What is censorship? Trump is a clown but...

Status
Not open for further replies.

goodvibe

Well-Known Member
This is something that I saw on the internet that resonated with me:


"Every Republican today screaming about "censorship" and crying that they are being deplatformed by "big tech" and demanding their right to unlimited social media access?
Yeah, THOSE guys?
Take a look at their records. Check how they voted on Net Neutrality back when they were calling Obama a tyrant.
Ted Cruz, Nov 2014: "The biggest regulatory threat to the Internet is ‘net neutrality!'"
"Obamacare for the Internet!"
Cruz was very clear service providers should have the right to decide how they manage their platforms.
The Free Market will sort it out, that's what they said.
Ted Cruz today: "Big Tech’s PURGE, censorship & abuse of power is absurd & profoundly dangerous. If you agree w/ Tech’s current biases (Iran, good; Trump, bad), ask yourself, what happens when you disagree? Why should a handful of Silicon Valley billionaires have a monopoly on political speech?"
That's called karma, bitches."
 

clarkenstein

JORBA Board Member/Chapter Leader
JORBA.ORG
Corporations are also holding back political donations now. That has been determined to be free speech, but that also is hindering politicians - it will make it more difficult to get their message out. They are targeting Cruz and Hawley.

In my opinion the following stretch can be made: what you are arguing @Dave Taylor is that we should now force these corporations to keep donating.
 

Karate Monkey

Well-Known Member
The bigger issue is "who do you trust?"

Your credibility is already shot, for instance, if you think AP, Reuters, BBC , et. al. are all lying, despite saying the same thing.

I'm well aware BBC is on the cusp of "entertainment".

News is not--nor should it ever be--about entertainment.

This also goes down the rabbit hole of 'tolerating intolerance'. Should we have flat-earth correspondents on all major news outlets, because "lots of people think it's true"? (<<Note this, especially...it's called a "false equivalency", and it's how people get you to agree to otherwise bugfuck insane crap).

Last thought, then I'm closing this and not looking at it again: if you agree with EVERYTHING, and have no complaints about the opinions levied by a news source, you need to stop and seriously consider what you are reading.
 

JPark

Well-Known Member
This is something that I saw on the internet that resonated with me:


"Every Republican today screaming about "censorship" and crying that they are being deplatformed by "big tech" and demanding their right to unlimited social media access?
Yeah, THOSE guys?
Take a look at their records. Check how they voted on Net Neutrality back when they were calling Obama a tyrant.
Ted Cruz, Nov 2014: "The biggest regulatory threat to the Internet is ‘net neutrality!'"
"Obamacare for the Internet!"
Cruz was very clear service providers should have the right to decide how they manage their platforms.
The Free Market will sort it out, that's what they said.
Ted Cruz today: "Big Tech’s PURGE, censorship & abuse of power is absurd & profoundly dangerous. If you agree w/ Tech’s current biases (Iran, good; Trump, bad), ask yourself, what happens when you disagree? Why should a handful of Silicon Valley billionaires have a monopoly on political speech?"
That's called karma, bitches."
Twitter is not a service provider
 

Dave Taylor

Rex kwan Do
This is not about Censorship, but creating peace.

I can go and say whatever I want but no one is going to blow up any buildings over it. When the President does it, that's a whole other thing.
I guess that because I don’t watch the news for the most part I did not see what trump atually said. When I googled his twitter account the day this happened the most recent tweets basically said to protest peacefully and non violently. Maybe twitter deleted some from that day. I really don’t care. More of what my point is is that we don’t matter. If you believe Trump is a die hard republican...well ha! I said back in 2016 when he got elected that he just wants fame. He wants to be the most famous person i. The world and he succeeded in that. He never once gave a fuck about the citizens and neither do any of the other liftime politicians at that level. These are all crazy people.

I think I am more of an ethical person than some believe. I try to help others, I try to do the right thing. Sure, I trade and try to make money off the system. I mean it’s there, why not? The problem is what do I teach my kids? “Save your money and invest it””, but just in case that doesnmt work they government will print some with the same value for you so scratch that”. I am a believer that the stimulus check should have been given selectively to those out of work, on welfare etc. i didn’t and I am sure the bulk of you here didn’t either. So here is what that did. The ones who needed it spent it. The ones who didn’t(or atleast a good percentage of them) invested it and multiplied it. Now the poor/rich difference is even greater and you kids and grandkids will have to pay for it 10 fold.
 

Patrick

Overthinking the draft from the basement already
Staff member
There are other outlets for speech.

I've been thinking about this a lot the last couple days.

The government has been all over the media platforms to police their users for inciteful, hate, or just plain misleading posts.
Fringe groups can't discuss their disdain in public (think radical muslim based) but radical americans can?
Read-up on the Section 230 stuff that protects the platform against individuals suing, but does not stop the
government from fining them.

What are these social media platforms - and how could the platform host be expected to maintain control of the content?
A publisher/newspaper vets what goes out on their platform. They can deny hate speech targeting protected groups
(or even anything the editor doesn't like) - they can stop the private accounts used to call groups to gather and riot.
If we are telling the platform they are responsible - then they get to decide who and what.

--

Like Utah said a while back. Keeping a secret for a week in this environment - there is no shadow government - there are
think-tanks that develop policy that they believe is a best course. is it the best course for business? people? government?
i dunno - probably some combo. Are there meetings where powerful people attend - sure, hell they were at comdex in the 80s,
now they get to hang with the elite. Why? They need to be able to back-channel.
 

Dave Taylor

Rex kwan Do
Corporations are also holding back political donations now. That has been determined to be free speech, but that also is hindering politicians - it will make it more difficult to get their message out. They are targeting Cruz and Hawley.

In my opinion the following stretch can be made: what you are arguing @Dave Taylor is that we should now force these corporations to keep donating.
Whatever you just said is beyond my logical thinking.
 

Norm

Mayor McCheese
Team MTBNJ Halter's
Lot of interesting things here, so far so good.

What I will add is this - something I have said before. Does it not concern anyone that when a SNGLE social media outlet blocks the POTUS then he no longer has any way to communicate with the people of the country?
 

Dave Taylor

Rex kwan Do
Lot of interesting things here, so far so good.

What I will add is this - something I have said before. Does it not concern anyone that when a SNGLE social media outlet blocks the POTUS then he no longer has any way to communicate with the people of the country?
It does bother me. I mean I should be able to digest and filter what I hear/see. I disagree with the president despite seeing the current political system as one party. It bothers me that “liberals” and “conservatives” are so against each other now. Like it’s an all or nothing. You are either left or right, no where in between.
 
  • Like
Reactions: don

rick81721

Lothar
I agree with others, they are private companies and can do whatever. But they are just shooting themselves in the foot and further dividing the country. There will be entire sm platforms and news outlets for each "side". Good luck uncle Joe!
 

ebarker9

Well-Known Member
Lot of interesting things here, so far so good.

What I will add is this - something I have said before. Does it not concern anyone that when a SNGLE social media outlet blocks the POTUS then he no longer has any way to communicate with the people of the country?

Many different ways to interpret this. If you're suggesting that it's maybe not ideal that Twitter has become the primary medium for the POTUS to communicate with the American people, I'd certainly agree. At the same time, he is still the POTUS. He could, you know, hold a press conference?

Not sure that I have a great answer for the fundamental question being asked in this thread. Censorship isn't good, but neither is amplifying and giving a voice to hate speech, dangerous conspiracy theories, and the promotion of violence. Should we require private companies to host that type of content? Really just feels like the main difference this time around is that the hate speech and conspiracy theories have significant traction with the current POTUS (and others), so the whole issue is amplified even more than it was previously. But this isn't new. See "Obama is a secret Muslim/911 didn't happen/birtherism/etc".
 

stb222

Love Drunk
Jerk Squad
Lot of interesting things here, so far so good.

What I will add is this - something I have said before. Does it not concern anyone that when a SNGLE social media outlet blocks the POTUS then he no longer has any way to communicate with the people of the country?
Maybe only because social media is his main way to communicate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: don

roc

Well-Known Member
Lot of interesting things here, so far so good.

What I will add is this - something I have said before. Does it not concern anyone that when a SNGLE social media outlet blocks the POTUS then he no longer has any way to communicate with the people of the country?
It does, I can’t remember exactly what was going on, but it seemed crazy when most of the networks left his press conference.(I think he was ranting about how the election was stolen from him). I’m guessing if he held another one, he couldn’t stand the thought of them going away again. He should be having press conferences, I’m sure there are millions of Americans who do not follow Twitter. I guess the biggest problem is, when everybody in the room pretty much know‘s he’s absolutely lying, how do the networks in good conscience, leave him on?
weird time in the USA.
 

johnbryanpeters

Well-Known Member
There are other outlets for speech.

I've been thinking about this a lot the last couple days.

The government has been all over the media platforms to police their users for inciteful, hate, or just plain misleading posts.
Fringe groups can't discuss their disdain in public (think radical muslim based) but radical americans can?
Read-up on the Section 230 stuff that protects the platform against individuals suing, but does not stop the
government from fining them.

What are these social media platforms - and how could the platform host be expected to maintain control of the content?
A publisher/newspaper vets what goes out on their platform. They can deny hate speech targeting protected groups
(or even anything the editor doesn't like) - they can stop the private accounts used to call groups to gather and riot.
If we are telling the platform they are responsible - then they get to decide who and what.

--

Like Utah said a while back. Keeping a secret for a week in this environment - there is no shadow government - there are
think-tanks that develop policy that they believe is a best course. is it the best course for business? people? government?
i dunno - probably some combo. Are there meetings where powerful people attend - sure, hell they were at comdex in the 80s,
now they get to hang with the elite. Why? They need to be able to back-channel.
I have come to the conclusion that any social media larger than MTBNJ or Ridemonkey is pathological. On smaller forums, individuals can and do moderate content reasonably. It doesn't work when scaled up to large staffs and/or artificial "intelligence".
 

stilluf

Well-Known Member
Private companies can do what they want so long as not otherwise illegal (eg discriminate based on race, gender, etc). If a Twitter account holder uses that platform to incite violence or spread falsehoods, then Twitter is well within its rights to suspend that account. If another company wants to host Parler or give Trump an account on their platform, then that is their private business decision. Remember, the 1st Amendment only prohibits the government from infringing on speech, not companies or people.

At the end of the day, the notion that Trump is being censored is funny because at any time he can walk down to the White House press room and be beamed onto every screen in the country through TV. He chooses not to because he doesn't want to be questioned by the press and the live briefings have been widely mocked (Bleach!) .
 

THATmanMANNY

Well-Known Member
ENTER ETHEREUM and DAPPS...
That's why it is significant

I laughed when Norm said 100% chance this get shuts down in 6 hours or less lol. 1, because it is true. 2, because mtbnj is also censoring but I'm okay with that. PEACE BE WITH ALL!

Trump spends most if his time on the toilet so Twitter is his only means of communication

I do see some friends and family getting off FB because this issue but honestly I don't care. Grown ass adults being babies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom