The growing amount of censorship

[Red]

I find it concerning. Both Reddit and Twitter have gotten even worse with their censorship than they had before. Very troublesome.

A bigger concern is that these websites take users from smaller ones and specialized forums due to ease of access which gives them too much control over too much of the internet.

Reddit mods ban you for the dumbest stuff and even the admins have their moments of dumb bans.

Twitter is just banning you if you get report spammed.

YouTube censors movies and music and stuff by copyright bots.

Google censors websites they don’t like.

Just a troublesome look on the current state of the internet. Would be interested in hearing your thoughts.

[MinionJoe]

Цитата допису Dom:

The same groups that are now complaining about censorship have spoken in favor of privatization for decades.

First Amendment doesn't apply to private companies at all, so the more we keep privatizing critical infrastructure of the society, more severe this censorship will become.
And now that net neutrality was scrapped too, private ISPs can decide your internet speeds and what digital services you can access.

It goes beyond Facebook simply deleting your comment, thanks to decisions made the last 10 years.

So you agree then that telephone companies, which are private companies, should be allowed to restrict who you can call and what discussions you are allowed to have?

It's because the phone companies are platforms, not publishers. They do not determine how their service is used and are not liable if it is used for illegal purposes. Social media companies are legally platforms, but they are operating as publishers (which would be legally liable for the content allowed on their service) but deciding what they will and will not allow.

Personally, I'm all for the nationalization of social media companies. But every socialist to whom I've presented the idea hated the concept. Why would that be?

[Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏]

Цитата допису Dom:

...
And now that net neutrality was scrapped too, private ISPs can decide your internet speeds and what digital services you can access.
...

As long as those ISPs are not headquartered in the state of California :

https://www.google.com/search?q=california+net+neutrality+law

(Most of them are headquartered in the state of California. )

[Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏]

Цитата допису MinionJoe:

Цитата допису Dom:

The same groups that are now complaining about censorship have spoken in favor of privatization for decades.

First Amendment doesn't apply to private companies at all, so the more we keep privatizing critical infrastructure of the society, more severe this censorship will become.
And now that net neutrality was scrapped too, private ISPs can decide your internet speeds and what digital services you can access.

It goes beyond Facebook simply deleting your comment, thanks to decisions made the last 10 years.

So you agree then that telephone companies, which are private companies, should be allowed to restrict who you can call and what discussions you are allowed to have?
...

Dom stated what is, not what (he believes) ought to be.

[Dom]

Цитата допису MinionJoe:

Цитата допису Dom:

The same groups that are now complaining about censorship have spoken in favor of privatization for decades.

First Amendment doesn't apply to private companies at all, so the more we keep privatizing critical infrastructure of the society, more severe this censorship will become.
And now that net neutrality was scrapped too, private ISPs can decide your internet speeds and what digital services you can access.

It goes beyond Facebook simply deleting your comment, thanks to decisions made the last 10 years.

So you agree then that telephone companies, which are private companies, should be allowed to restrict who you can call and what discussions you are allowed to have?

Personally, I'm all for the nationalization of social media companies. But every socialist to whom I've presented the idea hated the concept. Why would that be?

Yes, private companies can and should be allowed to choose their customers. They should be allowed to censor anybody they don't like.

If this becomes a problem, states (as well as federal government) can create public alternatives that exercise First Amendment rights.

Simple.

[Defenestration]

Цитата допису Rupika:

Цитата допису Thought Criminal:

Free speech is a principle that should be adopted in all major social media platforms and not just limited to the government. Advocating censorship does not make you a good person.

A private platform has the right to present itself how it wants. That is the meaning of freedom of speech. You don't get to visit another person's house and tell them how they should and shouldn't be allowed to decorate their interior.

Forum a forum like this, I agree. For something like Twitter, I disagree.

[MinionJoe]

Цитата допису Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏:

Цитата допису MinionJoe:

So you agree then that telephone companies, which are private companies, should be allowed to restrict who you can call and what discussions you are allowed to have?
...

Dom stated what is, not what ought to be. :seewhatyoudid:

Fair enough. It's still a fallacious argument that "private companies can do whatever they want."

Companies are only allowed to operate within their legal parameters. In this case, social media companies are classified as platforms but are operating as publishers.

[MinionJoe]

Цитата допису Dom:

Цитата допису MinionJoe:

So you agree then that telephone companies, which are private companies, should be allowed to restrict who you can call and what discussions you are allowed to have?

Personally, I'm all for the nationalization of social media companies. But every socialist to whom I've presented the idea hated the concept. Why would that be?

Yes, private companies can and should be allowed to choose their customers. They should be allowed to censor anybody they don't like.

If this becomes a problem, states (as well as federal government) can create public alternatives that exercise First Amendment rights.

Simple.

Excellent. I'll let the Christian bakeries know they no longer have to bake cakes for gay weddings.

[Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏]

Цитата допису Dom:

Цитата допису MinionJoe:

So you agree then that telephone companies, which are private companies, should be allowed to restrict who you can call and what discussions you are allowed to have?

Personally, I'm all for the nationalization of social media companies. But every socialist to whom I've presented the idea hated the concept. Why would that be?

Yes, private companies can and should be allowed to choose their customers. They should be allowed to censor anybody they don't like.

If this becomes a problem, states can create public alternatives that exercise First Amendment rights.

Simple.

That gets tricky when you look at the history of deals that the government has made with some of these companies & more importantly that those companies agreed to make with the government, when it comes to stuff such as telecommunications lines.

Many companies agreed to a deal where they would do the installation of the lines themselves, in exchange for government funds to allow them to do so & unrestricted traffic across those telecommunications lines.

Now they don't want to continue holding up their end of the bargain, and yes, while a public alternative would be better, they made a deal and are now attempting to take advantage of the fact that it was a bad deal for the public.

[Groogo]

Цитата допису Rupika:

Цитата допису Groogo:

I'm not buying what he is selling.

I just feel a bit sorry for you both. Because he needs friends like you but he refuses you because it will ruin his image. That's sad.

LOL, save it for somebody who gives a damn.

[Dom]

Цитата допису MinionJoe:

Цитата допису Dom:

Yes, private companies can and should be allowed to choose their customers. They should be allowed to censor anybody they don't like.

If this becomes a problem, states (as well as federal government) can create public alternatives that exercise First Amendment rights.

Simple.

Excellent. I'll let the Christian bakeries they no longer have to bake cakes for gay weddings.

Yes, isn't that exactly what the court ruled?

America has embraced the freedom for businesses to choose their customers.

[Dom]

Цитата допису Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏:

Цитата допису Dom:

Yes, private companies can and should be allowed to choose their customers. They should be allowed to censor anybody they don't like.

If this becomes a problem, states can create public alternatives that exercise First Amendment rights.

Simple.

That gets tricky when you look at the history of deals that the government has made with some of these companies & more importantly that those companies agreed to make with the government, when it comes to stuff such as telecommunications lines.

Many companies agreed to a deal where they would do the installation of the lines themselves, in exchange for government funds to allow them to do so & unrestricted traffic across those telecommunications lines.

Now they don't want to continue holding up their end of the bargain, and yes, while a public alternative would be better, they made a deal and are now attempting to take advantage of the fact that it was a bad deal for the public. :seewhatyoudid:

There are exceptions like government deals that tie them to certain obligations.
But generally and in vast majority of cases, they can choose their customers.

[MinionJoe]

Цитата допису Dom:

Цитата допису MinionJoe:

Excellent. I'll let the Christian bakeries they no longer have to bake cakes for gay weddings.

Yes, isn't that exactly what the court ruled?

America has embraced the freedom for businesses to choose their customers.

Which court are you talking about?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/18/us/wedding-cake-colorado-jack-phillips.html

Would you support a restaurant's right to "choose their customers" by putting up a "No Blacks Allowed" sign?

[HypersleepyNaputunia]

yes nationalization of internet and phone service and any company that wants to do business on internet must agree to governement eual to not restrict free speech

[Uncle Sam]

Цитата допису CookedKen:

If governments were to start cracking down on free speech they would crack down on the leftists first because everyone else only wants to preserve the status quo. Right wing talking points are no threat to the government. Uncle Sam doesn't want to stop you from saying that you hate black people and gay people, because if you spend more time hating black people and gay people, you won't realise that they're not actually the enemy.

Which leftist? In Uncle Sam territory you have a doupoly political party ("center right" Democrats - "right wing" Republicans) that put a "show" like the WWE, but always agree to go pillage and bomb poor underdeveloped countries or do coup d'etat, or print more money for the lobbyist / oligarchs (legal political corruption) and worse.
Sure there might be a few hundred actual leftist inside the USA, but they're very far away from being "mainstream", most of the "leftist" groups over there had been infiltrated a long time ago, and there's a ton of "posers" and just "all PR zero punching up against Uncle Sam itself".
Heck even in the EU there's barely any "mainstream" leftist group remaining, they've been subverted and infiltrated in the last 2 years.

[Uncle Sam]

Цитата допису Lora Grim:

Цитата допису Volfogg:

Well... What's wrong with being oppressed? Some people just need "tighter leash" so they don't hurt themselves or each other. Freedom is overrated anyway.

Authoritarian skaven technocracy when?

Mussolini Skaven version is that you? Because technocracy might as well be double speak for Mussolini type of shenaningans...
"All withtin the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state".