Free Speech

rjsterry

david37 said:

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.

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.

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.

A significant number of Senators and Representatives wanted to overturn the election. Had the GOP not lost the Senate, or Trump's incitement not brought a few to their senses are you absolutely sure those checks and balances are up to the job?

pblakeney

pangolin

First.Aspect said:

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.

By David's reckoning it's not free speech unless someone else provides him with the soapbox and the megaphone.

david37

pangolin said:

First.Aspect said:

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.

By David's reckoning it's not free speech unless someone else provides him with the soapbox and the megaphone.

Struggling still?

First.Aspect

David has to understand what free speech is before he can engage in a sensible argument about stifling it.

But of course free speech includes the right to talk rubbish so do carry on.

I'll give you a hand David. Far more worrying than banning a user for inciting a riot in which someone was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher, from a free speech perspective, is the flagging of fake news on Twitter.

david37

rjsterry said:

david37 said:

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.

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.

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.

A significant number of Senators and Representatives wanted to overturn the election. Had the GOP not lost the Senate, or Trump's incitement not brought a few to their senses are you absolutely sure those checks and balances are up to the job?

Yes? Didnt they work?

If trump hadnt lost the senate and if trump hadnt lost the election and if trump could control the supreme court and if the military wanted a coup and if trump had ninjas. But he doesnt.

kingstongraham

David, what limits should aws have on what its servers are used for?

david37

First.Aspect said:

David has to understand what free speech is before he can engage in a sensible argument about stifling it.

But of course free speech includes the right to talk rubbish so do carry on.

I'll give you a hand David. Far more worrying than banning a user for inciting a riot in which someone was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher, from a free speech perspective, is the flagging of fake news on Twitter.

Theres no point arguing with an idiot. Ill leave you to it.

kingstongraham

Also, this whole "debate" is merely a confection so the American right doesn't have to talk about their role in people attacking the USA.

bompington

david37 said:

rjsterry said:

david37 said:

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.

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.

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.

A significant number of Senators and Representatives wanted to overturn the election. Had the GOP not lost the Senate, or Trump's incitement not brought a few to their senses are you absolutely sure those checks and balances are up to the job?

Yes? Didnt they work?

If trump hadnt lost the senate and if trump hadnt lost the election and if trump could control the supreme court and if the military wanted a coup and if trump had ninjas. But he doesnt.

So basically "small insurrection in America, not many dead" is completely unimportant: anything short of actual armageddon just ain't no big deal.

What planet are you on?

First.Aspect

david37 said:

First.Aspect said:

David has to understand what free speech is before he can engage in a sensible argument about stifling it.

But of course free speech includes the right to talk rubbish so do carry on.

I'll give you a hand David. Far more worrying than banning a user for inciting a riot in which someone was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher, from a free speech perspective, is the flagging of fake news on Twitter.

Theres no point arguing with an idiot. Ill leave you to it.

I can understand you being annoyed that your previous username was banned, but Trump being banned from Twitter really isn't the same.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

david37 said:

First.Aspect said:

David has to understand what free speech is before he can engage in a sensible argument about stifling it.

But of course free speech includes the right to talk rubbish so do carry on.

I'll give you a hand David. Far more worrying than banning a user for inciting a riot in which someone was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher, from a free speech perspective, is the flagging of fake news on Twitter.

Theres no point arguing with an idiot. Ill leave you to it.

I can understand you being annoyed that your previous username was banned, but Trump being banned from Twitter really isn't the same.

Meeow

david37

kingstongraham said:

David, what limits should aws have on what its servers are used for?

It isnt a new concept, a dominant infrastructure provider being compelled to operate in a way that enables choice and competition.

Take as an example bt. Its internet backbone has been opened up for other broad band providers to provide a service over it. Vodafone, talk talk sky etc all provide their broadband offering over bt network.

As for the specifics thats for democratically elected government to decide.

pangolin

david37 said:

kingstongraham said:

David, what limits should aws have on what its servers are used for?

It isnt a new concept, a dominant infrastructure provider being compelled to operate in a way that enables choice and competition.

Take as an example bt. Its internet backbone has been opened up for other broad band providers to provide a service over it. Vodafone, talk talk sky etc all provide their broadband offering over bt network.

As for the specifics thats for democratically elected government to decide.

These companies currently operate in countries run by democratically elected governments David. Are they breaking the law currently, or are they operating in a way that the governments have decided is alright?

rjsterry

david37 said:

rjsterry said:

david37 said:

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.

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.

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.

A significant number of Senators and Representatives wanted to overturn the election. Had the GOP not lost the Senate, or Trump's incitement not brought a few to their senses are you absolutely sure those checks and balances are up to the job?

Yes? Didnt they work?

If trump hadnt lost the senate and if trump hadnt lost the election and if trump could control the supreme court and if the military wanted a coup and if trump had ninjas. But he doesnt.

This time. There will be others who have seen that he got quite close. I would suggest that if you are already comfortable with ignoring an election result and have persuaded your Senators and Representatives to go along with this, then ignoring the Supreme Court is not that big a deal. Who would enforce their decision?

david37

pangolin said:

david37 said:

kingstongraham said:

David, what limits should aws have on what its servers are used for?

It isnt a new concept, a dominant infrastructure provider being compelled to operate in a way that enables choice and competition.

Take as an example bt. Its internet backbone has been opened up for other broad band providers to provide a service over it. Vodafone, talk talk sky etc all provide their broadband offering over bt network.

As for the specifics thats for democratically elected government to decide.

These companies currently operate in countries run by democratically elected governments David. Are they breaking the law currently, or are they operating in a way that the governments have decided is alright?

i believe theyre operating in a way thats difficult for governments to control. The EU has had some success in fining these companies for anti competitive behaviour, I believe that the conditions at the moment warrant new attention.

david37

rjsterry said:

david37 said:

rjsterry said:

david37 said:

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.

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.

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.

A significant number of Senators and Representatives wanted to overturn the election. Had the GOP not lost the Senate, or Trump's incitement not brought a few to their senses are you absolutely sure those checks and balances are up to the job?

Yes? Didnt they work?

If trump hadnt lost the senate and if trump hadnt lost the election and if trump could control the supreme court and if the military wanted a coup and if trump had ninjas. But he doesnt.

This time. There will be others who have seen that he got quite close. I would suggest that if you are already comfortable with ignoring an election result and have persuaded your Senators and Representatives to go along with this, then ignoring the Supreme Court is not that big a deal. Who would enforce their decision?

so we agree, the system worked.

First.Aspect

david37 said:

pangolin said:

david37 said:

kingstongraham said:

David, what limits should aws have on what its servers are used for?

It isnt a new concept, a dominant infrastructure provider being compelled to operate in a way that enables choice and competition.

Take as an example bt. Its internet backbone has been opened up for other broad band providers to provide a service over it. Vodafone, talk talk sky etc all provide their broadband offering over bt network.

As for the specifics thats for democratically elected government to decide.

These companies currently operate in countries run by democratically elected governments David. Are they breaking the law currently, or are they operating in a way that the governments have decided is alright?

i believe theyre operating in a way thats difficult for governments to control. The EU has had some success in fining these companies for anti competitive behaviour, I believe that the conditions at the moment warrant new attention.

I seem to remember someone making the point that you were conflating anti-trust issues with the free speech issue.

This is that point. I am sure you disagree with it.

rjsterry

david37 said:

rjsterry said:

david37 said:

rjsterry said:

david37 said:

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.

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.

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.

A significant number of Senators and Representatives wanted to overturn the election. Had the GOP not lost the Senate, or Trump's incitement not brought a few to their senses are you absolutely sure those checks and balances are up to the job?

Yes? Didnt they work?

If trump hadnt lost the senate and if trump hadnt lost the election and if trump could control the supreme court and if the military wanted a coup and if trump had ninjas. But he doesnt.

This time. There will be others who have seen that he got quite close. I would suggest that if you are already comfortable with ignoring an election result and have persuaded your Senators and Representatives to go along with this, then ignoring the Supreme Court is not that big a deal. Who would enforce their decision?

so we agree, the system worked.

It did, but feels a little like looking at a burnt out kitchen and congratulating yourself that the smoke alarm worked perfectly because you survived the fire.

Anyway, we're straying into the other thread.

rick_chasey

Relying on the poor execution of a coup which was invited by the leader of the nation doesn't really look like a 'system working' in my opinion.

kingstongraham

"Looks like the sprinkler system worked great", I say as the fire brigade damp down the burnt out shell that was my house.

david37

rick_chasey said:

Relying on the poor execution of a coup which was invited by the leader of the nation doesn't really look like a 'system working' in my opinion.

would you suggest monitoring all private communications and nipping possible insurrections in the bud before they go beyond a thought?

kingstongraham

david37 said:

rick_chasey said:

Relying on the poor execution of a coup which was invited by the leader of the nation doesn't really look like a 'system working' in my opinion.

would you suggest monitoring all private communications and nipping possible insurrections in the bud before they go beyond a thought?

I feel it's a failure of imagination on your part to be unable to see anything between "crimethink" and "allow a mob to run riot in the seat of government".

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

david37 said:

First.Aspect said:

David has to understand what free speech is before he can engage in a sensible argument about stifling it.

But of course free speech includes the right to talk rubbish so do carry on.

I'll give you a hand David. Far more worrying than banning a user for inciting a riot in which someone was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher, from a free speech perspective, is the flagging of fake news on Twitter.

Theres no point arguing with an idiot. Ill leave you to it.

I can understand you being annoyed that your previous username was banned, but Trump being banned from Twitter really isn't the same.

Meeow

as the days go by he really is morphing into (or back into) the previous persona

briantrumpet

https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1348823521783238656

pangolin

david37 said:

rick_chasey said:

Relying on the poor execution of a coup which was invited by the leader of the nation doesn't really look like a 'system working' in my opinion.

would you suggest monitoring all private communications and nipping possible insurrections in the bud before they go beyond a thought?

Are you now wanting to discuss privacy issues? Because Parler was a privacy nightmare, users had to provide a tonne or identifying information to sign up and Parler left their API endpoints open so "hackers" (really just above average internet users in this case) have been able to, very easily, download the lot.

surrey_commuter

To me the unanswered (by the courts) question is whether these are media companies or platforms.

Sky News is a media company and is responsible for the legality of it's content.

Sky broadband is a platform and they are not responsible for the legality of any content that you see on it

Sky TV hosts other TV channels so if anybody was to be sued it would not be Sky but they obviously have an opinion on the content broadcast on their platform.

Twitter/Facebook/Google have no content, they are platforms.

If a nutter tries to organise a lynching next Saturday and uses Twitter, Facebook and the local pub as his platform then where does the responsibility lie?

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

"Looks like the sprinkler system worked great", I say as the fire brigade damp down the burnt out shell that was my house.

Technical point: a sprinkler system should extinguish the fire completely so you'll have a wet house with one small burnt bit if it's worked. If the whole thing is burnt out it hasn't worked. I realise that might have been your point.

rjsterry

david37 said:

rick_chasey said:

Relying on the poor execution of a coup which was invited by the leader of the nation doesn't really look like a 'system working' in my opinion.

would you suggest monitoring all private communications and nipping possible insurrections in the bud before they go beyond a thought?

We're talking about public communication here. Twitter is by definition, not private.

kingstongraham

surrey_commuter said:

To me the unanswered (by the courts) question is whether these are media companies or platforms.

Sky News is a media company and is responsible for the legality of it's content.

Sky broadband is a platform and they are not responsible for the legality of any content that you see on it

Sky TV hosts other TV channels so if anybody was to be sued it would not be Sky but they obviously have an opinion on the content broadcast on their platform.

Twitter/Facebook/Google have no content, they are platforms.

If a nutter tries to organise a lynching next Saturday and uses Twitter, Facebook and the local pub as his platform then where does the responsibility lie?

If he leaves a notice on the pub notice board and the landlord sees it and doesn't remove it, then there is some responsibility with the landlord, no?

Hugo Rifkind writes on this in The Times today - "So if Twitter is like the old thing that is, say, Speakers’ Corner, then his banning is an outrage. Whereas if, by contrast, we feel Twitter is more like a private publisher, then they should be free to publish — or not publish — whatever they damn well like. The trouble is, you can go half-mad trying to decide which one of these old things Twitter is, for the very simple reason that it is neither of them. You might as well debate whether a helicopter is a bicycle or a horse."