Free Speech

david37

Since Twitter decided to ban Trump (but only when it was financially expedient to do so). Parler has also been taken off line.

this time because Apple and Google and Amazon have decided according to the CEO.

It appears that the content we receive will now only be content that is approved of by left leaning technology companies that pay minimal tax, resist scrutiny and have turnovers and cash reserves bigger than the gdp of all but the biggest countries.

this is a shift in power not seen since the British East India Company and that ended well too.

They arent just technology companies, theyre publishers with a direct line into every phone and pc in the world (barring those countries where soveriegn governments are in charge). It's time to break them up.

And if you applaud the censoring of anything right of centre, remember your own views may easily be decided to be wrong in the very near future.

Pross

They're private companies offering a service under their terms and conditions. If you're so bothered why not set up a rival company allowing people to publish anything they want? Newspapers have been editorialising and selecting what they publish for centuries even claiming to have helped Governments win elections in the process so why is it only now you are bothered?

The people who have created this change in policy (and therefore your so called restrictions on free speech) are those who have abused the platform to spread misinformation, propoganda and complete bullshit. That's not the same thing as free speech.

ddraver

The Horror! Right Wingers in Britain now only have The Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday, The Telegraph, The Sun, The Times, The express, Talk Radio, 95% of LBC, The Spectator, Spiked....

Imagine!

david37

Pross said:

They're private companies offering a service under their terms and conditions. If you're so bothered why not set up a rival company allowing people to publish anything they want? Newspapers have been editorialising and selecting what they publish for centuries even claiming to have helped Governments win elections in the process so why is it only now you are bothered?

The people who have created this change in policy (and therefore your so called restrictions on free speech) are those who have abused the platform to spread misinformation, propoganda and complete bullshit. That's not the same thing as free speech.

its precisely because they are private companies offering this service that they should be controlled. because they have too much influence.

As for starting your own version...... Parler was dong that but had to rely on Amazon for the tech.

they are judge jury and executioner. i didnt see them banning rap stars with millions of followers who directly called for violence against white people.

david37

ddraver said:

The Horror! Right Wingers in Britain now only have The Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday, The Telegraph, The Sun, The Times, The express, Talk Radio, 95% of LBC, The Spectator, Spiked....

Imagine!

yes imagine that, only allowed to have opinions on outdated low volume distribution networks. be careful what you wish for

pangolin

There are winners and losers with every change David. This is a great opportunity for a plucky young right wing tech company to start offering hosting solutions.

ddraver

david37

pangolin said:

There are winners and losers with every change David. This is a great opportunity for a plucky young right wing tech company to start offering hosting solutions.

the winners are the tech companies, the losers are everyone else. unless being a force fed supplicant to be milked is your idea of a good thing.

DeVlaeminck

I've no idea what Parler is (well I just googled it) but the influence of private companies on what can and can't be discussed is a serious issue.

I'd be tempted to say that it is wrong that say a company with the influence of Facebook or Twitter can censor discussion which is not illegal and which is not going to open the company itself up to damage.

If that damage is some kind of legal action then it seems straightforward but reputational damage is more difficult.

rick_chasey

Were you on parlour, David?

Pross

Why was no-one so bothered when newspapers were the main / only source of information for many and, in the UK, were primarily focussed to the right of centre? Why should any company be compelled to be associated with people saying things they disagree with? Sure, it's reasonable to say that they have created their own problem by enabling people to say pretty much whatever they want for the last decade or so but ultimately people can choose to not use them.

elbowloh

Twitter have only suspended Trump.

there are still millions of other idiots on there you can listen to.

Take ya pick.

pblakeney

Diddums.

orraloon

How does that Alanis M song go again...?

blazing_saddles

Fortunately these nasty private companies weren't around at the time to slap a muzzle on Hitler's free speech.

morstar

Everybody has a democratic choice to not use Twitter every single day.

The internet is largely uncensored. That a particular company takes certain actions with regard to their own app is nothing to do with free speech.

As said already and on Trump thread. Start your own platform. Trump has the resources.

Would make a great echo chamber.

orraloon

blazing_saddles said:

Fortunately these nasty private companies weren't around at the time to slap a muzzle on Hitler's free speech.

Yebbut, the democratically liberal Daily Mail actively opposed... oh hang on a minute...

veronese68

Is the snowflake getting upset?

rjsterry

david37 said:

Pross said:

They're private companies offering a service under their terms and conditions. If you're so bothered why not set up a rival company allowing people to publish anything they want? Newspapers have been editorialising and selecting what they publish for centuries even claiming to have helped Governments win elections in the process so why is it only now you are bothered?

The people who have created this change in policy (and therefore your so called restrictions on free speech) are those who have abused the platform to spread misinformation, propoganda and complete bullshit. That's not the same thing as free speech.

its precisely because they are private companies offering this service that they should be controlled. because they have too much influence.

As for starting your own version...... Parler was dong that but had to rely on Amazon for the tech.

they are judge jury and executioner. i didnt see them banning rap stars with millions of followers who directly called for violence against white people.

Firstly, the right to free speech is the right to not be arrested for saying something, not the right to the provision of a social media platform. Incitement to violence is already considered outside the limits of freedom of speech. The president is always free to call a press conference or just stand in the park and shout at whoever will listen.
I'm not convinced that the current outcry is that different from the advent of cheap printing. The 17th and 18th centuries were full of political agitators suddenly having the means to reach hundreds of people with printed pamphlets, and various attempts by the authorities to control this. It took us until the mid 20th century to finally agree the rules for publishing.
That said, I do think providers of social media need to get off the fence and stop pretending that they aren't effectively publishers. Less of a monopoly would be good, too.

rick_chasey

Look, in fairness to David, there is a discussion to be had about the role of social media in terms of how free speech is managed on them.

The problem is the OP is unlikely to have complained had, say, Nicolás Maduro been banned.

TheBigBean

morstar said:

Everybody has a democratic choice to not use Twitter every single day.

The internet is largely uncensored. That a particular company takes certain actions with regard to their own app is nothing to do with free speech.

As said already and on Trump thread. Start your own platform. Trump has the resources.

Would make a great echo chamber.

It's not that simple. Should his ISP cease to provide internet? Should his mobile phone company kick him off? When companies have become sufficiently dominate that they are either a monopoly or part of an oligopoly, then they need to be regulated. That is what should happen here - Trump could be removed for breach of regulations (set by independent regulator based on law), but not for political reasons.

There is the same problem with visa/mastercard. Political pressure can lead to loss of service e.g. wikileaks.

sungod

pblakeney said:

Diddums.

^^^this

freedom of speech is not an obligation on others to help spread your message

it's a standard fascist strategy to use societal freedoms to in their goal to subvert the societies that offer them, once fascists gain control there is no more freedom

lesson of history: you don't tolerate fascists, you suppress them and if necessary you crush them

elbowloh

rjsterry said:

david37 said:

Pross said:

They're private companies offering a service under their terms and conditions. If you're so bothered why not set up a rival company allowing people to publish anything they want? Newspapers have been editorialising and selecting what they publish for centuries even claiming to have helped Governments win elections in the process so why is it only now you are bothered?

The people who have created this change in policy (and therefore your so called restrictions on free speech) are those who have abused the platform to spread misinformation, propoganda and complete bullshit. That's not the same thing as free speech.

its precisely because they are private companies offering this service that they should be controlled. because they have too much influence.

As for starting your own version...... Parler was dong that but had to rely on Amazon for the tech.

they are judge jury and executioner. i didnt see them banning rap stars with millions of followers who directly called for violence against white people.

Firstly, the right to free speech is the right to not be arrested for saying something, not the right to the provision of a social media platform. Incitement to violence is already considered outside the limits of freedom of speech. The president is always free to call a press conference or just stand in the park and shout at whoever will listen.
I'm not convinced that the current outcry is that different from the advent of cheap printing. The 17th and 18th centuries were full of political agitators suddenly having the means to reach hundreds of people with printed pamphlets, and various attempts by the authorities to control this. It took us until the mid 20th century to finally agree the rules for publishing.
That said, I do think providers of social media need to get off the fence and stop pretending that they aren't effectively publishers. Less of a monopoly would be good, too.

This.

Trump has an entire media corps that follows him around or is based inside his house.

briantrumpet

It's weird how all these libertarians suddenly want to tell private companies how they should run their businesses. Why would that be, I wonder?

Yes, there is a discussion about how a few mega corporations effectively dictate the agenda, and how quickly single businesses can gain an effective monopoly, but in Parler's case, it made a decision to host the most hateful/dangerous of speech, and other businesses decided they wanted no part of it. Seems like the free market in action to me.

elbowloh

Didn't Trump say a couple of months back that he wanted to regulate the media companies?

briantrumpet

elbowloh said:

Didn't Trump say a couple of months back that he wanted to regulate the media companies?

I just get this inkling that it might not have been even-handed, if he had... call me conspiracy theorist, if you like, but... let me see, is the free press welcome in authoritarian regimes?

nickice

Don't like him but the OP is right. There is no point in having this debate as it's been had 100 times before. Oh how little some people have learned from history! Anyway, I'm out of here.

surrey_commuter

briantrumpet said:

It's weird how all these libertarians suddenly want to tell private companies how they should run their businesses. Why would that be, I wonder?

Yes, there is a discussion about how a few mega corporations effectively dictate the agenda, and how quickly single businesses can gain an effective monopoly, but in Parler's case, it made a decision to host the most hateful/dangerous of speech, and other businesses decided they wanted no part of it. Seems like the free market in action to me.

not sure what mega corporations you mean but the tech giants are platforms so really aren't dictating the agenda

focuszing723

Changing clothes or shoes in the parking area is not permitted and should only be done in designated areas. Only soft spiked shoes are permitted.

A smart-casual dress code is required in The Clubhouse and The Dunes Restaurant & Bar. Smart denim may be worn.

Mobile phones and other mobile devices are only permitted in designated areas. Exceptions to this are doctors on call who should make the staff aware of this when arriving.

When frost is evident, all play will be suspended until the Links Superintendent and Resort Management decides the temperature has risen to a level that will allow play to resume.

https://www.trumpgolfscotland.com/rules-and-regulations

Most companies have rules to abide by, their members/clients would get a warning if they are broken and I expect barred if consistently ignored.

Jezyboy

Left wing companies that pay little tax.

Most left wingers I know generally want higher taxes...

Trying to paint Twitter, Facebook and amazon as socialist is weird.

FWIW mail online is still regularly one of the top visited news websites. You can still have opinions online.

kingstongraham

Yes, there's a discussion to be had around how Amazon and Facebook have too much market dominance and their decisions have an outsized impact.

But if your platform has just been used as the main way of organising an attack on the USA, and the whole reason for it existing is that you aren't even going to try to censor that... I don't see why Amazon should have to provide services for you.

Also, if you think you can't see right of centre views on Twitter, may I suggest you check out Twitter? Although all you see now is people complaining about how they have lost lots of followers and they can't say the things they are saying.