Do not, I repeat, do not convince the government to regulate the internet. You don't like a censoring site, don't use it. The government creates problems, they don't solve them.
Do not, I repeat, do not convince the government to regulate the internet. You don't like a censoring site, don't use it. The government creates problems, they don't solve them.
WTF are you even talking about? I made a simple comment and you try to parse something into my comments? Not cool.
Ahhhh dennis, subtletyis lost on you. The critique was mocking your point that "the left will allow no opposition" now by pointing out that no tech companies (reputable ones anyways) will want to host them because of their previous activities.
I didn't miss that. What do you consider reputable tech companies? Those that still allow Iranian Aitolia's to post death to America While banning Americans with a different political view?
Which companies banned you for a different view? Point it out on the doll for me. OR did they ban people issuing threats, breaking the rules etc. If I started dropping f bombs here in his thread, how many warning points before I'm banned?? If I did get banned could I then say the ban was due to my political disagreements with some of y'all chuckle bears or would I be because of my actions?
I can't say for certain but I'd wager that with very few exceptions people getting platform bans didn't play by the rules. what those rules are for Iran, Sudan, or IdontCareistan are I don't know. Don't live there. You could go ask twitters and start a petition and say it's unfair though.
And as much as you follow my posts you should know I think of large corps like I do politicians.... they all sold their souls to get where they are so it doesn't matter which face of the devil you talk to. The question is if you can bend them enough to win a fiddle from them before they win their due.
Amazon not allowing conservative groups on their servers is possibly within their rights. But their rights are not really the point.
The point is that they are limiting speech and/or limiting access to legal speech to those they simply disagree with. That is still censorship.
Is censoring legal speech OK?
Most people who are not fascists would think that any limiting any form of legal speech is wrong. Whether it is “shouting-down” a speaker, not allowing civil discourse and/or not allowing access to servers, that is censorship and restricting or eliminating (legal) free speech is wrong.
Sure ... they (may) have the right to refuse service just like the baker had a right to refuse making the cake for a couple that decided to be gay. Comparing the two is almost non sequitur given that the baker was not limiting speech. He was simply abiding by another protected right (for now) which is his faith.
The point is that they are limiting speech and/or limiting access to legal speech to those they simply disagree with. That is still censorship.
Is censoring legal speech OK?
Most people who are not fascists would think that any limiting any form of legal speech is wrong. Whether it is “shouting-down” a speaker, not allowing civil discourse and/or not allowing access to servers, that is censorship and restricting or eliminating (legal) free speech is wrong.
Sure ... they (may) have the right to refuse service just like the baker had a right to refuse making the cake for a couple that decided to be gay. Comparing the two is almost non sequitur given that the baker was not limiting speech. He was simply abiding by another protected right (for now) which is his faith.
You did not answer the question I posted and you quoted. Until you do, your a nothing burger.
So much to unpack in this one.
Again, for the people in the back --- Amazon is not disallowing conservative groups that I've seen. They ARE disallowing groups promoting violence, extremism and, in some cases, demonstrably false narratives.
Is censoring legal speech okay? We seem to think so here. I got a warning point for naughty language recently, and the post was edited to change it to -----. That's censoring me. But it's okay to do because that's in the Terms for the site right? Point is, when speech we don't like gets censored people think it's okay, when what they agree with gets censored people get mad. Any private company can censoring it according to their terms. The ones individuals agree to when getting to use the service for free. Side note, remember that anything that is "free" online isn't really the product. YOU are the product, and the service is the sell.
Most people who are not fascists --- that's a fancy way to say Antifa. They are Anti-Fascist. It's right in the name. We don't generally like antifa around here.
Not "shouting-down" a speaker. Real question --- did you watch the presidential debates? Especially the first. That was nothing but a certain DJT yelling over his opponent and the moderator. Then people here cheered it. See the above point about it's only bad when the other side does it.
And finally the baker analogy. Were we to take your point that he was abiding by a protected right, and with consideration that Citizens United said corporations are people, then we cannot deprive corps of their right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Which, in corporate terms, is making tons and tons and tons of cash from the consumer. So those bad censoring services are just practicing their faith (in money).
