"But they're a publisher!" has no more meaning anymore, it's just a soundbite used by people who really have no idea what they're talking about and are just following what they're told to repeat.
Myself, I just use FB for birthday reminders. Never used Twitter or the social media side of. You Trumpers should follow my lead.
Originally posted by Robtard
"But they're a publisher!" has no more meaning anymore, it's just a soundbite used by people who really have no idea what they're talking about and are just following what they're told to repeat.Myself, I just used FB for birthday reminders. Never used Twitter or the social media side of. You Trumpers should follow my lead.
Oh, I'm so sorry facts have triggered you, Robbie.
You need to seriously take a chill pill.
Originally posted by wxyz
I'd like to know specifically what privileges TT, FB, etc have that other sites like them do not.
Again, they're not supposed to have any if they are truly a platform.
But since they are so one-sided in the content they are censoring they are behaving like a publisher, not a platform, and thus they should lose their liability protections that come along with being a free speech platform since they're not acting like one.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Again, they're not supposed to have any if they are truly a platform.But since they are so one-sided in the content they are censoring they are behaving like a publisher, not a platform, and thus they should lose their liability protections that come along with being a free speech platform since they're not acting like one.
Maybe he needs a more clear example:
publisher: nytimes, washingtonpost
platform: FB, twitter, youtube
DDM already posted the rules regarding this but those are examples.
Originally posted by wxyz
Your answer seems to be about legality.
That's the only thing that matters in this situation, though. Everything else is just useless opinion (useless because nothing else matters except what gets settled in the courts).
But if you want to talk about non-codified morality regarding the situation, I do have my own opinion.
I think the obvious stuff should be censored like snuff, pronz involving kids (I have censor what I type at work), or people who do not consent (such as creep shots). Everything else, I consider it immoral to censor. Dictating the speech of others is immoral and violates what I view is fundamental rights of the individual and it should be protected under an new amendment to the First Amendment. Same with net neutrality. As long as it is not the obvious illegal content, content hosters should not be allowed to interfere with the speech on their platforms.
Content hosters should be no respector of persons or ideas. Their position should be one of impartiality. The problem is, a vocal minority have yelled at big tech to censor people for speech they do not like and they have obliged. They want to silence people whose speech they do not want to read or hear. But they can just as easily not pay attention to it/ignore it. I consider that immoral.
Avoid the slippery slope.
Originally posted by Robtard
"But they're a publisher!" has no more meaning anymore,
Sure, if you're a huge idiot with so much ignorance that your voice has no place in a conversation about this. But that's not you: you're actually aware of the nuances of that case.
For anyone else even remotely familiar with the topic, it's central to the discussion.
Originally posted by Robtardi have no twitter, fb or Instagram.
"But they're a publisher!" has no more meaning anymore, it's just a soundbite used by people who really have no idea what they're talking about and are just following what they're told to repeat.Myself, I just use FB for birthday reminders. Never used Twitter or the social media side of. You Trumpers should follow my lead.
Originally posted by dadudemonI consider it immoral to censor. Dictating the speech of others is immoral and violates what I view is fundamental rights of the individual and it should be protected under an new amendment to the First Amendment. Same with net neutrality. As long as it is not the obvious illegal content, content hosters should not be allowed to interfere with the speech on their platforms.
That's the only thing that matters in this situation, though. Everything else is just useless opinion (useless because nothing else matters except what gets settled in the courts).But if you want to talk about non-codified morality regarding the situation, I do have my own opinion.
I think the obvious stuff should be censored like snuff, pronz involving kids (I have censor what I type at work), or people who do not consent (such as creep shots). Everything else, I consider it immoral to censor. Dictating the speech of others is immoral and violates what I view is fundamental rights of the individual and it should be protected under an new amendment to the First Amendment. Same with net neutrality. As long as it is not the obvious illegal content, content hosters should not be allowed to interfere with the speech on their platforms.
Content hosters should be no respector of persons or ideas. Their position should be one of impartiality. The problem is, a vocal minority have yelled at big tech to censor people for speech they do not like and they have obliged. They want to silence people whose speech they do not want to read or hear. But they can just as easily not pay attention to it/ignore it. I consider that immoral.
Avoid the slippery slope.
Content hosters should be no respector of persons or ideas. Their position should be one of impartiality. The problem is, a vocal minority have yelled at big tech to censor people for speech they do not like and they have obliged. They want to silence people whose speech they do not want to read or hear. But they can just as easily not pay attention to it/ignore it. I consider that immoral.
This is where you and I disagree.
If you don't like what sites do, don't use them.
Originally posted by wxyz
This is where you and I disagree.If you don't like what sites do, don't use them.
Addressed that specific argument, here:
Originally posted by dadudemon
There are other nuances to this topic such as monopolies on some of these platforms making censorship of any non-illegal content a true First Amendment violation (the complexity of this particular argument is pretty ridiculous and it would take an hour or three just to explain...I do not like this argument but I understand why some make it) and the inappropriate use of "hate speech" as an extremely broad category that is clearly hotly debated.
And you and I don't disagree. You're combing both opinion and the codification of law as the same and I explicitly separated them because you asked me to do so. When it comes to the codification of the law, my position is exactly yours: vote with your dollars.
Originally posted by wxyz
I'm a big fan of the free market.Except when it comes to healthcare as the US has proven.
I think you're still missing the point.
I am a fan of the free market as well but when a "platform" is acting like a publisher they should lose their platform status.
You're right, they can continue to be as biased as they like in their censorship. They just shouldn't be labelled a platform when they do it because they're no longer acting like one.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
I think you're still missing the point.I am a fan of the free market as well but when a "platform" is acting like a publisher they should lose their platform status.
You're right, they can continue to be as biased as they like in their censorship. They just shouldn't be labelled a platform when they do it because they're no longer acting like one.
I get it.
If a private company acts biased, they should lose the protections they have if those protections are given to them as if the company is unbiased.