Welcome to Communist China and our Bug Tech overlords

[Jacuzzme]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KUGKKHVt7pI&noapp=1

Someone want to point out where in the speech that President Trump incited violence? How about actual acts of violence short of a couple broken windows? It looked more like an unauthorized field trip.

Here’s the President calling for a violent overthrow of congress. (Obviously peacefully and patriotically have meanings that one must be reprogrammed by cnn to understand). https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_con...ture=emb_title

Interesting that none of the news stations are running President Trump’s calls for violence. Here’s a hint why they aren’t: because it didn’t happen. If it did they’d be on a loop at every network. It’s a shining example of how easily dumb people are manipulated.

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by anmar85

I'll bite I guess, but I want to note that I'm sticking strictly to the originally stated bullet points, so I probably won't be paying too much mind to "Well what about..." in reference to any peoples or actions outside of the originally stated bullet points.


- CNN is trying to force Fox News off air
Maybe I'm missing something because I don't really follow the goings on of cable news networks very much, but after a quick-ish Google search I only really found Tucker Carlson ranting on about how a person at CNN published an opinion piece that Fox News should be pulled by cable providers. Maybe they actually contacted cable providers? I still don't really see what the censorship issue is here though. I am willing to admit that it's kind of underhanded to see what's going on with digital platforms and then try to apply that to a competitor's television network, but big business is going to do what big business does.


- Twitter deletes a large number of prominent conservatives who have opinions different than theirs.
Twitter removed accounts that they decided broke their TOS. Just like any website that acts as a public forum they have a set of rules that all participants agree to when signing up. If they feel that someone is in breach of those rules, then they are free to suspend access. In this case they were suspending access to accounts that were spreading misinformation about election results in reaction to that not only being against their policies on misinformation, but also as we've seen it was being used to incite violence. Twitter does not have the power to prevent people from spreading that misinformation, but they are well within their rights to prevent people from spreading it on their platform.


- Apple, Google and Amazon deleting a free speech platform - Parler.
"Free Speech" Platform is a stretch. First off companies don't grant us our free speech, the government does. Also, it's a pretty big stretch to pretend like no one has ever been banned from Parler. For the meat of that bullet point though, I would mostly just parrot what I said in the previous one. All listed services have a TOS that users have to agree to, Parler broke those TOS by not having better moderation in place to prevent dangerous language, Parler got booted. Mind you, there is nothing that prevents Parler from existing by booting them off of AWS. Parler is more than welcome and able to host and maintain their own web servers, and AWS even retains all data for a time to make the migration process as simple as possible. If you are going to rely on someone else for all of your access and infrastructure though, then you are going to be handcuffed to their rules. That's just the way it is. If you want to set the rules, then do it yourself.


Now where do I personally stand? (Let's be honest, someone will probably ask) I think large tech companies like Amazon and Facebook need to be broken up regardless. They are dangerous monopolies for a lot of reasons, I just don't see this as one of them. I don't see this as a constitutional issue unless the Government passed regulations that mandated that these things happened, which as far as I'm aware did not happen. I don't think that pulling the protections that social platforms are granted by the government would help anything, and in fact would lead to many more people being pulled from those platforms. Though I do think that there is a great deal of influence in a powerful social presence and we need to think of ways of mitigating that, because in the wrong hands it can lead to dangerous situations.

Thank you for staying on topic and making a reasoned and intelligent replay unlike most of the people who responded. While I disagree with several of your points, at least you took the time to articulate them well so Kudos.

On CNN - there have been multiple individuals who work for CNN who have argued Fox News was complicit it what took place on Jan 6 and Fox should thus be removed from the airwaves. Given how Big Tech and Corporate Media work, I suspect that besides this public pressure campaign, the suits at ATT who own CNN could be putting pressure on cable carriers. But regardless, it is chilling for a group to try and censor / remove from the airwaves a station because they do not kowtow to the left like 99% of media do. Furthermore, it is also hypocritical as CNN and others of their ilk incited BLM riots all summer resulting in far more damage and people killed.

On Twitter - you say "Twitter removed accounts that they decided broke their TOS." This is not accurate. The vast majority of accounts removed broke no rules. They were removed for the crime of being conservative. That is Nazi Germany stuff right there. Hell Twitter still allows the Ayatollah Khomeini to post threats against America. And shoot, this guy Ayers actually detonated a bomb in the Capital and still has a Twitter account. So save the BS line they only removed accounts that broke their TOS - you know it is BS as do I.



On Parler - you are way off base and contradict yourself. Parler was a Twitter alternative that valued free speech. You claim "it's a pretty big stretch to pretend like no one has ever been banned from Parler" - which is actually true. Parler has taken down some posts and probably banned some users. But Parler's TOS is Parler's to determine - not anyone elses. And Parler did enforce their TOS. So you saying "Parler broke those TOS by not having better moderation in place to prevent dangerous language, Parler got booted" is not accurate. Google, Apple and Amazon all conspired against Parler to shut them down as part of the mass silencing of opposition voices.

By you arguing that these tech companies could do that, you are saying they could do that to any website or app they do not like. For example, tomorrow they could decide they don't like people talking about hookers and shut down ECCIE - just like that. is that the world you want to live in with this kind of power concentrated in a few unelected, unaccountable oligarchs?

And your whole argument that "there is nothing that prevents Parler from existing by booting them off of AWS. Parler is more than welcome and able to host and maintain their own web servers" is a joke and you know it. Yes technically that is possible, but do you realize the logistical and technical undertaking that is in normal times - and impossible in the timeframe Parler was given. AWS and a handful of others like it host the vast majority of large scale sites in this country. When these 3 companies shut Parler down - ON ONE DAYS NOTICE - no other web hosting company was willing to host them. That is collusion. And as some have noted, Amazon, Apple and Google's suspension of Parler is "clearly a violation'" of antitrust, civil rights and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

in closing, you said "I do think that there is a great deal of influence in a powerful social presence and we need to think of ways of mitigating that, because in the wrong hands it can lead to dangerous situations". Well I would say it is already in the wrong hands and we have surpassed that dangerous situation. When the Big Tech companies start to quash free speech and opposition voices, just like they do in Communist China or did in Nazi Germany, we are in extremely dangerous territory

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by El-mo

In the real world...the one that exists outside the mind of right-wing nut jobs, no company in communist China would ever have the right to expel a government leader. Conservatives love the free market until the free market rejects their bullshit.

Thanks for taking time out to share that before you go polish your jackboots. Hitler and Goebbels would be proud

[IMGTH58]

Originally Posted by berryberry

That is correct. But we are not talking about actions that would harm others when:

* CNN is trying to force Fox News off air.
* Twitter deletes a large number of prominent conservatives who have opinions different than theirs.
* Apple, Google and Amazon deleting a free speech platform - Parler.

Do you support such blatant censorship for no cause. Do you want to live in a world where tech companies can decide what speech you are allowed to see? Do you want to live in a world which has the mass silencing of opposition voices?

I support suppressing calls for violence, the overthrow of our government and insurrection. If someone violates the TOS (e.g. the rules of membership), which they agree to when they join, they can be tossed out when they run counter to those rules. This goes for the right or the left. Parler had been warned by Amazon to have moderated boards, just as this one is, and they ignored it.

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by IMGTH58

I support suppressing calls for violence, the overthrow of our government and insurrection. If someone violates the TOS (e.g. the rules of membership), which they agree to when they join, they can be tossed out when they run counter to those rules. This goes for the right or the left. Parler had been warned by Amazon to have moderated boards, just as this one is, and they ignored it.

LOL - did you ever look at the posts on Parler. They were no different than the posts on Twitter. 99.9999% innocuous. Twitter has just as many or more posts from the left calling for violence, insurrection, etc than Parler had from the right. Only one was targeted. You are blind if you can not see that. Hell, even the VERY LIBERAL ACLU sees it:

The ACLU in NYT on why the union of Silicon Valley monopolies -- Apple, Google and Amazon -- to remove Parler from the internet is so problematic. While ACLU is largely just a liberal pressure group now, they still have some real civil liberties lawyers:



And per Glenn Greenwald - a prominent LIBERAL writer :

"Do you know how many of the people arrested in connection with the Capitol invasion were active users of Parler?

Zero.

The planning was largely done on Facebook. This is all a bullshit pretext for silencing competitors on ideological grounds: just the start.

Authoritarians never believe they're authoritarians, no matter how much censorship, surveillance, jingoism, & imprisonment they demand.

They tell themselves their enemies are so uniquely evil and dangerous - terrorists - that anything done in the name of fighting them is noble.

For those asking the basis for that last claim: I spent the weekend reporting on the removal of Parler from the internet, including reviewing lots of documents and interviewing people associated with the companies involved, including Parler.

The article will be up shortly."

[1pittsburgh]

The first amendment protects you, with some exceptions, from the government jailing you over your speech. In most instances it does not protect speech on private platforms. Twitter, FB, etc. can police their forums however they see fit.

Given that, what are you hoping to happen berry? Do you want the government to compel private companies to allow hate speech and misinformation? Seems like you're in a catch 22 here.

[chizzy]

Originally Posted by 1pittsburgh

The first amendment protects you, with some exceptions, from the government jailing you over your speech. In most instances it does not protect speech on private platforms. Twitter, FB, etc. can police their forums however they see fit.

Given that, what are you hoping to happen berry? Do you want the government to compel private companies to allow hate speech and misinformation? Seems like you're in a catch 22 here.

No catch 22..... the point is if twitter,facebook,google do not set their rules and use them accordingly for both sides, there is the problem
And that type of problem should scare the shit out of both sides....

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by 1pittsburgh

Twitter, FB, etc. can police their forums however they see fit.

Cool - now do Parler. Parler policed their forums as they saw fit, just like Twitter and Facebook. But Big tech conspired to remove Parler from the internet as part of the mass silencing of opposition voices.

Again, I don't care what side you are on, this should be chilling and appalling to anyone with a working brain and knowledge of history.

[El-mo]

Originally Posted by berryberry

Cool - now do Parler. Parler policed their forums as they saw fit, just like Twitter and Facebook. But Big tech conspired to remove Parler from the internet as part of the mass silencing of opposition voices.

Again, I don't care what side you are on, this should be chilling and appalling to anyone with a working brain and knowledge of history.

Private companies made the choice to disassociate themselves from a platform on which people were plotting violence. That’s the free market you seem to hate, again.

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by El-mo

Private companies made the choice to disassociate themselves from a platform on which people were plotting violence. That’s the free market you seem to hate, again.

And per Glenn Greenwald - a prominent LIBERAL writer :

"Do you know how many of the people arrested in connection with the Capitol invasion were active users of Parler?

Zero.

The planning was largely done on Facebook. This is all a bullshit pretext for silencing competitors on ideological grounds: just the start.

Oh - and as to plotting violence, the Left celebrated political violence for four years. Four years. Four years of politically-motivated violence against people on the Right.

The media approved and excused all of it.

[Dreamgurrl]

Dude. First of all you are coming off as completely unhinged. (More than usual) Are you okay?

Secondly, parlor was not moderated.. that is their whole draw.

Third, this isn’t the dark web. This is a public forum where everyone’s opinion is welcome. There are rules here just like all public facing platforms. This isn’t the dark web, You can’t just post whatever you want with zero consequences.

Did you get kicked off 4chan?

I’m sure the administration here will tire of your bs soon enough.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by El-mo

Private companies made the choice to disassociate themselves from a platform on which people were plotting violence.

Originally Posted by berryberry

And per Glenn Greenwald - a prominent LIBERAL writer :

"Do you know how many of the people arrested in connection with the Capitol invasion were active users of Parler?

Zero.

The planning was largely done on Facebook.

Question for el-mo:

Assuming it's true that the planning for the Capitol protest was largely done on Facebook, should Apple and Google remove the Facebook app from their app stores?

I'm asking what you think personally.

[El-mo]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Question for el-mo:

Assuming it's true that the planning for the Capitol protest was largely done on Facebook, should Apple and Google remove the Facebook app from their app stores?

I'm asking what you think personally.

To the best of my knowledge I don’t own any Facebook stock, so I’m largely unconcerned with what they do, however I do believe that Facebook is one of the more harmful entities on the planet right now, so I would not miss it, if it went goodbye.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by El-mo

To the best of my knowledge I don’t own any Facebook stock, so I’m largely unconcerned with what they do, however I do believe that Facebook is one of the more harmful entities on the planet right now, so I would not miss it, if it went goodbye.

Hmm... I think that was a yes. It sounds like you favor removing or censoring any platform or opinion you dislike or deem "harmful", for ANY reason, however disengenuous or frivolous. Would that be a fair way to characterize your viewpoint?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by chizzy

I hate cnn but I would fight for their right to express their left leaning opinions as well as fight for fox to do the same

“I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

- Attributed to Voltaire, nom de plume of François-Marie d'Arouet (1694–1778)

Voltaire was a father of the Enlightenment. Most conservatives endorse this famous pro-free speech slogan.

Sadly, most "liberals" do not. Given the chance, some of them (not all) would drag us back to the Dark Ages.