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.

 

Twitter deletes Russian bots, right wingers freak out!

page: 11
52
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

When you live in a day and age where social media harassment campaigns targeted at big entities can force them fire or alter their policy, something like this is a dangerous precedent to set.

When you disallow an entire voice on the presumption that "they're all Russian bots" rather than real people, it completely hampers the ability of certain facets of that debate to express itself.

I understand how it may be intimidating to discover that one voice is not the super-majority on the "right" side of anything that it is repeatedly sold as though.




posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Private entities can (generally) restrict or censor speech as they wish (such as ATS or Twitter).

It's not a constitutional issue.

It becomes a constitutional issue when government attempts to restrict or censor speech.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: aethertek

When censorship starts, you know that you're on to something. Especially here in America...land of free speech.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


When you disallow an entire voice on the presumption that "they're all Russian bots" rather than real people, it completely hampers the ability of certain facets of that debate to express itself.


They are a private entity. They can restrict whatever speech they choose.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MotherMayEye


Censorship is not exclusive to government.


I’m not sure why people have gotten it in their thick heads that free speech and censorship applies only to governments. It’s strange.


Because that's the foundation of the right to free speech, that government cannot restrict/censor it. That's the whole point.

Private entities are entirely different. You know this.


No. The whole point is to not censor someone.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

Sure, but that would go against their mission statement.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MotherMayEye


Censorship is not exclusive to government.


I’m not sure why people have gotten it in their thick heads that free speech and censorship applies only to governments. It’s strange.


Because that's the foundation of the right to free speech, that government cannot restrict/censor it. That's the whole point.

Private entities are entirely different. You know this.


No. The whole point is to not censor someone.


No. The whole point is that government cannot censor speech.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: ketsuko


When you disallow an entire voice on the presumption that "they're all Russian bots" rather than real people, it completely hampers the ability of certain facets of that debate to express itself.


They are a private entity. They can restrict whatever speech they choose.

Funny, I seem to recall that if it is made public you can't discriminate against anyone because of their beliefs......

Or is that only if you bake a cake?



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MotherMayEye


Censorship is not exclusive to government.


I’m not sure why people have gotten it in their thick heads that free speech and censorship applies only to governments. It’s strange.


Because that's the foundation of the right to free speech, that government cannot restrict/censor it. That's the whole point.

Private entities are entirely different. You know this.


No. The whole point is to not censor someone.


No. The whole point is that government cannot censor speech.


That’s false. The principle of free speech has existed long before there was governments.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Private entities can (generally) restrict or censor speech as they wish (such as ATS or Twitter).

It's not a constitutional issue.

It becomes a constitutional issue when government attempts to restrict or censor speech.


WHY on earth is it so impossible for some posters to understand that a free market can utterly BURY a private business that censors????

Derp, derp, yes. Free speech is something that the government protects.

A lucrative and popular business? The FREE MARKET determines that.

Censorship is a valid topic when it comes to private business even if the First Amendment isn't.

JFC!



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: ketsuko


When you disallow an entire voice on the presumption that "they're all Russian bots" rather than real people, it completely hampers the ability of certain facets of that debate to express itself.


They are a private entity. They can restrict whatever speech they choose.


I will be that person. I agree as a private business entity offering a service to the 'public' I believe they should have every right to discriminate and censor however they may choose. Those who feel discriminated have every right to boycott, or speak out against them.

Thus allowing the private business to succeed or fail on the basis of their individual business practice. Government should have no place in telling private businesses that serve the public how to run their business!

This was said many times throughout the years, yet others felt that discrimination by any business was bad. More often than not the more liberal government has stepped in and unjustly punished many private businesses.

Can I just say...it does lend itself for conservatives to declare hypocrite! If you do not find this to be discriminating based on they are a private business...then you have better been declaring the same thing in the recent past when conservative private businesses practices were declared disriminatory and had to face fines.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Liquesence

Sure, but that would go against their mission statement.


Whose?

Does it violate a law or a constitutional right?

Private entities can choose to change or enforce their terms as they see fit.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Martin75

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: ketsuko


When you disallow an entire voice on the presumption that "they're all Russian bots" rather than real people, it completely hampers the ability of certain facets of that debate to express itself.


They are a private entity. They can restrict whatever speech they choose.

Funny, I seem to recall that if it is made public you can't discriminate against anyone because of their beliefs......

Or is that only if you bake a cake?



No, that's only regarding protected classes...religion, race, gender, disability.

And, last I checked...sexual orientation is poised to become federally protected from discrimination.

Politics? Not protected by law.

However, people can take their business elsewhere AND THEY NEED TO WHEN IT COMES TO SOCIAL MEDIA.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MotherMayEye


Censorship is not exclusive to government.


I’m not sure why people have gotten it in their thick heads that free speech and censorship applies only to governments. It’s strange.


Because that's the foundation of the right to free speech, that government cannot restrict/censor it. That's the whole point.

Private entities are entirely different. You know this.


No. The whole point is to not censor someone.


No. The whole point is that government cannot censor speech.


That’s false. The principle of free speech has existed long before there was governments.


But the right of free speech in the US is granted by the Constitution and prevents the government, not private entities, from restricting it.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

The danger lies in the power that social media has been given, not so much the companies themselves, but the voice they have.

Twitter campaigns can get people fired, destroy their entire professional lives on mere heresay, can get companies to yank advertising and doom television and radio shows, etc.

So, what do you think the danger is when the social media company in question starts to heavily censor that types of voices that are and are not allowed to use that kind of powerful platform?

Oh, especially after those very voices were part of what helped establish the power of that same platform ...?
edit on 21-2-2018 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MotherMayEye


Censorship is not exclusive to government.


I’m not sure why people have gotten it in their thick heads that free speech and censorship applies only to governments. It’s strange.


Because that's the foundation of the right to free speech, that government cannot restrict/censor it. That's the whole point.

Private entities are entirely different. You know this.


No. The whole point is to not censor someone.


No. The whole point is that government cannot censor speech.


That’s false. The principle of free speech has existed long before there was governments.


But the right of free speech in the US is granted by the Constitution and prevents the government, not private entities, from restricting it.


They didn’t come up with the idea. Free speech is a principle. You either believe in it or you don’t.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts


they should have every right to discriminate and censor however they may choose.


Discrimination and speech censorship by a private entity are two entirely different things.

One is lawful, the other is not. A private business restricting speech is not discrimination.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Screw the twitter bots,

the real story is in the comments section of that article...

Look as they are using " Reporting " as a tactic now to intimidate comments they don't like or view as not allow to freely be expressed... Regardless of the dude's comments, why are the secret police using idle or even active threats?

We need to really do our part and start to deny dumbassery, ignorance, injustice and manipulation via all non-violent methods we can ponder and execute.

See something, say something, here most likely, but if you think it will do any good, at the scene...



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MotherMayEye


Censorship is not exclusive to government.


I’m not sure why people have gotten it in their thick heads that free speech and censorship applies only to governments. It’s strange.


Because that's the foundation of the right to free speech, that government cannot restrict/censor it. That's the whole point.

Private entities are entirely different. You know this.


No. The whole point is to not censor someone.


No. The whole point is that government cannot censor speech.


That’s false. The principle of free speech has existed long before there was governments.


But the right of free speech in the US is granted by the Constitution and prevents the government, not private entities, from restricting it.


They didn’t come up with the idea. Free speech is a principle. You either believe in it or you don’t.


And, again, the right to speech is that the government cannot restrict it.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence





Whose?


Twitters (the topic!) about.twitter.com...





Does it violate a law or a constitutional right?

Any laws, dunno. Rights, no and this isn't about constitutional rights.




Private entities can choose to change or enforce their terms as they see fit.


Well if I claim to bake cakes but only sell a manufactures brownies, would you continue to do business with me?



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join