If Free-Speech falls, we're in trouble

[DMN]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Freedom of speech is not (and has never been) freedom from consequences of that speech. The only consequences our constitution prohibits are the government retribution kind, but what private citizens do to you as a result of your speech is, and has always been, their freedom to choose.

How does this comport with your earlier claim then?

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

free speech has been under assault in far, far worse ways throughout American history. We're talking about powerful rich men buying every newspaper in town and silencing all dissent against them. NOTHING at all like one "newspaper" deciding not to print Trump's opinion.

Looks a bit more like you are trying to make a weak semantic argument after realizing how badly you lost on the merits.

[Gwaihir]

Originally Posted by Cassawary [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

what's a special interest?

A dog with a bad leg

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by cs616 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Again, free speech as a concept is bigger than and distinct from the bill of rights. Yes, the bill of rights only limits the government's ability to censor speech, but censorship is censorship no matter the source. What the companies are doing is certainly not illegal, but anyone who supports the free and open exchange of ideas should be opposed to it morally.

Advertisers have the right to pull their support from a TV station or show if they dont like the content of that show, or magazine, in a free market.

What you are literally pitching is, if you advertise on a platform, that you cannot STOP advertising on that platform, if you dont like what that platform is doing, because you're interfering with their right to free speech.

Its not even close to something the government is supposed to protect.

It's fine to say that you think they shouldn't ban people, or that this forum shouldn't ban people, that's your right. But if this forum decides to kick you for saying that its their right, and if you go crying to the feds to make them stop, you're a commie!

[Jibartik]

What libertarians are pitching with social media companies right now, is quite literally what the stupid ass goverment was doing in the plot to Atlas Shrugged.

Its amazing that we're so backwards as a society right now, the commies are on Ayn Rand's side and the libertarians are on Marxis's.

[HalflingSpergand]

Im mad




Oh wait no im not mad

[cs616]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What you are literally pitching is, if you advertise on a platform, that you cannot STOP advertising on that platform, if you dont like what that platform is doing, because you're interfering with their right to free speech.

Its not even close to something the government is supposed to protect.

It's fine to say that you think they shouldn't ban people, or that this forum shouldn't ban people, that's your right. But if this forum decides to kick you for saying that its their right, and if you go crying to the feds to make them stop, you're a commie!

The only thing I pitched was the notion that platforms who assume editorial authority over their content should no longer be able to claim exemption from liability for the content on their platform, as they do today. Either they're a platform for user generated content that conforms to first amendment principles or they're a publisher providing user generated content and assume the responsibilities associated with that.

I was however advocating that companies should voluntarily choose to adhere to first amendment principles because it would be more simple than trying to moderate all the content on their platform, and would alienate the fewest potential customers, but I never implied I wanted the government to force them into providing a platform for content they disagreed with. You're arguing against points I never made.

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by cs616 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The only thing I pitched was the notion that platforms who assume editorial authority over their content should no longer be able to claim exemption from liability for the content on their platform, as they do today. Either they're a platform for user generated content that conforms to first amendment principles or they're a publisher providing user generated content and assume the responsibilities associated with that.

I was however advocating that companies should voluntarily choose to adhere to first amendment principles because it would be more simple than trying to moderate all the content on their platform, and would alienate the fewest potential customers, but I never implied I wanted the government to force them into providing a platform for content they disagreed with. You're arguing against points I never made.

What happens when twitter loses advertisers over bad press based of things their users are doing? Twitter and shareholders should just eat that loss because the goverment prevents them from controlling own product and investments?

[cs616]

Also, while I'm not advocating for this, I do think there is an argument for forcing companies to adhere to the first amendment principles. At this point many of these platforms have become akin to public utilities like phone lines when it comes to communication. Phone companies are not allowed to monitor your calls and refuse you service based on the content of your speech as far as I'm aware. Companies like twitter, amazon, facebook, etc rely on publicly funded infrastructure like phone and fiber lines to conduct their business, so it could be argued the public has a vested interest in how these platforms are governed.

Again, I don't think that is necessarily the answer, but I seem to remember hero of the left Elizabeth Warren proudly declaring that businesses weren't built in a vacuum, and I don't see why these tech companies would be any different.

[Jibartik]

Lol

So i make an investment into twitter.

Twitter starts collapsing, because they are not allowed to ban the 900,000,000,000 unbannable bots that are now on the site going directly to the top of my news feed because trending algorithms are unfair to speech.

I cant sell my stock, because that would be pulling my support of the free speech of those bot creators, as well.

So I just have to ride my investment to the ground.

I feel like my dad here. This is like the conversation my dad had with me when i was 14 and discovered the wonders of communism.

I seem to remember hero of the left Elizabeth Warren proudly declaring that businesses weren't built in a vacuum, and I don't see why these tech companies would be any different.

So you're saying you prefer Elizabeth Warren? Because most people on the left think you're an alt right facilitator or a batshit crazy commie, if you voted for warren.

Next you're going to tell me that the people that get payed to work at the pencil factory, risked exactly the same amount as the guy who built the factory.

[FatherSioux]

If you want to make the argument that Twitter is the same as any old business go right ahead. For me that argument cannot be made in good faith, these tech companies control the narrative and control what people believe and they have a bias that is apparent. They wield massive influence on the country.

My argument is that these companies do not operate in the same way traditional news sources do. We need to adjust and adapt to the times.