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.

 

SCOTUS agrees to hear case about social media censorship

page: 1
28
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+4 more 
posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 11:43 PM
link   

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could determine whether users can challenge social media companies on free speech grounds.



The Supreme Court accepted the case on Friday. It is the first case taken by a reconstituted high court after Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation earlier this month.


www.cnbc.com...

It is just a matter of time now and the days of social media bondage will be gone.

Trump and his strongest supporters in the Senate can make sure they keep this issue in the public eye with investigations and considering legislation.





posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: GrandePoobah

There is a greater argument here.
This is a case pitting restrictions on the government vs. restrictions on private entities.
I'm not sure I like either ending for this.


+5 more 
posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 12:02 AM
link   
If the government actually enacts regulations that prohibit the mega corporations from discriminating people based on politics - that in theory should be a good thing.

However this is such an incredibly complex case-by-case issue that I have no idea how we would word the law or specify what goes and what doesn't go.

I dunno... this is a huge mess and no matter what they decide chaos will surely ensue.

I think the simplest and quickest solution would be to allow "all forms of offensive speech" across the board and consider it a protected right. That means even the most vile of the vile. And for anyone who doesn't like it - they can choose to not listen to or view it.

That in my opinion would be the best solution because it simplifies everything and protects Liberty. I like to err on the side of caution when it comes to free speech. Let everyone say whatever the hell they want.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: GrandePoobah

There is a greater argument here.
This is a case pitting restrictions on the government vs. restrictions on private entities.
I'm not sure I like either ending for this.



I love it! End this propaganda being shoved down our throats by silencing one side. Whatever side you are on, just imagine it being censored and silenced.
I don’t fear opposition voicing their opinion, I fear the opinions being silenced.
edit on 17-10-2018 by TexasTruth because: Spacing



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 12:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: TexasTruth

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: GrandePoobah

There is a greater argument here.
This is a case pitting restrictions on the government vs. restrictions on private entities.
I'm not sure I like either ending for this.



I love it! End this propaganda being shoved down our throats by silencing one side. Whatever side you are on, just imagine it being censored and silenced.
I don’t fear opposition voicing their opinion, I fear the opinions being silenced.


Do you "fear the opinions being silenced" or do you fear the silencing of opinion?
Asked with respect.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 12:09 AM
link   
FREE ALEX!!!



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 12:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash
If the government actually enacts regulations that prohibit the mega corporations from discriminating people based on politics - that in theory should be a good thing.

However this is such an incredibly complex case-by-case issue that I have no idea how we would word the law or specify what goes and what doesn't go.

I dunno... this is a huge mess and no matter what they decide chaos will surely ensue.

I think the simplest and quickest solution would be to allow "all forms of offensive speech" across the board and consider it a protected right. That means even the most vile of the vile. And for anyone who doesn't like it - they can choose to not listen to or view it.

That in my opinion would be the best solution because it simplifies everything and protects Liberty. I like to err on the side of caution when it comes to free speech. Let everyone say whatever the hell they want.


All that is actually already covered by the first amendment.

To the issue, they need to just make social media a utility.

After that, competition will come in, Google will be broken up, new platforms will be allowed to grow and we can keep going and talking and thinking out loud without having the company owners decide what we could say.

Much like they ended up doing with the telephone companies.




posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

There is already plenty of competition, it's just that it is unpopular. That's we the consumer's fault.

I have no idea what you mean by making it a utility, because the government has full authority granted by the Constitution to regulate businesses.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 12:29 AM
link   
I can see all sorts of reasons why this is such a mess, and I blame the people running these companies for creating the problem to begin with.

The only way to really regulate them (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc) into not banning / censoring political views is to just prohibit banning altogether. Because if you allow someone to have a ban-hammer and they really desperately want to ban someone - they will find a way around whatever rules you impose upon them. They'll find a way to keep banning people they don't like or disagree with.

But if you remove the ban-hammer power, my God, think of all the solicitations and spam and complete garbage that will arise. It will kill the entire concept of social media because for every 1 real post by a legitimate person speaking their mind there will be 500 ads posted trying to lure you into shelling out your credit card #. Trolls will dominate anything they want.

You see, it will be a cold day in hell before you can convince the people running these big corporations to tolerate opposing political views because they are trapped in the belief that because they have billions of dollars and live in completely lavish conditions that this proves their twisted narrow-minded views are the way and that it is incumbent upon them to force those views down everyone else's throats.

So there is no way to fix this. We're screwed.
No matter what happens it sucks - and if nothing happens? It still sucks.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 12:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme

originally posted by: TexasTruth

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: GrandePoobah

There is a greater argument here.
This is a case pitting restrictions on the government vs. restrictions on private entities.
I'm not sure I like either ending for this.



I love it! End this propaganda being shoved down our throats by silencing one side. Whatever side you are on, just imagine it being censored and silenced.
I don’t fear opposition voicing their opinion, I fear the opinions being silenced.


Do you "fear the opinions being silenced" or do you fear the silencing of opinion?
Asked with respect.


Pretty simple, let people speak their mind. No Government should silence you, and no business in media should silence you.
If you want to talk about amnesty for all with open borders, or digging a spike filled trench at the border, you should be able to do so on anyplace claiming to be a media outlet.
Agree?
If my neighbor says “I really wish Hitler had won” or “whitey should die” or “anybody other than white people should die”, or “Republicans are actually doing ok, and don’t want to end gay marriage or send legal immigrants away” I want to know.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Here is an interesting concept.

How about they can't ban or interfere with a citizen.

All social media would have your name (real name) attached.

That would solve a lot. The internet is collapsing because of its ability to have fake accounts.

How many people would type what they type if everyone could see who it is ... and ... LEO could see who was who.

The problem with the world right now, is that the TRUTH is optional.

Bring back the TRUTH.

P



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

Forcing people to reveal themselves is a very bad idea. I've personally had death threats for my views multiple times just on this website - and I felt safe because they don't know who I am. The mods banned them for it but if my real name was on here, banning them would be meaningless. They won't even have to tell me they are coming after me.

They could just find out where I live and come attack me. It would be a complete surprise attack too.

And on top of that, Alex Jones used his name and face openly but still got banned.

So I don't see how removing anonymity is going to help anything, in fact I think it'd make things way worse.

*** Also in case you don't know, Facebook actually will require you to show them your driver's license and use your real name if someone reports your account. So they are already forcing people to use their real names if their account gets flagged for investigation. This has been in practice for years.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 12:46 AM
link   
There are websites where I can type in someone's name and it will show me all of their known addresses and phone numbers, related court history, everything.

Do you really want everyone to know everything about you and be capable of sneaking up on you somewhere or vandalizing your house? I don't.

I think anonymity is extremely important and valuable. Especially when it comes to speaking one's mind freely on the internet.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash




I think anonymity is extremely important and valuable. Especially when it comes to speaking one's mind freely on the internet.


You can still have some anonymity, but behind the account you are accessible.

So someone threatens you, you report them to the police and they go to jail.

What we have is a liars paradise!

We have all sorts of trolls.

What ever happened to decent folks.

P



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 01:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: muzzleflash




I think anonymity is extremely important and valuable. Especially when it comes to speaking one's mind freely on the internet.


You can still have some anonymity, but behind the account you are accessible.

So someone threatens you, you report them to the police and they go to jail.

What we have is a liars paradise!

We have all sorts of trolls.

What ever happened to decent folks.

P


How can I call the police if they don't threaten me at all and just show up at my door and shoot me in the face when I answer? Never saw it coming.

Also what if they are out-of-state or even in another country?
The police can't do anything. They will blow it off.
Then when that guy shows up it'll be too late, yet again.

Let's assume that the police have magic and did intercept the culprit - and arrested them and put them in jail. Well, tomorrow or next week when they get out of jail they can come teach me a lesson, albeit slightly delayed.

You see, there's no safety at all in this. It's just a bad idea.
Assuming that the police can somehow protect you is laughable.
In reality they are powerless and if someone wants you, they will get you.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 01:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: GrandePoobah

There is a greater argument here.
This is a case pitting restrictions on the government vs. restrictions on private entities.
I'm not sure I like either ending for this.



I see it more as government stopping some mega private companies from THEIR restrictions on who can speak publicly using their service.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Corporations run by far-left ideologues have taken over the public square. Digital unpersoning based on political bias for just having a difference of opinion is very real, which we've seen a lot of in 2018. Just recently Twitter implemented a "dehumanization" policy to their T&C simply because the new viral NPC meme triggers SJW's. We're reaching satirical levels of censorship.

4Chan Sparks Mass Triggering With NPC Meme; Twitter Responds With Ban Hammer



edit on 17-10-2018 by Konduit because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Yay! bigger government control over private business!


It's about time.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 02:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Konduit

Funny to me that conservatives all of a sudden want the government to tell private businesses how to run their business. Cold day in hell... we've arrived.

For example...

You have some property and you build a wall on that property. On that wall you hang some art. Some people come along with some crap art and are like "Hey, we can see that y'all have some art on your wall. We demand to put our crap art up on your wall.".

There's really only one response... "This is my wall, get the hell out of here".

So, are you wrong for doing that? Should someone who didn't work to buy that property and build that wall tell you what art you put up on that wall? Shame on these fake conservatives. It's a new brand of SJWs.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 02:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Konduit

Those were #ing hilarious.








 
28
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join