Free Speech
Comments
-
im sure that hes not crying and since he dishes it out im sure hes ok with it coming back.pangolin said:rjsterry said:
You might get further with your argument if you didn't resort to insults the moment anyone disagrees with you.david37 said:
yes because antifa never posted anything remotely contentious did it.pangolin said:
Again though, their app approval policy is myopic and plenty of developers have found themselves up against a brick wall trying to get an app on the appstore. Or found their previously working app removed by Apple. When does David start to care about this?kingstongraham said:Apple is the main one you may have a point about.
When an app which happens to host posts encouraging violence, calling for the killing of democrats, muslims, black lives matter leaders, journalists, posts containing racism, anti semitism, Nazi symbolism... when that app gets pulled. Oh it's right wing though.
Try and look beyond your black and white view of the world, brush the chips off your shoulder and try thinking.
its not for everyone I know.
stop being a snowflake
0 -
German Chancellor Angela Merkel blasted Twitter’s decision to ban U.S. President Donald Trump.
“The right to freedom of opinion is of fundamental importance,” Steffen Seibert, Merkel’s chief spokesman, told reporters in Berlin on Monday, according to Reuters.
“Given that, the chancellor considers it problematic that the president’s accounts have been permanently suspended.”
Seibert said that, while Twitter was right to flag Trump’s inaccurate tweets about the 2020 U.S. election, banning his account altogether was a step too far. He added that governments, not private companies, should decide on any limitations to freedom of speech.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/germanys-merkel-hits-out-at-twitter-over-problematic-trump-ban.html?1 -
The internet predates the advent of smartphones by decades. As explained in another post. Huawei are not influenced by Apple and don’t have play store courtesy of your hard done by mate when he censored them.david37 said:
Really? and how do people access the internet? with mobile devices for the large part. so boy you it seems need to learn a bit more about the internetmorstar said:
You need to learn a bit more about the internet.david37 said:morstar said:
There may well be a point in your last sentence.david37 said:it is expected that there will be over 800million iphones being used in the world by the end of the year
in order for a company to have a social network they need to have a platform on which its consumed. they produce an app for the phone. if apple decide what can and cant be made available in its closed ecosystem then it controls the experience of the user. thats a massive amount of global influence. hence parler cannot compete with twitter when apple decides it doesnt like the opinions and being voiced on parler and removes it from its store. when google decides to move parlour from its store (over 2,000,000,000) users then those two companies alone are managing the worlds content.
interestingly apple google amazon and co have argued long that they are not responsible for content. but it seems they now might have strayed into that area.
Start your own platform is a crass thing to say. because you simply cannot unless your platform is only accessed via pc which is not how social media is generally consumed, not least because whilst we might have pcs or laptops at home the world as a whole doesnt.
Apple Google Amazon facebook are too powerful and must be broken up .
That doesn’t mean any of these companies have to allow toxic content. You are conflating two issues.
Twitter can be as restrictive as it likes whether it is a small or large organisation. That is not censorship.
It’s a free internet, find another mechanism. People have been doing for years. You are only upset about the easy mechanism being removed. Nobody, least of all a president with huge media access has been censored.
It’s no different to going down the pub, being really obnoxious and getting kicked out. You’ve been removed from one place, not stopped from being obnoxious. If the taxi and bus companies refuse to transport you, you’ve still not been censored. You’ve been limited in how and where you can be obnoxious.
But its not a free internet is it. The hardware to run on it is concentrated in a few companies, the search engines are very few and far between and most access is via mobile devices.morstar said:
There may well be a point in your last sentence.david37 said:it is expected that there will be over 800million iphones being used in the world by the end of the year
in order for a company to have a social network they need to have a platform on which its consumed. they produce an app for the phone. if apple decide what can and cant be made available in its closed ecosystem then it controls the experience of the user. thats a massive amount of global influence. hence parler cannot compete with twitter when apple decides it doesnt like the opinions and being voiced on parler and removes it from its store. when google decides to move parlour from its store (over 2,000,000,000) users then those two companies alone are managing the worlds content.
interestingly apple google amazon and co have argued long that they are not responsible for content. but it seems they now might have strayed into that area.
Start your own platform is a crass thing to say. because you simply cannot unless your platform is only accessed via pc which is not how social media is generally consumed, not least because whilst we might have pcs or laptops at home the world as a whole doesnt.
Apple Google Amazon facebook are too powerful and must be broken up .
That doesn’t mean any of these companies have to allow toxic content. You are conflating two issues.
Twitter can be as restrictive as it likes whether it is a small or large organisation. That is not censorship.
It’s a free internet, find another mechanism. People have been doing for years. You are only upset about the easy mechanism being removed. Nobody, least of all a president with huge media access has been censored.
It’s no different to going down the pub, being really obnoxious and getting kicked out. You’ve been removed from one place, not stopped from being obnoxious. If the taxi and bus companies refuse to transport you, you’ve still not been censored. You’ve been limited in how and where you can be obnoxious.
Thats the point. Not wether trump is right or wrong
You’re confusing mobile phones and the internet.
Huawei don’t have access to google play ( ironically thanks to your mate Trump) and yet people are still buying Huawei phones outside of China.
The internet is far older than mobile phones.
Yes Twitter is his choice of platform, he’s lost access, tough censored .0 -
Their ball, their rules, their game.
Get over it.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Maybe I should register a domain name for a right wing unmoderated forum under the name of 'meinkampfire.com'? I can merchandise right wing themed marshmallow sticks, mugs with slogans, witch-burning kindling for camp fires (see what I did there?) and more.0
-
I also seem to recall the Potus was very keen to control Tiktok.
It’s almost as if censorship and control are fine in one direction.0 -
So plenty of evidence to suggest much more violent insurrections were being planned on parlor. Assassinating anyone who opposes trump etc.rick_chasey said:Here's a question for the 'keep him on twitter' argument.
So you decide he shouldn't be taken off Twitter in the name of free-speech. Fine.
What do you do about the problem that he is inciting people to commit crimes? Genuinely, what's the solution?
So how do you deal with that if you don’t want to shut it down?0 -
pblakeney said:
Their ball, their rules, their game.
Get over it.
Thats the point isnt it. Governemnts role is to decide what free speech is, not a few mulitnational companies.pblakeney said:Their ball, their rules, their game.
Get over it.
Theres is really the only ball and thats the problem. What youre happy with today could very well be your problem tomorrow.
0 -
Diddums.david37 said:pblakeney said:Their ball, their rules, their game.
Get over it.
Thats the point isnt it. Governemnts role is to decide what free speech is, not a few mulitnational companies.pblakeney said:Their ball, their rules, their game.
Get over it.
Theres is really the only ball and thats the problem. What youre happy with today could very well be your problem tomorrow.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
morstar said:
I also seem to recall the Potus was very keen to control Tiktok.
It’s almost as if censorship and control are fine in one direction.
And he himself is controlled by democratically elected representatives. Trump couldnt ever do just what he wanted without oversight and control.morstar said:I also seem to recall the Potus was very keen to control Tiktok.
It’s almost as if censorship and control are fine in one direction.
And if the american people decided trumps wasnt the sort of leadership they wanted they could and did replace him and the direction of political travel.
That is not the case with companies the size of apple. Or google when they control the narrative, they manipulate and manage peoples education emotions and aspirations. This isnt a conspiracy theory its common knowledge and you see it every day with suggested posts or items you may be interested in and more subtlety ordering your facebook streams. This is acknowledged effective and celebrated business policy.
If twitter or apple, which have such massive influence can control all the messaging there is also a real opportunity to influence elections and then what? Where does democracy stand?
Even a simpleton can see that the influence of apple or google is beyond that of a simple private company or club whose rules you chose to accept or find a more appealing one. Were all in the club by virtue of everyone else being in it.
0 -
Seriously youve reached the end of your capacity already?pblakeney said:
Diddums.david37 said:pblakeney said:Their ball, their rules, their game.
Get over it.
Thats the point isnt it. Governemnts role is to decide what free speech is, not a few mulitnational companies.pblakeney said:Their ball, their rules, their game.
Get over it.
Theres is really the only ball and thats the problem. What youre happy with today could very well be your problem tomorrow.0 -
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Maybe you should just consider it a lesson in talk lies for 4 years and there are consequences. It is no bad thing for a habitual liar to be edited by the mainstream media and not ride off the back of twitter's platform. Let's face it a good proportion of the US public seem unable to evaluate what he says based on their voting record.david37 said:morstar said:I also seem to recall the Potus was very keen to control Tiktok.
It’s almost as if censorship and control are fine in one direction.
And he himself is controlled by democratically elected representatives. Trump couldnt ever do just what he wanted without oversight and control.morstar said:I also seem to recall the Potus was very keen to control Tiktok.
It’s almost as if censorship and control are fine in one direction.
And if the american people decided trumps wasnt the sort of leadership they wanted they could and did replace him and the direction of political travel.
That is not the case with companies the size of apple. Or google when they control the narrative, they manipulate and manage peoples education emotions and aspirations. This isnt a conspiracy theory its common knowledge and you see it every day with suggested posts or items you may be interested in and more subtlety ordering your facebook streams. This is acknowledged effective and celebrated business policy.
If twitter or apple, which have such massive influence can control all the messaging there is also a real opportunity to influence elections and then what? Where does democracy stand?
Even a simpleton can see that the influence of apple or google is beyond that of a simple private company or club whose rules you chose to accept or find a more appealing one. Were all in the club by virtue of everyone else being in it.
Free speech has never been without social judgement. Trump has been insulated from the consequences of his action by his position. If I had said what Trump had said over the last 4 years I think I would have probably been sacked from most professional roles and certainly excluded from a lot of social events.0 -
Trump was literally trying to do the opposite and steal the election.david37 said:morstar said:I also seem to recall the Potus was very keen to control Tiktok.
It’s almost as if censorship and control are fine in one direction.
And he himself is controlled by democratically elected representatives. Trump couldnt ever do just what he wanted without oversight and control.morstar said:I also seem to recall the Potus was very keen to control Tiktok.
It’s almost as if censorship and control are fine in one direction.
And if the american people decided trumps wasnt the sort of leadership they wanted they could and did replace him and the direction of political travel.0 -
So how does free speech fare under the government in say, North Korea?david37 said:pblakeney said:Their ball, their rules, their game.
Get over it.
Thats the point isnt it. Governemnts role is to decide what free speech is, not a few mulitnational companies.pblakeney said:Their ball, their rules, their game.
Get over it.
Theres is really the only ball and thats the problem. What youre happy with today could very well be your problem tomorrow.
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
I wasnt aware north korea was a democracy.blazing_saddles said:
So how does free speech fare under the government in say, North Korea?david37 said:pblakeney said:Their ball, their rules, their game.
Get over it.
Thats the point isnt it. Governemnts role is to decide what free speech is, not a few mulitnational companies.pblakeney said:Their ball, their rules, their game.
Get over it.
Theres is really the only ball and thats the problem. What youre happy with today could very well be your problem tomorrow.
0 -
Oversight and control hahahahahahahahahahaha.david37 said:morstar said:I also seem to recall the Potus was very keen to control Tiktok.
It’s almost as if censorship and control are fine in one direction.
And he himself is controlled by democratically elected representatives. Trump couldnt ever do just what he wanted without oversight and control.morstar said:I also seem to recall the Potus was very keen to control Tiktok.
It’s almost as if censorship and control are fine in one direction.
And if the american people decided trumps wasnt the sort of leadership they wanted they could and did replace him and the direction of political travel.
That is not the case with companies the size of apple. Or google when they control the narrative, they manipulate and manage peoples education emotions and aspirations. This isnt a conspiracy theory its common knowledge and you see it every day with suggested posts or items you may be interested in and more subtlety ordering your facebook streams. This is acknowledged effective and celebrated business policy.
If twitter or apple, which have such massive influence can control all the messaging there is also a real opportunity to influence elections and then what? Where does democracy stand?
Even a simpleton can see that the influence of apple or google is beyond that of a simple private company or club whose rules you chose to accept or find a more appealing one. Were all in the club by virtue of everyone else being in it.
That’s exactly why he has used Twitter. There had been no oversight or control. He is now moaning for exactly the reason that there is now oversight and control.
As for your access issue it is back to two simple points.
1) he is a total hypocrite. He has censored both Huawei and Tiktok.
2) Huawei is close to becoming the second largest mobile phone company in the world and does not have play store access so can’t be controlled by either Google or Apple. The internet always has been and remains free to access, even on mobile devices.
There are lots of valid, nuanced discussions about whether Twitter etc. are too big etc. to be had but your idea that people are being deprived of the internet is hogwash.
Regardless, Potus is likely going to face legal process for for alleged law breaking. The fact part of that alleged law breaking happened on Twitter surely means a suspension / ban is appropriate until the case has run its course. To not do could be complicit in breaking of laws.0 -
Try and stop thinking tactically and consider the strategic.
0 -
-
I'm not getting to play with my toy innit.rick_chasey said:
Strategic what?david37 said:Try and stop thinking tactically and consider the strategic.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I'm honestly baffled by the 'controlled by the electorate' when he was literally trying to take control away from the electorate and create a dictatorship.
If that is the argument it's not a strong one as surely removing him from twitter made that process more difficult?
There is a better argument around not limiting any free speech, but if you do that you need to come up with credible alternatives that tackle the issues at hand, namely, what to do about someone inciting violence and insurrection on the platform?
FWIW in this instance, Twitter seem to basically allow any political statement you want, however awful, until you start habitually inciting violence.0 -
Ok.david37 said:Try and stop thinking tactically and consider the strategic.
Trump had a clear strategy to silence his critics through aggression (towards media) and circumvention (bypassing critique) through Twitter.
He also bought leeway by constraining rival social media platforms he had no influence over such as Tiktok. It worked very effectively but eventually some people woke up after it was way too late and people had already died at his word.0 -
I'm not sure you could describe Putin as democratically elected, but I guess there is a fascade of democracy in Russia.david37 said:morstar said:I also seem to recall the Potus was very keen to control Tiktok.
It’s almost as if censorship and control are fine in one direction.
And he himself is controlled by democratically elected representatives. Trump couldnt ever do just what he wanted without oversight and control.morstar said:I also seem to recall the Potus was very keen to control Tiktok.
It’s almost as if censorship and control are fine in one direction.0 -
Hes been voted out, he lost the elction, he tried to circumvent that but the underlying process and state security have supported the election result.rick_chasey said:I'm honestly baffled by the 'controlled by the electorate' when he was literally trying to take control away from the electorate and create a dictatorship.
If that is the argument it's not a strong one as surely removing him from twitter made that process more difficult?
There is a better argument around not limiting any free speech, but if you do that you need to come up with credible alternatives that tackle the issues at hand, namely, what to do about someone inciting violence and insurrection on the platform?
FWIW in this instance, Twitter seem to basically allow any political statement you want, however awful, until you start habitually inciting violence.
That is a properly functioning state. One where there can be differences of opinion and where the democratic systems and processes work even when tested.
And the village people breaking into a meeting room isnt and was never going to stop the transfer of power.
It was a relatively small scale protest, running around taking selfies with pinched lecterns. Yes a few people died but it is far from an armed take over of America.
Checks and balances dear boy.0 -
I think you have misunderstood what the storming of the Capitol was all about, and the problem of having the elected leader claim conspiracy and a fraudulent election.
If you can't see that then fine, but then it is pointless arguing with you as we're working with a different understanding to you.
This would explain why you are so relaxed about something quite so serious and why your preoccupation is a glorified forum rather than an failed fascist takeover.0 -
Neither your OP or the post I quoted mentions democracy, so nice sidestep.david37 said:
I wasnt aware north korea was a democracy.blazing_saddles said:david37 said:pblakeney said:Their ball, their rules, their game.
Get over it.
Thats the point isnt it. Governemnts role is to decide what free speech is, not a few mulitnational companies.pblakeney said:Their ball, their rules, their game.
Get over it.
Theres is really the only ball and thats the problem. What youre happy with today could very well be your problem tomorrow.
But since you now have: Trump was removed from office by the democratic process.
He is currently seeking to remain in power by subverting the democratic process.
Were he successful, his regime would no longer be a democratic one, but a dictatorship.
Hence how does free speech fare under the government in say, North Korea?
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.1 -
There is no free speech in north korea, im going to assume that you prefer free speech to the totalitarian state.blazing_saddles said:
Neither your OP or the post I quoted mentions democracy, so nice sidestep.david37 said:
I wasnt aware north korea was a democracy.blazing_saddles said:david37 said:pblakeney said:Their ball, their rules, their game.
Get over it.
Thats the point isnt it. Governemnts role is to decide what free speech is, not a few mulitnational companies.pblakeney said:Their ball, their rules, their game.
Get over it.
Theres is really the only ball and thats the problem. What youre happy with today could very well be your problem tomorrow.
But since you now have: Trump was removed from office by the democratic process.
He is currently seeking to remain in power by subverting the democratic process.
Were he successful, his regime would no longer be a democratic one, but a dictatorship.
Hence how does free speech fare under the government in say, North Korea?
Im also going to assume correctly or otherwise that youve noticed that trump has been replaced by the will of the people and the systems and controls of government and the state have stopped the village peoples protest becoming a take over.
Wht youre suggesting, trump turning america into a dictatorship is a hypothetical one. One with practically zero chance of success. And proposing that handing control to a small number of companies is the way ahead.
We have checks and balances sometimes theyre tested, trumps tantrums are hardly even a real test.0 -
Social media provides safety and near impunity in numbers for most extremists. Hence, they are able to organise riots using Twitter and Facebook. No problem with free speech there.
David is indignant. But his analysis is way off. The person who has been banned has had to spread lies (legal) and racial prejudice (sometimes not legal) relentlessly for 4 YEARS and had to ultimately get to the stage of inciting a fatal riot (not legal) before getting banned. This is literally against the law in the US, were it not for executive privilege.
I think everyone gets the basic point, but the example where social media company policies merely reflect national law, is not useful for making that point.
David, why don't you try "free speech" not on twitter. Grab a soap box and megaphone, take it to your local council office, and start encouraging people to break in and ransack the place. Let us know how long it takes you to get arrested.0 -
Hes claimed it, its not proved hes not getting away with it. The system works. Thats something to be celebrated. He may face punishment in the courts for any crime he committed.rick_chasey said:I think you have misunderstood what the storming of the Capitol was all about, and the problem of having the elected leader claim conspiracy and a fraudulent election.
If you can't see that then fine, but then it is pointless arguing with you as we're working with a different understanding to you.
This would explain why you are so relaxed about something quite so serious and why your preoccupation is a glorified forum rather than an failed fascist takeover.
Thats how it works. The separate and real issue central to this thread is who controls the media and its content, not a local paper or even a national paper but the world media concentrated on a few private organisations whos financial and political influence is almost beyond comprehension. Who limits their influence and by virtue of that, do you as a voter have a voice.
0
