It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Web giants to cooperate on removal of extremist content

page: 3
45
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 03:23 AM
link   
Unfortunately this is what happens when a company tries to boost its profits whilst also trying to come across as trying to save the world one video at a time. Since watching Sargon of Akkad and Undoomed this morning about bear I was shocked but not surprised. It was only a matter of time before this happened.

I myself have already started using other more open sites (such as minds.com), though it has less content, it seems more focused ... and no f**king reaction videos.

But the one thing.. THE ONE THING that has really pissed me off, its the shear numbers of people screaming "freedom of speech".

I didnt know that all these companies censoring people were government owned.. OH WAIT THEY ARE NOT... though I do not agree with the censorship and banning.... I ... WILL ... SLAP... YOU...ALL




posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 03:32 AM
link   
a reply to: thekaboose

There's no distinction between large corporations and the state anymore. There hasn't been for a long time.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 03:32 AM
link   
a reply to: thekaboose

Valid point. They are not the government and the do not owe it to their users to give them free speech. The issue is that they also, through user content, generate forms of news and information. They are going to be propaganda machines on a very vast scale with an already huge viewership base.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 03:52 AM
link   
a reply to: thekaboose

All you've done is make the valid argument against legal liability.

How about the commercial argument that consumers who want a commercial platform for free speech deserve to make their desires known?

Who knows, maybe eventually consumers will take their time and dollars elsewhere. You've indicated such a move.

People are leaving Reddit for Voat, Twitter for Gab, etc... Maybe Facebook will MySpace itself....

Don't really get why these concerns piss you off. And quite frankly, I see the opposite....people demanding a commercial entity to eliminate content. They don't piss you off?



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: loam

It is coming, with labels and boxes and bags. It will have labels like alt this and hate that, but something will rise in its place. What will be interesting to see from a purely speculative standpoint is which one will rise and fall.

Free Speech Vs. Labels or Liberty Vs. Security in the very literal sense.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 05:50 AM
link   
a reply to: loam


Facebook has built tool to censor posts in China, report says

This is somewhat tangental, but it's worth mentioning.

This isn't Facebook censoring China. It's China censoring Facebook. China has had Facebook banned. So Facebook built this to adhere to China's censorship laws so they can at least get Facebook into that country.

You might have already known that. Just wanted to clarify in case.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 05:52 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI
True that. This is why internet censorship is bad. Yes anyone can make up anything about anyone. And there should be some common protection against complete baseless slander. But, YouTube has been a pretty damn open format consisting of completely nutty off the wall conspiracies to great thought provoking pieces. What happens when a police district can remove things like making a murderer off of netflix?

It's the whole are we grown ups or not argument. Just because parents don't want their kids to watch porn or play gta doesn't mean I should have to loose those privileges. I'm an adult and I can decide what content I want to consume and what news I want to read online. All that is going away soon. And then, when a cop shoots an unarmed black guy or the gov decides to fly planes into buildings again or single handedly create an armed US resistance movement like Isis we won't be able to find out about it or discuss it. That's the real danger. Not some idiot that believes everything he reads walking into a pizza joint with an ar15.

I have a friend who just got home from an extended stay in Indonesia and a friend who is currently living in South Korea, and you wouldn't imagine what kind of illegal hoops they have to jump through just to go to their regularly visited normal websites that they visited from the US. They need special extensions and proxy apps and IP maskers and everything. Censorship is the worst possible thing for an internet that was literally invented and then given away for free. Dark times indeed.
edit on 6-12-2016 by SheepDipped because: Added last paragraph.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

I am quite concerned about this.

Bearing was not a terrorist, or an extremist. Some of the things he said were unpopular, but that is not the same thing in the least. There are things uttered here DAILY which are much worse than some of the things he ever came out with, and that makes me wonder, will this website be shut down by the powers that be, based on the words of some of our members?

This situation poses serious questions about the actual health of freedom of speech.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: odzeandennz

So you agree with clamping down on free speech?

I think discussion and debate go further to combat ignorance than trying to silence them.


A company or corporation is allowed to do what it wants to curb free speech.. There is no protection in the Constitution against a company or person from curtailing your free speech; a company (or a person) can do what it wants. The constitution only says that the government can't curtail free speech.

The First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


edit on 2016/12/6 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: odzeandennz

So you agree with clamping down on free speech?

I think discussion and debate go further to combat ignorance than trying to silence them.



It's not clamping down on free speech. There is no such thing as free speech on corporate controlled media. Free speech merely exists between the individual and the government. If you want free speech, push to nationalize Youtube.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
Linus/Unix and satellite internet might just be the way forward, no?


Satellite internet involves an ISP just like anyone else. If you want to get away from those pressures you have to make your own which involves either going back to 56k and using the telephone network with independent dial up servers or going regional with mesh nets.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Freedom of speech is there to protect everyone even the extremist moronic buffoons that spout there gibberish online. If people don't like extremist content then what the hell are they doing perusing such sites?

The internet don't need no censorship of any kind. You don't like something don't look at it, simplez!



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

When you put restrictions on types of speech, then speech becomes a privilege and not a right.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

I'm never a fan of censorship, but at the same time, when they are private (non-government) companies taking it upon themselves to police their own sites the way that they deem fit, I can't really find fault with that.

There are too many people who have evolved to think that sites like Twitter and YouTube and Facebook and the like all exist for them to say and show whatever they want, whenever they want to, and that's not the case at all. I do support the right of private businesses to be able to control their product as they see fit.

However, if this is okay for some companies, it should be okay for all companies--I'm thinking about all of these companies who get sued for not baking particular cakes that go against their morals, or not printing signs, or not doing whatever who have either been sued, fined, forced to create the product, forced out of business because of the bad press, or a combination of some or all of those actions.

The same laws and abilities should be applied evenly to all, or not to any.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 09:31 AM
link   
They already have brainwashed 'Moderators' on websites about what can be allowed and what can't be allowed to be in print!

There's also probably bots which go around 'deleting/amending' words so it's not offensive to anyone.

Yes, there are times when words can be used and there are times when not but do these bots know the difference between 'Offensive' 'Mockery' 'Joking' etc.. friends banter!



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Looks like the "get even" crowd is on a tirade.

2016 has exposed so many liars and cheaters that can't defend themselves.

They have no more choices left.




posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain

MAybe its time for a amendment to the first to include Corporations and businesses as well. OR pass regulations that companies Cannot and will not regulate speech.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Box of Rain

MAybe its time for a amendment to the first to include Corporations and businesses as well. OR pass regulations that companies Cannot and will not regulate speech.


The government should not be allowed to tell companies that.

If I were the owner of a website -- say ATS for example -- and one of the members of the site would spend their time making thread after thread supporting white supremacy, which in turn might cast a poor light on ATS as a whole (if, for example, due to this one member's post, word gets out in mainstream media that ATS is a site that promotes white supremacy) -- then I think the site owners should have the right to ban that member and/or his speech.

Being a white supremacist is not necessarily against the law; the Constitution supports the right for a white supremacist to speak freely about his feelings without being charged with a crime for his speech (depending on the specifics of that speech). However, that does not mean that the owners of ATS need to allow that member to speak like that and cast ATS in a bad light.

If the constitution says that companies can't curtail speech, then ATS would have no recourse to protect the image of their website, and that member would be protected by the law allowing him to continue making ATS look bad.


edit on 2016/12/6 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   
So long as websites such as Stormfront exist, peoples' freedom to be an extremist prick aren't going poof.

We did already, by the way, have a thread discussing similar action with Twitter. It boils down to actually reading and abiding by a site's Terms and Conditions, which any site is free to update at any point whether they are small or giant. If ATS revises their T & Cs, and cracks down on, for example here, neo right extremist posts (like, you know, ones that call for nuking countries or demographics) are people going to bitch? Probably. They'll also end up on alternate echo chamber sites regardless.
edit on 12/6/2016 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Some of you are mixing up the right of free speech with the support or the notion even of it.

I know private companies don't have to give this to you nor is it infringing on your rights. What I'm attempting to highlight here is that these companies are stating that THEY are against it.

Being that they are a social network(s) (never saw that as a verb until now
) and software developers, I find this troubling to say the least. Also, given their user base, it makes them right for a monopoly on dissinfo and propaganda.
edit on 6-12-2016 by JinMI because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join