So you are good with censorship?

Censorship definition

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient."[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions, and other controlling bodies.

The fact that Twitter, Facebook, You Tube, Google are private companies is not the question here, it's simply the idea of censorship. Stopping people from seeing one side of the argument. You are either for it, or against it. it's happening, I believe it's wrong, you may not. But you can't be in the middle here, or on the fence. It's not that kind of issue. You are, or you aren't. Like being pregnant.

So are you?

a reply to: network dude

Nope.

Censorship is the tool of cowards and tyrants.

a reply to: network dude

I'm fine with some of the censorship. If people violate laws or engage in dangerous behavior they should be censored and removed from platforms.

What I'm not fine with is the straight up silencing of certain groups based on magically determined pre-crime accusations and assumed thought crimes.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

If people violate laws or infringe on the rights of others, then it isn't free speech.

There is no freedom to infringe upon the rights of others.

There is the freedom to offend, however.

No.

Right here on ATS, a member typed, "Put a blank in your blank, and pull the blank".

...but without blanks.

A mod deleted it, and yes, they were bad, scary words. Standard stuff.

From then on, however, nobody saw what he typed.

All that was left, was a nice, polite, message about derailing the thread.

His deranged mindset got "polished up".

I'd rather it was on display to warn others.

Apparently we are all okay with it because it is happening right in front of us.

The events at the capital are the results of government overstepping their bounds and forgetting that the people have control. However, the popular narrative was sculpted by the media and the democrats and now the right is getting called a terrorist group and being silenced one after the other.

It is happening and we are allowing it.

We like our comforts in life and don’t want to really be bothered having to stand up and fight for anything. Just leave me alone and give me my money, my TV and my internet. ....ooooo a new Netflix series, sweet !!!!!

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: network dude

I'm fine with some of the censorship. If people violate laws or engage in dangerous behavior they should be censored and removed from platforms.

What I'm not fine with is the straight up silencing of certain groups based on magically determined pre-crime accusations and assumed thought crimes.

Honest question to you.

Can you define "dangerous behavior" for us all here? And please, use a definition that we all agree upon since censoring that will affect everyone.

Since you stated that it’s not about private companies I have to vehemently say that I am against censorship. I don’t really care what it says as it’s just words. Sticks and stones and all that jive.

I’d far prefer to know people’s true thoughts than to be left guessing. That’s why I hate PC culture. Hate me if you want but do it out loud so I know where you stand. Makes it easier for everyone.

Shadows is where the worst of men hide

Dont give them more shadows

Force them into the light

For all to see

For in the light they shrivel into dust

a reply to: network dude

You only cut a mans tongue out when you fear what he might say.

Not when he's lying.

originally posted by: network dude
The fact that Twitter, Facebook, You Tube, Google are private companies is not the question here

They've fallen back on that argument for quite some time now.

Time for us to start saying the rank and file won't be exempt. The incoming leadership wants to paint everyone who went against them with the same broad brush. When the gloves come off, there can't really be exceptions, can there?

a reply to: AnonyMason
You literally just said,

Free speech for the left,

Censorship for the right.

Am I wrong everyone?

Edit: Not only that, you called for an entire part of this forums members to die. Uhm...

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Ksihkehe

If people violate laws or infringe on the rights of others, then it isn't free speech.

There is no freedom to infringe upon the rights of others.

There is the freedom to offend, however.

I didn't think the thread was specifically about the 1st.

I do not approve of violations of free speech. I also don't approve of two sets of standards being applied.

I'm fine with censorship happening. I've been censored here for violating T&C and I usually completely support the decision. I typically apologize to the mod and thank them for their service. I expect my content to be removed if it fails to meet the standards.

a reply to: AnonyMason

Please provide examples of this “blatant fascism”

Should be easy for you cause it’s so. . . blatant

a reply to: lernmore

But here is the rub...we can either enforce the T&C or we can let the site devolve to unrepentant YouTube comments. Fun for some, I suppose. But stuff better served elsewhere because eventually you would have to type stuff that would get you banned at stormfront to be noticed above the din of other crap...

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: network dude

I'm fine with some of the censorship. If people violate laws or engage in dangerous behavior they should be censored and removed from platforms.

What I'm not fine with is the straight up silencing of certain groups based on magically determined pre-crime accusations and assumed thought crimes.

Honest question to you.

Can you define "dangerous behavior" for us all here? And please, use a definition that we all agree upon since censoring that will affect everyone.

Advocating violence, threatening violence, inciting violence are all dangerous.

Just being a Q derp isn't dangerous.

It's actually really easy to differentiate in blatant cases. Platforms are just refusing to do it and blanket banning.

a reply to: Quantumgamer1776

Nah, I'm good. There's nearly 60TB of data from the Parler dump that;s full of it.

I owe you nothing.

originally posted by: AnonyMason

Freedom of speech is fine in a civil environment. When one person's free speech encourages violence and intolerance it's no longer ok.

. . .

Q anons all need to die.

So by your own rules you would now be censored, great job retard.

a reply to: Ahabstar
Here's another issue, especially with lockdowns, how do people with mental disabilities affecting their social skills, learn if everything is censored?

I know I muck up, but I try to learn from it, aspergers isn't easy.

But if I was silenced and canceled everytime I genuinely didn't know I offended someone or broke common sense in social interactions, how would I improve myself to be a better person for others?