leader the free world has ever seen has been delightful.;)

JackStraw

Mark wrote Don't really agree with the logic of the previous post. Trump would have been kicked off Twitter years ago for violating content policies, save for an exception that Twitter makes for country leaders - Twitter has admitted this on many occasions. And the post above, while heinous, quotes a 1991 statement from Iran's then leader, posted by the current leader in 2018, who apparently enjoys the same latitude on Twitter that Trump did until last week. The problem is that Trump, at a public rally just before Congress certified his election loss, incited violence and insurrection towards the government of the United States, all because his malignant narcissism couldn't handle losing a free and fair election (as already verified by his own hand-picked election security guy at Homeland Security, as well as the courts in over 50 lawsuits - many of them presided over by judges he himself appointed). This came on top of hundreds of his tweets falsely claiming that the election was stolen from him, rigged, or otherwise fraudulent. In fact, it is likely that unless he resigns in the next few days and is pardoned by 'President Pence', he will be criminally convicted for his insurrection incitement on January 6. Moreover, it is also possible that social media companies like Twitter, Facebook etc, could face legal liability for allowing this sedition, violence and insurrection to be communicated and planned on their platforms by users, so by blocking Trump they are looking to cover their asses legal-wise. Finally, right or wrong, I really doubt that the Twitter board gives a toss when a loony Iranian leader quotes another long dead loony Iranian leader's quote from 30 years ago, but they are of course very concerned about what happens when there is possible coup attempt in the US, where they and their families live, and whose laws regulate them. Is this all fair in a perfect world? Probably not, but if the world was fair, Trump would have been put in prison and/or bankrupted long ago (I mean permanently, as he has declared bankruptcy many times already). In any case, the past week without hearing from the most toxic and inept leader the free world has ever seen has been delightful.;)

And I don't agree with the logic of your post. At all. So let's call it a draw and agree to disagree. Peace and well being to you and your family :)

JackStraw

Mark wrote Do you mean a source that has won 69 Pulitzer Prizes for reporting, including breaking the Watergate story? In any case, if you bother to actually read the article you would note that the original source of the information is a data analytics firm called Zignal Labs. Also, the story of Zignal's research results has been reported by multiple news outlets, which a quick google search will verify.

I'm not questioning the reputation of the Washington Post throughout it's entire history however, it's a fact that since Bezos bought it, it has taken a hard liberal turn. And I did read the article, I just think all MSM is bullshit so those sources mean nothing to me. Thanks for sharing though

Mark

JackStraw wrote I'm not questioning the reputation of the Washington Post throughout it's entire history however, it's a fact that since Bezos bought it, it has taken a hard liberal turn.

Is this just another QAnon conspiracy theory, or do you actually have any evidence of this?

JackStraw

Markit wrote Boy that escalated quickly! See therein lies the whole problem, I wouldn't even consider violence as an option and that's your first "go to" Bet you're an avid NRA follower too? Think Fox News really provides "News"?

Chill bro, it was just a joke. Political differences aside, I am happy to converse and share a beer with someone even if they offer different political beliefs than me. Sadly though, I know many people on both sides of the political spectrum that would resort to violence first and that is a very depressing fact in this day in age. And no, I think FOX news is trash (as is CNN) and I do not particularly agree with anything the NRA does. Although, I do think home self-defense is a basic human right whether that be with a gun, taser, pepper spray (or machete if we're talking Bali).

Juggler

All MSM is rubbish.... whether your are pro or anti trump is really irrelevant. Merkel hates trumps but agrees he shouldnt be banned from social media. The platforms are not answerable to anyone thanks to section 230. The manipulate the information to achieve thier goals and objectives. Even to the extent of apple and google taking Parler (twitter alt) off the stores then mazon taking them off their servers. They dont want anyone having free speech that they dont control. Now Whatsapp , owned by fb, is changing their terms to use/steal/sell your data. if you dont agree you cant use the app. Hence why many many are going to Signal as an WA alt. fox new is one of the worst networks out there... rant over

Mark

JackStraw wrote Interesting, though not surprising that the Washington Post would know a thing or two about misinformation seeing as the Jeff Bezos-owned publication makes misinformation their specialty over the last few years. if you're going to cherry-pick a source to back up your claim, make sure it's at least a reputable one not owned by the second richest person in the world who uses it to promote his best interests.

Do you mean a source that has won 69 Pulitzer Prizes for reporting, including breaking the Watergate story? re you a Qanon supporter. Sorry but the world is not controlled by a deep State pedophile gang operating out of pizza parlorso_O Or by Jeff Bezos..... Anyway, if you actually read the article you would note that the original source of the information was a data analytics firm called Zignal Labs. Also, the story of Zignal's research results has been reported by multiple news outlets, which a quick google search will verify.

Markit

When anyone says "It's a fact" I start ducking and weaving.

Mark

JackStraw wrote Interesting, though not surprising that the Washington Post would know a thing or two about misinformation seeing as the Jeff Bezos-owned publication makes misinformation their specialty over the last few years. if you're going to cherry-pick a source to back up your claim, make sure it's at least a reputable one not owned by the second richest person in the world who uses it to promote his best interests.

Do you mean a source that has won 69 Pulitzer Prizes for reporting, including breaking the Watergate story? In any case, if you bother to actually read the article you would note that the original source of the information is a data analytics firm called Zignal Labs. Also, the story of Zignal's research results has been reported by multiple news outlets, which a quick google search will verify.

Juggler

If you don't read the papers or listen to the news you are uninformed......:confused: If you read the papers and listen to the news you are misinformed......:mad:

« Previous Page Next Page »