Big Tech is going to come for you Mr. President

originally posted by: American-philosopher
is it not censorship though??

In this instance? Not really. In others, probably. Do I care in any of them? Not at all.

Don't want a private company dictating your behavior? Don't patronize said company.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

until then it's their platform, don't use it if you don't like it. I sure don't.

Again I really think we should view this issue differently then just your run of the mill private bussiness issue. if it was I would agree. Yeah private bussiness they have autonomy. Thats easy.

we are not dealing with "Todd's Hardware" or something like that.

we are talking about platforms that millions and millions of people use on a daily basis, for communicating purposes, and what do you use when you communicate your speech .

originally posted by: American-philosopher
we are talking about platforms that millions and millions of people use on a daily basis, for communicating purposes, and what do you use when you communicate your speech .

Yeah? And? The law makes no distinction between Todd's Hardware and Twitter. You are under no obligation to patronize either.

Don't want a private company dictating your behavior? Don't patronize said company.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

again what do you do if your voice has been silenced on all of the major platforms, like alot of the voices have been? and you are not allowed to go patronize another platform??

originally posted by: American-philosopher
again what do you do if your voice has been silenced on all of the major platforms, like alot of the voices have been? and you are not allowed to go patronize another platform?

You suck it up Karen or you find another/start your own platform.

a reply to: American-philosopher

A private company fact checked a few of the tweets he put on their platform and people see a problem.

Never mind the fact the government is using mass surveillance, imprisoning whistle-blowers, and even sometimes journalists to expose them.

That's the world we live in.

See, people are more concerned about Trump's "rights" than our own.

Even if we somehow changed private businesses stance on free speech, it wouldn't matter... Because the government has far more overreach, and no one cares.

a reply to: American-philosopher

Yes ... you did call it!!

S&F

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

so let me ask it this should majot big tech compnaies have a requirement to let you know why you have been banned or censored. or is it private bussiness they can bann and delete you and don;t have to give you a reason??

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

so let me ask it this should majot big tech compnaies have a requirement to let you know why you have been banned or censored. or is it private bussiness they can bann and delete you and don;t have to give you a reason??

Would you rather the government regulate them when they are clearly larger, and more capable offenders of our rights?

Should we ask that the government wield more power to "protect" our rights with an optional platform?

originally posted by: American-philosopher
so let me ask it this should majot big tech compnaies have a requirement to let you know why you have been banned or censored. or is it private bussiness they can bann and delete you and don;t have to give you a reason??

Yeah, why not? It's their business. Don't like it, don't use it. All types of businesses make demands of their customers, no shirt no service, no dogs allowed, no firearms, credit card minimums, etc. None of them are illegal. You may find them onerous but that's your problem.

If enough people find them onerous than the business reacts. This is why I don't use any of them.

Never mind the fact the government is using mass surveillance, imprisoning whistle-blowers, and even sometimes journalists to expose them

how is not what you just said the cornerstone of what I am talking about. with speech that is non censored. you won;t be able to speak out against any of the injustices that you mentioned.

Twitter can just label you a liar and say no mass survelliance isnt happening this user is a liar. we fact checked it, its not happening. we are a private bussiness we can do whatever we want, and we just labeled you a liar. (an Unperson)

a reply to: CriticalStinker

So I would want something where controversial opinions are allowed.

If you look at some of the things that you tube allows on their platform, and then to say that this person speech violates content.

I would want maybe a third party appeals organization that a user can maybe appeal to see if injustice was done.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

In a way could this not be defamation of character? I mean if twitter "fact checks you" someone who might want to do bussiness with you or whatever looks you up online and sees oh hey twitter fact check them and they were deemed a liar I am not going to have assoiaction with this person.

originally posted by: American-philosopher
In a way could this not be defamation of character?

Wow, you're really hot for more government intervention, aren't you?

Yeah, it was total defamation, President Karen was totally defamed. He should seek immediate redress of the mighty wrongs that were done to him when they hurt his feelz.

President Karen was totally defamed.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

For curiousity sake and maybe a laugh why do you call him "Karen"?

a reply to: American-philosopher

It's the new 'Mary', A.K.A. 'Sissy'.

a reply to: American-philosopher


Eff " Big Tech " , their Hour of Comeuppence is Coming Soon . WE THE PEOPLE Will take Care of these Traitors Our Own Way ........

a reply to: American-philosopher

So I would want something where controversial opinions are allowed.

Who decides what's controversial, and where the line in the sand is?

Twitter is trying to appeal to as many users as possible. Do you think it could hurt their business model if people could freely throw around the N bomb? So maybe you and I would agree they're a bit strict in certain regards, but we live in a sensitive world where saying things like there are two genders really pisses some people off.

Personally, I disliked Twitter well before the debate of them censoring certain opinions. I don't use the platform, nor do I really see why so many people love it so much.

As many have pointed out, just don't use it if you don't like it. I am just confused I suppose that so many are more worried about Twitter than they are about our own government that has made backdoors to pretty much any constitutional rights.

And to be completely honest, most people don't want freedom or equality in some of these realms, they want equity.... They want businesses to favor or cater to them. Many of the people bitching about Twitter are the same ones who thought Kaperdick should have been banned for the NFL for kneeling during the Anthem. Plenty of these people think that all ANTIFA cats should be arrested and charged with terrorism.

The truth is, hyper partisans on both sides don't give a flying f*** about freedom of speech or expression. They only care about it when it directly effects them, hence why we have such a problem with freedoms in this nation when both sides are willing to celebrate it's infringement so long as it suits them and targets their opponents.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Who decides what's controversial, and where the line in the sand is?

I think that is a great question. of who decides the line. Maybe it should be the users? I am just throwing out ideas. But in society it is usually society that dictates what norms are not okay and what is okay.

Do you think it could hurt their business model if people could freely throw around the N bomb?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I think ofcourse basicall guidelines should be followed. I think most people would agree that swearing, mass profanity use is not okay. Maybe since you are broadcasting content=speech we could follow FCC guidelines?