Beamer wrote on Jan 12, 2021, 15:13:Tomas wrote on Jan 12, 2021, 15:04:
It's a good thing we have places like bluesnews where we can make sure our opinions are correct.
With this post, you're one step away from calling us sheeple.
Cutter wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 23:51:
Tomas, you're conflating personal censorship and legal censorship. When your parents tell you not to swear, yes, that is technically censorship but it's not at all the same thing as being forbidden protected speech under penalty of law. One gets you grounded for the weekend the other sends you to prison illegally.
Parler's business model is one of, ostensibly, 'free speech'. Well too bad for them that no one told them that there's no such thing as "free speech" in America. There is only, and has only ever been, "protected speech" in America. And with protected speech there are limits to what you can say, and potential legal liability for the things you say. In short you're allowed to criticize things you don't like but you are not entitled to a platform to dispense those criticisms either. Otherwise I could call your employer and tell them you're a pedophile and you'd have no legal recourse to do anything whether it was true or not. And do you really believe for even one second that anyone should be able to say whatever they like no matter how fucking crazy or hateful or illegal it is?
All these companies that have refused to have anything to do with Parler owe them nothing legally or morally. They have no responsibility or obligation to them in any way, shape, or form. And not a single one of them is stopping Parler from doing business or limiting their protected speech. Them refusing to do business with Parler is not a violation of their protected-speech. That's no different from you coming into my restaurant dressed as Hitler and telling me I have no choice but to serve you. Really? So where do my rights come in to it? See, if that happens, I point to the sign by the entrance as I'm escorting you from the premises, "The Management Reserves The Right To Refuse Service". I don't have to give you a reason why. I don't want on you on my property so out you go. Your rights end where mine begin. Feel free to stand on the sidewalk and cry about it all you like, your rights haven't been violated. You need to learn a little something about law.
Verno wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 17:34:wtf_man wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 16:52:
A whole platform was silenced by 3 tech companies.
A dangerous platform hosting illegal content that it made little to no effort to police. And the platform wasn't silenced, they built their stack around AWS and that's on them. They can self-host like Gab, no one is stopping them. I don't care if it's 2 app providers or 20, none of them should be forced to host content that could make them liable or that violates their TOS. Parler was given multiple warnings and shrugged them off. That's on them.
The slippery slope arguments might make sense around here if we weren't already tumbling down the mountainside, pushed by idiots who do not care about laws and rules.When we silence dialogue and see our own neighbors as the enemy we have lost our way.
You can't have a dialogue when one side refuses to engage and chooses alternate realities and violence. I made the same arguments four years ago when Hillary spoke about deplorables. I was wrong.
Beamer wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 16:58:wtf_man wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 16:52:Beamer wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 16:45:
Ok. Who was banned for things that aren't TOS violations?
A whole platform was silenced by 3 tech companies. Not Individuals that were violating TOS.
This is the same as if Twitter was hosted on Amazon, and the apps hosted on Apple and Android were completely and suddenly removed because Twitter wasn't fast enough at getting the small percentage (compared to the entire platform) of illegal content (death threats, etc.) removed.
Yes, when you create something predominantly for illegal purposes, or you fail to put in good faith efforts to curb illegal usage, this is what happens.
Over time we've seen this happen plenty, and usually for things that go up bragging about having no censorship. The Silk Road bragged about having no censorship. It was used mostly to sell drugs, and a few people purchased the services of hitmen (who may or may not have been hitmen, and who I don't think actually killed anyone, but they still took the money for the murder.) It was taken down.
Cheat programs for popular online games get taken down all the time.
This is as American as it gets. It's a mix of law and order - follow them or you get shut down, and capitalism - if you start creating more trouble than income you bring in for your vendors, they'll pretty happily sever ties.
Cutter wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 16:21:Tomas wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 15:00:
I understand what you're trying to say, but what you said is just wrong. It's 100% censorship, but done by entities other than government. Sure, it's legal, but it's not necessarily good for our republic.
Holy blue flaming Jesus on a pogo stick! How many times must it be said? It's not fucking censorship if a private business refuses to do business with you. Censorship is when a government, or prior to the modern world, religion, prevents you from speaking your mind upon pain of punishment for breaking that edict. Like Galileo would have been subject to an inquisition and torture as well as excommunication if he didn't recant heliocentrism - he did, under threat of torture. That's fucking censorship.
Private companies refusing to do business with a business who's business model is making money from violent, seditious psychos isn't censorship. That's just good business. None of them have shut Parler down or put it out of business. Parler has no right to private telecommunication lines. They can either run their own lines or use fucking carrier pigeons, no one is stopping them from doing that but they're are owed nothing when it comes to providing them a platform for what they want to do.
Tom wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 15:56:Tomas wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 15:45:Incitement of violence and hate speech. That's what's being suppressed. Is that alarming? In my opinion it's far more alarming to allow that sort of thing to proliferate unchecked. That's what got us to this point.
Suppression of speech is something that alarms me regardless of who is being suppressed. Just because it is legal doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing.
Beamer wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 15:08:Tomas wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 15:00:Mr. Tact wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 14:19:Agent.X7 wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 13:56:There is no censorship happening. Government action is required for censorship. No one has a right to free speech on a company application. The company decides the rules.
Everyone is OK with censoring people they disagree with. Just wait until it's your opinion they disagree with and you get censored.
I understand what you're trying to say, but what you said is just wrong. It's 100% censorship, but done by entities other than government. Sure, it's legal, but it's not necessarily good for our republic.
Intentions do matter, but there's a reason even that bastion of conservatism, the ACLU, is worried about what's going on. If what is taking place regarding suppression of voices doesn't cause a little panic in your heart (even if met by a measure of relief) you aren't really that concerned with the intent of the first amendment. Many people seem ecstatic to paint everything as black and white when it suits their political leanings, but the world is far more grey.
Things could be going lord of the flies out there and some of your would be cheering it as a victory.
People with significant power saying whatever they want, without repercussions, without meaningful fact checking, is a bigger problem.
People with power such as Trump use Twitter as a one-way communication device. He would avoid the press and the media, and put his message into this, where it reaches the people he wanted it to reach without any kind of dialogue, feedback, or discussion.
Tom wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 15:08:Tomas wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 15:00:
I understand what you're trying to say, but what you said is just wrong. It's 100% censorship, but done by entities other than government. Sure, it's legal, but it's not necessarily good for our republic.
So... you think it would be better for our republic if companies did not have the freedom to decide their own terms of service within the constraints of the law?
Mr. Tact wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 14:19:Agent.X7 wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 13:56:There is no censorship happening. Government action is required for censorship. No one has a right to free speech on a company application. The company decides the rules.
Everyone is OK with censoring people they disagree with. Just wait until it's your opinion they disagree with and you get censored.