Spotify and Free Speech

[ClydeR]

A growing number of recognizable musicians are pulling their music from Spotify because of Joe Rogan. Are those musicians suppressing free speech or exercising free speech?

Some of the most recognizable names taking action against Spotify are Willie Nelson, Bruce Springsteen, Barbra Streisand, Queen and The Rolling Stones. Although they are not the current chart toppers, the growing list of stars could prompt some younger currently more popular stars to take a stand, and then there could be a tidal wave.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I don't care. I can get any music I want from the internet.

[Bhaalizmo]

Keep on rockin the free world.

[Parkbandit]

It's their music.. they should be able to keep it on Spotify or have it removed.

Joe Rogan brings more people to Spotify then they all do combined.

[Methais]

A growing number of recognizable musicians are pulling their music from Spotify because of Joe Rogan. Are those musicians suppressing free speech or exercising free speech?

Some of the most recognizable names taking action against Spotify are Willie Nelson, Bruce Springsteen, Barbra Streisand, Queen and The Rolling Stones. Although they are not the current chart toppers, the growing list of stars could prompt some younger currently more popular stars to take a stand, and then there could be a tidal wave.

They're all has been boomers that nobody except other boomers gives a fuck about anymore and are looking for publicity.

The only cool one on that list in the first place is Willie. Everyone else sniffs their own farts.

[ClydeR]

Joe Rogan brings more people to Spotify then they all do combined.


That is correct. The article linked below gives a good overview of why PB is correct. Strike the Obamas. Things are moving fast.


There's been little to suggest that this round of Rogan controversy will conclude any differently as the last time. This go-around, the coalition of critics is more prominent than before, but it's notable that the bulk of the artists requesting to pull their content are musicians on the back-end of their careers who don't have much to lose. Meanwhile, those who do have something to lose, like India Arie, aren't likely to be identified by Spotify as an important relationship. It's also worth noting that, at this writing, they haven't been meaningfully joined by the rest of the music industry, or the podcast industry, or any of Spotify's other exclusive content partners, which includes the Obamas, Dax Shepard, Kim Kardashian West, Call Her Daddy's Alexandra Cooper, and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex (though the former royals did allegedly "express concerns" to Spotify over misinformation on the service).

More... (https://www.vulture.com/2022/02/joe-rogan-spotify-future.html)

I didn't even know Prince Harry had a podcast. What does he have to talk about? If he can do it, anybody could. Makes me think....

[Methais]

Keep on rockin the free world.

Way to get the lyrics wrong despite only being 7 words you had to keep up with, retard. :lol:

[Bhaalizmo]

IJoe Rogan brings more people to Spotify then they all do combined.

https://media.giphy.com/media/39q2aDKbXuzkY/giphy.gif

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

You can still watch any of Rogan's stuff on YouTube can't you? I vaguely recall reading that somewhere. I only watch segments of his shows and very rarely - who can watch/listen to hours of anyone?!

But really, it's a free market. I feel the same way about all the social media filters on free speech. It's their platform, and I'm not on it so WTF do I care?

Edit just to add this - I do care that social media and MSM do a lot of filtering of free speech and opinions, mainly against conservatives. But because I do believe in the free market and that most rational people can actually think, I'm not terribly concerned.

[Neveragain]

A growing number of recognizable musicians are pulling their music from Spotify because of Joe Rogan. Are those musicians suppressing free speech or exercising free speech?

Some of the most recognizable names taking action against Spotify are Willie Nelson, Bruce Springsteen, Barbra Streisand, Queen and The Rolling Stones. Although they are not the current chart toppers, the growing list of stars could prompt some younger currently more popular stars to take a stand, and then there could be a tidal wave.

I'm calling bullshit, I find it highly suspect that Willie Nelson is pulling anything from Spotify because of Rogan.

Oddly, I'm listening to Willie right now on Spotify.

[Jeril]

You can still watch any of Rogan's stuff on YouTube can't you? I vaguely recall reading that somewhere. I only watch segments of his shows and very rarely - who can watch/listen to hours of anyone?!

But really, it's a free market. I feel the same way about all the social media filters on free speech. It's their platform, and I'm not on it so WTF do I care?

Edit just to add this - I do care that social media and MSM do a lot of filtering of free speech and opinions, mainly against conservatives. But because I do believe in the free market and that most rational people can actually think, I'm not terribly concerned.

But what percent of people do you believe this represents?

[Gelston]

Out of all the things I don't care about, Spotify's music and podcast catalogue is one of the least.

[LOL BRIELUS]

Wondering if the use of "speech" on a private venue such as Spotify counts as protected speech per constitution, or is just subject to the terms and conditions of the Spotify service, which is probably at the whim of Spotify....

[Tgo01]

Wondering if the use of "speech" on a private venue such as Spotify counts as protected speech per constitution, or is just subject to the terms and conditions of the Spotify service, which is probably at the whim of Spotify....

Constitutional free speech doesn't exist for private companies.

What the government can't due is compel companies to curtail free speech, something Biden and Democrats are actively pushing for right now.

Which is exactly why I think it's a copout to say it's a private company so they can do whatever they want. While technically true, the Democrats are basically using this argument as a runaround to the constitution.

Imagine if Republicans were even a tiny fraction of the racists the Democrats claim they are, and Republicans were actually trying to keep black people from making it to the polls in order to vote. Now imagine if Republicans were pressuring private company taxis, ubers, buses, etc to not pick up anyone in black neighborhoods on election day in an effort to keep black people from the polls. Would a single Democrat be saying "Oh! Well! It's just private companies doing it! That's their right!" Something tells me the answer is no.

[Gelston]

Wondering if the use of "speech" on a private venue such as Spotify counts as protected speech per constitution, or is just subject to the terms and conditions of the Spotify service, which is probably at the whim of Spotify....

Freedom of Speech only protects you from the Government, if the Government owned Spotify the Constitution would apply as far as the 1st Amendment.... But it doesn't, so it doesn't.

[Solkern]

Wondering if the use of "speech" on a private venue such as Spotify counts as protected speech per constitution, or is just subject to the terms and conditions of the Spotify service, which is probably at the whim of Spotify....

Well, none of these private companies are actually stopping free speech. You can say whatever the fuck your want, they are just removing the megaphone people use.

[Gelston]

Well, none of these private companies are actually stopping free speech. You can say whatever the fuck your want, they are just removing the megaphone people use.

Spotify isn't even stopping anything. They are granting requests by artists to remove their own music.

[Bhaalizmo]

Out of all the things I don't care about, Spotify's music and podcast catalogue is one of the least.

Of all the things you've ever said here, I agree with this one the most.

[Shaps]

A company acknowledging one artists/speaker/etc. request to remove their content in protest of another = good.

A company removing a persons content because of another artists/speakers/etc. objection = bad.

A communications "platform" (ie. Twitter, Facebook, etc.) removing peoples content = bad. Similar to how the phone company can not stop people from talking to one another, even if the phone company doesn't like what is being said.

A person choosing to not listen/read/or promote someone else's ideas on a communications "platform" = good.

A person that chooses to argue their point, to contradict someone else's perspective on a communications "platform" = good.

The issue lies in the definition of what a communications "platform" vs. a "publisher" is.

Currently - mostly the Left, but a little on the Right also - mix and match the definition that these communication "platforms" operate under to censor people/thoughts as they see fit.

Hence the "private company" argument when it suits their argument vs. the "public platform" argument when it doesn't.

In addition, what really fucks it up, is that communications "platforms" gain certain protections that other "private companies" do not... so for companies like Twitter, Facebook, etc. to claim those protections, yet still act as a "publisher" is just wrong.

[Flap]

A company acknowledging one artists/speaker/etc. request to remove their content in protest of another = good.

A company removing a persons content because of another artists/speakers/etc. objection = bad.

A communications "platform" (ie. Twitter, Facebook, etc.) removing peoples content = bad. Similar to how the phone company can not stop people from talking to one another, even if the phone company doesn't like what is being said.

A person choosing to not listen/read/or promote someone else's ideas on a communications "platform" = good.

A person that chooses to argue their point, to contradict someone else's perspective on a communications "platform" = good.

The issue lies in the definition of what a communications "platform" vs. a "publisher" is.

Currently - mostly the Left, but a little on the Right also - mix and match the definition that these communication "platforms" operate under to censor people/thoughts as they see fit.

Hence the "private company" argument when it suits their argument vs. the "public platform" argument when it doesn't.

In addition, what really fucks it up, is that communications "platforms" gain certain protections that other "private companies" do not... so for companies like Twitter, Facebook, etc. to claim those protections, yet still act as a "publisher" is just wrong.

Thanks for sharing your wacky arbitrary rules with us! This doesn't really align with how the laws work, and private companies are going to do what's profitable.

Facebook, Twitter, etc are not government entities and there are plenty of alternatives if you get banned from one of them. That's not censorship, it's businesses doing what they think will make them the most money. That is the ONLY thing that businesses care about.

Maybe they are cAtErInG tO tHe WoKe mAsSeS, but if they are, it's solely because more people who use their product are members of the EvIl wOkE mOvEmEnT than aren't. It's basically the same thing as bakers refusing service to gay customers because MUH FREEDOMS, but conservatives get upset about it because it reveals how actually unpopular conservative ideology is.

[Shaps]

Thanks for sharing your wacky arbitrary rules with us! This doesn't really align with how the laws work, and private companies are going to do what's profitable.

Facebook, Twitter, etc are not government entities and there are plenty of alternatives if you get banned from one of them. That's not censorship, it's businesses doing what they think will make them the most money. That is the ONLY thing that businesses care about.

Maybe they are cAtErInG tO tHe WoKe mAsSeS, but if they are, it's solely because more people who use their product are members of the EvIl wOkE mOvEmEnT than aren't. It's basically the same thing as bakers refusing service to gay customers because MUH FREEDOMS, but conservatives get upset about it because it reveals how actually unpopular conservative ideology is.

You are an imbecile....

https://www.cnet.com/news/section-230-how-it-shields-facebook-and-why-congress-wants-changes/

"Section 230: How it shields Facebook and why Congress wants changes"

"Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which was passed in 1996, says an “interactive computer service” can’t be treated as the publisher or speaker of third-party content. "


And this is where the mind-games start with people like you...

When you like what they censor (ie. conservative talking points), you call them "private companies", and say they have the right to censor...

When you like what they don't censor (ie. support for ANTIFA and riots), you claim they are not a "publisher", and are protected by Section 230...

A nice double standard that jackasses like yourself love to play around with, and use as you see fit. It's pathetic, and the laws need to change.

Either be a "platform" and recieve Section 230 protections...

Or be a "publisher", censor as they deem fit, and do not recieve Section 230 protections...

Can't have it both ways.

[Flap]

Whew boy, lots to unpack in this latest Shaps post!

You are an imbecile.... Rude!

And this is where the mind-games start with people like you... Who are people like me? You will certainly find no evidence of me talking about this law, as I've just now learned about it.


When you like what they censor (ie. conservative talking points), you call them "private companies", and say they have the right to censor... They have the right to remove anything that's on their site. It's THEIR site.


When you like what they don't censor (ie. support for ANTIFA and riots), you claim they are not a "publisher", and are protected by Section 230...WTF is this even supposed to mean? When I like what they don't censor? So, anything that they allow to be posted which is pretty much the whole site? No, I don't like everything. I don't like that Twitter and FB are used by pedos to groom children and such, I really wish they would "censor" that shit!


A nice double standard that jackasses like yourself love to play around with, and use as you see fit. It's pathetic, and the laws need to change.

Either be a "platform" and recieve Section 230 protections...

Or be a "publisher", censor as they deem fit, and do not recieve Section 230 protections...

Can't have it both ways.
Again, just learning about this section of the law. It actually protects basically everyone on the internet. It's a great law, and prevents social networks from being sued over crazy shit that "people like you" post on them. It also protects commenters from being sued for posting whatever comments they post. Free speech is great!

It really seems that you don't understand this law. It's there to protect users of internet services and providers of said service from being sued over what's posted on the site. It has nothing to do with what they can or can't remove from their site. That's literally everything, since it's THEIR site and not a government institution. Here's the actual section that the article you posted references:


(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

Note the bolded part, that's legalese for "you can't sue them". Note the lack of of the word "platform" anywhere in the law(here's a link for ya https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230) to be contrasted against what you might consider a publisher.

Anyway, there I go, actually putting effort into a response to a Shaps post. I wonder if I'll regret this!

[Gelston]

You are an imbecile....

https://www.cnet.com/news/section-230-how-it-shields-facebook-and-why-congress-wants-changes/

"Section 230: How it shields Facebook and why Congress wants changes"

"Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which was passed in 1996, says an “interactive computer service” can’t be treated as the publisher or speaker of third-party content. "


And this is where the mind-games start with people like you...

When you like what they censor (ie. conservative talking points), you call them "private companies", and say they have the right to censor...

When you like what they don't censor (ie. support for ANTIFA and riots), you claim they are not a "publisher", and are protected by Section 230...

A nice double standard that jackasses like yourself love to play around with, and use as you see fit. It's pathetic, and the laws need to change.

Either be a "platform" and recieve Section 230 protections...

Or be a "publisher", censor as they deem fit, and do not recieve Section 230 protections...

Can't have it both ways.

I think they should have a right to censor or not censor whatever the hell they want. They are a private company. Calling them a "publisher" is a super outdated term.

[Parkbandit]

I think they should have a right to censor or not censor whatever the hell they want. They are a private company. Calling them a "publisher" is a super outdated term.

Not sure what term we should use for it.. but they shouldn't be able to censor one political viewpoint.. then when they are called out for it, claim they are a "platform" and somehow not responsible.

Let the court system work the way it is intended to work without some bullshit law offering them protection.

[Gelston]

Not sure what term we should use for it.. but they shouldn't be able to censor one political viewpoint.. then when they are called out for it, claim they are a "platform" and somehow not responsible.

Let the court system work the way it is intended to work without some bullshit law offering them protection.

They are certainly not the same as a publisher with use of the term. Publishers have editors that everything goes through. FB, message boards, youtube, etc... They do not. If you'd like for the protections to be withdrawn and say they ARE a publisher, then every single comment, post, whatever you ever make will have to be reviewed through an editor first and it would probably take days to weeks to post something. Do you really think that is right?

No, it would be extremely stupid. People should be held responsible for what they say, not the service they use to say it. The service, as a PRIVATE company, should also have the right to censor or remove things they do not want on their platform. I think of it this way, if someone walks into my house and says stupid shit, or posts dumbass signs in my yard, I'm going to remove them/the signs.

[Shaps]

They are certainly not the same as a publisher with use of the term. Publishers have editors that everything goes through. FB, message boards, youtube, etc... They do not. If you'd like for the protections to be withdrawn and say they ARE a publisher, then every single comment, post, whatever you ever make will have to be reviewed through an editor first and it would probably take days to weeks to post something. Do you really think that is right?

No, it would be extremely stupid. People should be held responsible for what they say, not the service they use to say it. The service, as a PRIVATE company, should also have the right to censor or remove things they do not want on their platform. I think of it this way, if someone walks into my house and says stupid shit, or posts dumbass signs in my yard, I'm going to remove them/the signs.

Actually FB/Twitter/etc. do have "editors" that go through everything... to include the algorithms that they program to remove content.

They claim a protected status like the Phone companies.

They therefore should not "edit" content on their "platform", because they have those protections. That is so they are not sued as Flap points out.

The fact that they "remove content" make them an "editor" and thus... if they choose to "edit" their content... they become a "publisher"... hence those protections of liability should be removed... They are "choosing" what is allowed and what is not allowed on their "platform"... thus they should be able to be held liable.

If you support how they operate... you might as well support Phone Companies cancelling your service because they dislike your opinions/views/etc.

I doubt you support that?

[Gelston]

Actually FB/Twitter/etc. do have "editors" that go through everything... to include the algorithms that they program to remove content.

They claim a protected status like the Phone companies.

They therefore should not "edit" content on their "platform", because they have those protections. That is so they are not sued as Flap points out.

The fact that they "remove content" make them an "editor" and thus... if they choose to "edit" their content... they become a "publisher"... hence those protections of liability should be removed... They are "choosing" what is allowed and what is not allowed on their "platform"... thus they should be able to be held liable.

If you support how they operate... you might as well support Phone Companies cancelling your service because they dislike your opinions/views/etc.

I doubt you support that?

These are AFTER the fact and generally based on reports. Any traditional publishers has editors that go through things PRIOR to being posted.

And yes, that is completely on the phone company.

[Shaps]

These are AFTER the fact and generally based on reports. Any traditional publishers has editors that go through things PRIOR to being posted.

And yes, that is completely on the phone company.

You're thinking old school "editing" which requires humans to examine it. The modern companies acting as "platforms" use computer algorithms to do all of that work for them - with humans as the backup (ie. WoW's automated reporting/banning system currently in game - gaming example! :) )....

I don't understand what you mean by "that is on the phone company"? Do you mean it's on a specific provider? Or the Telecom system as a whole?

Again.. I'm all for https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 - Section 230 and "platforms" not being held liable for what their users put on there (so long as it's not a direct threat, call to violence, etc.)... Removing peoples content because the "platform" disagrees with a persons personal views is, IMO, "editing" and should remove those protections from that company.

I'm for them to have protections and allow all speech.

Or remove the protections and they can censor/deny/remove whatever the hell they want.

I just don't like both arguments being used to defend the same entity, depending on the current political climate.

[Gelston]

You're thinking old school "editing" which requires humans to examine it. The modern companies acting as "platforms" use computer algorithms to do all of that work for them - with humans as the backup (ie. WoW's automated reporting/banning system currently in game - gaming example! :) )....

I don't understand what you mean by "that is on the phone company"? Do you mean it's on a specific provider? Or the Telecom system as a whole?

Again.. I'm all for https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 - Section 230 and "platforms" not being held liable for what their users put on there (so long as it's not a direct threat, call to violence, etc.)... Removing peoples content because the "platform" disagrees with a persons personal views is, IMO, "editing" and should remove those protections from that company.

I'm for them to have protections and allow all speech.

Or remove the protections and they can censor/deny/remove whatever the hell they want.

I just don't like both arguments being used to defend the same entity, depending on the current political climate.

Nope, I don't think the Government should be involved with any kind of speech issues in private settings.

[Flap]

Again, you guys are completely misunderstanding what 230 does. It protects basically everyone online from being sued for posting things online. It's a good law, no matter which side you're on. That's why the EFF(an org dedicated to advocating freedom of speech amongst other things) page that Shaps linked is so in favor of it. It's a freedom of speech protection law!

This whole publisher versus platform thing is a red herring, it doesn't matter if they're a publisher or a platform. They're privately owned. There are plenty of publishers that choose what they publish based on whatever political bias they have. There are many, many more web sites(what you're calling a platform) that do the same. It's all 100% legal and protected by the constitution.

They are not utilities or government entities. They are privately owned web sites. There are alternatives to them. FB and Twitter aren't the end-all-be-all of social networks. Imagine if you had made the same argument about Myspace in 2005.

[Tgo01]

Nope, I don't think the Government should be involved with any kind of speech issues in private settings.

You must think the government should play some role. You probably don't want phone companies to start canceling people's service because they don't the speech people are using on their service.

[Shaps]

Again, you guys are completely misunderstanding what 230 does. It protects basically everyone online from being sued for posting things online. It's a good law, no matter which side you're on. That's why the EFF(an org dedicated to advocating freedom of speech amongst other things) page that Shaps linked is so in favor of it. It's a freedom of speech protection law!

This whole publisher versus platform thing is a red herring, it doesn't matter if they're a publisher or a platform. They're privately owned. There are plenty of publishers that choose what they publish based on whatever political bias they have. There are many, many more web sites(what you're calling a platform) that do the same. It's all 100% legal and protected by the constitution.

They are not utilities or government entities. They are privately owned web sites. There are alternatives to them. FB and Twitter aren't the end-all-be-all of social networks. Imagine if you had made the same argument about Myspace in 2005.

Holy hell man... I'm not arguing that 230 should be removed.

Because they recieve 230 protections, they should allow all speech (except for calls to violence, etc.).

But as I've said... you keep using the "but they're a private company" argument to say they can censor whatever they want.

I'm simply saying... I'm good with one concept or the other... not flip flopping as you deem fit.

I'm an 100% for them removing whatever the hell they damn well please.... if they give up the 230 protections.

If they claim the 230 protections.... I'm not for them removing viewpoints they just don't happen to like.

You keep trying to maneuver my argument into a false one by claiming I'm saying it's not a good law. I'm saying the companies abusing the law are not good.

As for your "other platforms" available... you are correct... there have also been other sectors of the economies where there were "other competitors", but because of the massive monopoly certain companies had in that sector - they completely decimated any competition.

Hence: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws

"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony ...."

And if you think Twitter/Facebook/etc. and their parent companies aren't conspiring to maintain a monopoly... not sure what to tell you.

Also... these are not like normal companies... these are MASSIVE platforms that control an enormous part of daily communication for a large portion of the world... They are essentially large Telecom companies... not just "social media" anymore.


I'll even give a Gemstone example... it would be like Gemstone mandating all communications must be had on Discord (which they did). So as you all talk back and forth and give your opinions, someone doesn't like it... and DISCORD bans you from participating in the Gemstone discussions.

Do you think that is fair? Just because the "platform" doesn't like your opinion about Gemstone? Because if so, not sure we'll ever agree.

[Flap]

Holy hell man... I'm not arguing that 230 should be removed.

Because they recieve 230 protections, they should allow all speech (except for calls to violence, etc.).

But as I've said... you keep using the "but they're a private company" argument to say they can censor whatever they want.

I'm simply saying... I'm good with one concept or the other... not flip flopping as you deem fit.

I'm an 100% for them removing whatever the hell they damn well please.... if they give up the 230 protections.

If they claim the 230 protections.... I'm not for them removing viewpoints they just don't happen to like.

You keep trying to maneuver my argument into a false one by claiming I'm saying it's not a good law. I'm saying the companies abusing the law are not good.

As for your "other platforms" available... you are correct... there have also been other sectors of the economies where there were "other competitors", but because of the massive monopoly certain companies had in that sector - they completely decimated any competition.

Hence: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws

"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony ...."

And if you think Twitter/Facebook/etc. and their parent companies aren't conspiring to maintain a monopoly... not sure what to tell you.

Also... these are not like normal companies... these are MASSIVE platforms that control an enormous part of daily communication for a large portion of the world... They are essentially large Telecom companies... not just "social media" anymore.


I'll even give a Gemstone example... it would be like Gemstone mandating all communications must be had on Discord (which they did). So as you all talk back and forth and give your opinions, someone doesn't like it... and DISCORD bans you from participating in the Gemstone discussions.

Do you think that is fair? Just because the "platform" doesn't like your opinion about Gemstone? Because if so, not sure we'll ever agree.

???????? This is so fucking exhausting. These concepts are very simple and you're doing triple backflips while blindfolded to try to justify your position.

Freedom of speech means you can say whatever the fuck you want. Web sites can be used to amplify your voice, like a megaphone.

We have freedom of speech, and megaphone companies can supply us with megaphones.

We do not have rights to megaphones.

We do not have rights to Facebook or Twitter branded megaphones, even though they may be the current top-of-the-line megaphones.

Twitter and Facebook do not have the obligation to supply us with megaphones.

[Shaps]

???????? This is so fucking exhausting. These concepts are very simple and you're doing triple backflips while blindfolded to try to justify your position.

Freedom of speech means you can say whatever the fuck you want. Web sites can be used to amplify your voice, like a megaphone.

We have freedom of speech, and megaphone companies can supply us with megaphones.

We do not have rights to megaphones.

We do not have rights to Facebook or Twitter branded megaphones, even though they may be the current top-of-the-line megaphones.

Twitter and Facebook do not have the obligation to supply us with megaphones.

???????? You're so fucking exhausting... These concepts are very simple and you're doing triple backflips while jerking off a midget to try and justify your position.

Websites can be used to amplify your voice and recieve protections (ie. 230), like a megaphone.

To use you're analogy (since I know you're slow)... they're not a megaphone. A megaphone is just a platform to amplify someone's voice. A megaphone doesn't decide what the person using it says through it. A megaphone doesn't turn off when someone speaks through it.

Get it?

If they choose to censor/edit/make statements... they are an EDITOR.

They are to big and to expansive to just be considered "private companies" anymore... they are, for all intents and purposes, the backbone of telecommunications throughout the world at this point.

[Shaps]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/324267/us-adults-daily-facebook-minutes/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1224510/time-spent-per-day-on-smartphone-us/#:~:text=Average%20time%20spent%20daily%20on%20a%2 0smartphone%20in%20the%20United%20States%202021&text=According%20to%20a%20survey%20conducted,inclu ding%20work%2Drelated%20smartphone%20use.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1045353/mobile-device-daily-usage-time-in-the-us/

They are the communications system - smart phones ensured that.

[Gelston]

You must think the government should play some role. You probably don't want phone companies to start canceling people's service because they don't the speech people are using on their service.

Literally said I wouldn't care. They want money though.

[Parkbandit]

This is how you "regulate" big tech companies:

https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/podcaster-joe-rogan-gets-100-mln-offer-trump-affiliated-site-rumble-2022-02-07/

[Tgo01]

Literally said I wouldn't care. They want money though.

You would be okay with phone companies and internet providers deciding they don't like what sort of speech you engage in while using their service so they cut off your service entirely?

That would have a pretty chilling effect on everyone who engages in wrong think.

[Flap]

???????? You're so fucking exhausting... These concepts are very simple and you're doing triple backflips while jerking off a midget to try and justify your position.

Websites can be used to amplify your voice and recieve protections (ie. 230), like a megaphone.

To use you're analogy (since I know you're slow)... they're not a megaphone. A megaphone is just a platform to amplify someone's voice. A megaphone doesn't decide what the person using it says through it. A megaphone doesn't turn off when someone speaks through it.

Get it?

If they choose to censor/edit/make statements... they are an EDITOR.

They are to big and to expansive to just be considered "private companies" anymore... they are, for all intents and purposes, the backbone of telecommunications throughout the world at this point.

You're still misunderstanding the law, at this point I have to believe it's purposefully. Or you're really stupid. I'd been reigning in the insults but since you can't seem to help but throw in homophobia and (FOR SOME REASON) a slur against little people I don't see the point.

All that crap about whether they're a publisher or not is irrelevant. FB and Twitter are not getting any special protection that OTHER WEB SITES aren't offered. They are web sites, all web sites get those protections so there is no reason to focus on social networks like they're getting special protections. They are not.

You act as if Leftist positions aren't constantly undermined or censored by the media. And I'm not just talking about Centrist positions that you call Leftist like free health care. That gets undermined PLENTY though! The very FACT that you call Democrats leftists is evidence of this!

[Gelston]

You would be okay with phone companies and internet providers deciding they don't like what sort of speech you engage in while using their service so they cut off your service entirely?

That would have a pretty chilling effect on everyone who engages in wrong think.

I expect consumer backlash to be the regulating agency.

But lets get this straight, you want Government control over private entities? You want the Federal Government to have even more power and bureaucracy?

[Tgo01]

I expect consumer backlash to be the regulating agency.

It hasn't worked so far on places like Reddit, Twitter, or Facebook. Democrat politicians are drunk with power and Democrat voters are all too happy to give them more power.


But lets get this straight, you want Government control over private entities? You want the Federal Government to have even more power and bureaucracy?

I want Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, and the rest to be held to the same standards as other companies. The reason internet providers and phone companies are completely immune to libel lawsuits for what people on their service say and why they are almost completely immune for the illegal shit people say and do on their service is because they take a completely hands off approach. They don't go snooping on people's private conversation looking for something they deem offensive and as long as they do that then they gain all sorts of immunity from the law, which makes complete sense. Do we really want the internet companies (which in many parts of the country they have a monopoly) to spy on what their users are doing and if they don't like what they say or what content they look at then they can just cancel their service? I sure as hell don't. I would rather legit bad people have access to the internet than legit bad people being kicked off and also non-bad people who engage in wrong think to be kicked off.

This is how I feel about tech companies, who together between a handful of companies have complete control of the social media market and have even coordinated with one another to ensure they ban apps and people all at the same time. Once again I would rather legit bad people have access to social media (as long as they aren't breaking any laws) and everyone is free to express themselves rather than the legit bad people be kicked off and the people whose only "crime" is going against the preferred narrative at the moment.

[time4fun]

???????? You're so fucking exhausting... These concepts are very simple and you're doing triple backflips while jerking off a midget to try and justify your position.

Websites can be used to amplify your voice and recieve protections (ie. 230), like a megaphone.

To use you're analogy (since I know you're slow)... they're not a megaphone. A megaphone is just a platform to amplify someone's voice. A megaphone doesn't decide what the person using it says through it. A megaphone doesn't turn off when someone speaks through it.

Get it?

If they choose to censor/edit/make statements... they are an EDITOR.

They are to big and to expansive to just be considered "private companies" anymore... they are, for all intents and purposes, the backbone of telecommunications throughout the world at this point.

As a reminder, Section 230 doesn't apply to people posting content. It only applies to companies hosting content.

And there is no such thing as "you're so big that you're now a public entity". That's literally government takeover of private corporations, apparently for the specific goal of forcing them to carry speech they find objectionable.

You may recognize that as the opposite of a free society.

[Tgo01]

And there is no such thing as "you're so big that you're now a public entity". That's literally government takeover of private corporations, apparently for the specific goal of forcing them to carry speech they find objectionable.

Weird. That's exactly what they did to many companies.

You're probably being pedantic over the term "public entity" when what is clearly being discussed is "public utility."

Also since when are far leftists such as you against the government taking over private companies anyways? I guess when the concern is the company in question is kowtowing to the far left and the right wants to reign them in, but when the company isn't kowtowing to the far left such as oil and gas companies well then you're all for the government either taking them over or regulating them to death.

[time4fun]

Weird. That's exactly what they did to many companies.

You're probably being pedantic over the term "public entity" when what is clearly being discussed is "public utility."

Also since when are far leftists such as you against the government taking over private companies anyways? I guess when the concern is the company in question is kowtowing to the far left and the right wants to reign them in, but when the company isn't kowtowing to the far left such as oil and gas companies well then you're all for the government either taking them over or regulating them to death.

Not for the purposes of forcing them to host speech they found objectionable. And not based solely on size.

We have mechanisms to handle companies that are too big. Classification as a public utility isn't one of them.

[Tgo01]

Not for the purposes of forcing them to host speech they found objectionable.

Ah okay. You want the government to take over private entities for other reasons.

[Flap]

As a reminder, Section 230 doesn't apply to people posting content. It only applies to companies hosting content.

It does, though. The language says "no provider or user" which means both the web site and the people posting on it.

[Gelston]

Ah okay. You want the government to take over private entities for other reasons.

Seems like you do. You raise up other companies and say SEE THEY DO IT HERE? Well, I don't think they should do it there either.

[Tgo01]

Seems like you do. You raise up other companies and say SEE THEY DO IT HERE? Well, I don't think they should do it there either.

I don't want the government to take control of companies, I want companies to be treated the same and not have some companies be immune to the same laws that other companies have to obey.

I think it's great that the government gave companies immunity to lawsuits and criminal activity as long as said companies didn't spy on their users and regulate speech. It's really the only reason why telephones and subsequently the internet spread as it did.

Imagine if all this since its founding that AT&T would be held liable for the shit people said while using AT&T's service? AT&T would had to have hired an army of people to listen in on phone calls to make sure nothing slanderous or illegal was happening, which would have been a huge invasion of privacy not to mention probably financially unfeasible.

Instead the government saw how necessary and important telecommunications was and said okay, as long as you take a hands off approach then you'll be immune from lawsuits and we'll look the other way while you continue to be a monopoly for decades. Now with social media and large tech companies the government is like okay you can go ahead and censor anything and everything you want, oh and you'll still for some reason be immune to lawsuits, and oh yeah we'll look the other way while the handful of you continue to monopolize practically the entire internet at this point, but especially monopolize the social media aspect of the internet.

Why should companies be able to censor whoever they want AND be immune from slander lawsuits? If they are already engaging in censorship then how are they any different from newspapers which can indeed be sued for slander for what they print and they can't hide behind Twitter's lame excuse and just say "Well that wasn't US saying it...it was just some person..."

[Gelston]

I don't want the government to take control of companies, I want companies to be treated the same and not have some companies be immune to the same laws that other companies have to obey.

.

And this is where we can agree. I don't think the other companies should have these laws either.

[Tgo01]

And this is where we can agree. I don't think the other companies should have these laws either.

So Comcast can kick people off their service for wrong think and be immune from slander lawsuits for what their customers post? Or they would lose immunity too?

[Gelston]

So Comcast can kick people off their service for wrong think and be immune from slander lawsuits for what their customers post? Or they would lose immunity too?

Sure. They'd still need to answer to their stockholders if they went insanely stupid though. I have 5 or 6 other options just in my area, one of them is even a smaller locally owned company.

Let's get to the crux of the matter, you want more Government and less freedom.

[Tgo01]

Sure. They'd still need to answer to their stockholders if they went insanely stupid though. I have 5 or 6 other options just in my area, one of them is even a smaller locally owned company.

Let's get to the crux of the matter, you want more Government and less freedom.

No, I want companies to be treated the same. The government can either treat social media companies the same as they treat newspapers, book stores, telecommunication companies, and cable companies and only allow them to be immune from slander lawsuits if they take a hands off approach, or the government can treat all the companies the same and let them do whatever they want but they lose their immunity to lawsuits and criminal laws. I don't understand why anyone thinks it's okay for companies to be treated differently in this regard.

[Gelston]

No, I want companies to be treated the same. The government can either treat social media companies the same as they treat newspapers, book stores, telecommunication companies, and cable companies and only allow them to be immune from slander lawsuits if they take a hands off approach, or the government can treat all the companies the same and let them do whatever they want but they lose their immunity to lawsuits and criminal laws. I don't understand why anyone thinks it's okay for companies to be treated differently in this regard.

Hewy, so do I. Remove all that regulation. My issue is, you sue the person creating the slander, NOT the message board he posted it through.

[Flap]

Seems like y'all think that Facebook and Twitter are utilities. They aren't. Literally nobody needs Facebook or Twitter. I've had my info removed from Facebook for over 5 years now and my life is nothing but better for it. I use Twitter when I'm taking a shit and I don't have a book to read. Nobody needs Twitter.

You could get pedantic and say that technically nobody NEEDS a cell phone or electricity or running water, but you know what I mean. Twitter and FB are luxuries.

[Tgo01]

Hewy, so do I. Remove all that regulation. My issue is, you sue the person creating the slander, NOT the message board he posted it through.

But now you're saying Facebook should be immune from lawsuits. No other company is afforded this protection.

Newspapers can't print something slanderous then say "Hey that's not OUR views! That's just the view of that one person." They can and have been sued for printing slander.

[Gelston]

But now you're saying Facebook should be immune from lawsuits. No other company is afforded this protection.

Newspapers can't print something slanderous then say "Hey that's not OUR views! That's just the view of that one person." They can and have been sued for printing slander.

No, because Newspapers are edited and printed after. They are not instantly printed. However, the comment section for an online article should be on the person making the comment.

If you make a bunch of lies or BS posts on the PC about Biden and he decides to sue, should Kranar be sued?

[Tgo01]

but you know what I mean.

No I really don't. At what point does something cross over from "luxury" to "necessity"? Technically the only things people need to survive are food, water, and shelter, only one of which is regulated as a public utility.

Communication is important, that's why telecommunication companies are public utilities. Do we really NEED a phone though? No.

Likewise having a voice on social media (which is consumed by billions of people) and being connected to friends and family, is also important. Explain why having access to a phone is considered a "necessity" but having access to social media isn't.

[Tgo01]

No, because Newspapers are edited and printed after.

Exactly. They are edited. They are allowed to censor whoever they want because that is the business they went into.


If you make a bunch of lies or BS posts on the PC about Biden and he decides to sue, should Kranar be sued?

No. And the thing is I don't want companies such as Reddit and Twitter to be sued, I want them to follow the same laws other companies do. They want immunity from lawsuits then stop censoring people. They want to be able to censor whoever they want then be prepared to take down slanderous comments within a reasonable time frame or else face lawsuits.

[Gelston]

Exactly. They are edited. They are allowed to censor whoever they want because that is the business they went into.



No. And the thing is I don't want companies such as Reddit and Twitter to be sued, I want them to follow the same laws other companies do. They want immunity from lawsuits then stop censoring people. They want to be able to censor whoever they want then be prepared to take down slanderous comments within a reasonable time frame or else face lawsuits.

So if I created a thing like Facebook called The Jewish Safespace, and then it got filled up by NeoNazis, I shouldn't be allowed to remove their content?

[Tgo01]

So if I created a thing like Facebook called The Jewish Safespace, and then it got filled up by NeoNazis, I shouldn't be allowed to remove their content?

Well now you're getting into the finer details of things. By "filled up with NeoNazis" do you mean they are actively threatening the Jewish members of the board? Or are they just saying things that Jews would clearly find offensive?

If it's the former then of course you should be allowed to remove their content, that shit is always open for removable even for tech companies.

Things are also different when you're a company. Kranar is just running this site as a hobby, he actually loses money running it. If "Jewish Safespace" is an actual company then no, they shouldn't be censoring people unless they are willing to moderate content. It would even be an easy thing to do. Verify people before they are allowed on the board, have heavy moderation and remove people as soon as they become a problem. But that's all burdensome and costs money, Twitter and Facebook want to allow everyone on (even actual Islamic terrorist groups), do bare minimum moderation, and remain immune from lawsuits.

When/if Trump's new social media service is launched I would also think it's wrong if the service just bans anyone with a left leaning opinion, unless they want to open themselves to lawsuits.

[Methais]

I'm calling bullshit, I find it highly suspect that Willie Nelson is pulling anything from Spotify because of Rogan.

Oddly, I'm listening to Willie right now on Spotify.

Fact check: Viral rumors spread misinformation about Spotify removals (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/02/02/fact-check-queen-springsteen-rolling-stones-still-spotify/9286496002/)

Over 1,200 users shared a Jan. 29 tweet that claimed nine artists were joining the boycott against Spotify.

"Breaking: Willie Nelson, Bruce Springsteen, Barbra Streisand, Queen, Paul McCartney, The Rolling Stones, Dave Grohl, Joni Mitchell, Pearl Jam are removing their music from Spotify in solidarity with Neil Young!!!" the post reads.

A screenshot of the tweet migrated to Facebook, where it racked up more than 1,400 shares within three days.

However, among the artists listed in the post, only Mitchell had publicly moved to pull her catalog from Spotify as of Feb. 2.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/02/02/fact-check-queen-springsteen-rolling-stones-still-spotify/9286496002/

[Methais]

Well, none of these private companies are actually stopping free speech. You can say whatever the fuck your want, they are just removing the megaphone people use.

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

[Gelston]

Well now you're getting into the finer details of things. By "filled up with NeoNazis" do you mean they are actively threatening the Jewish members of the board? Or are they just saying things that Jews would clearly find offensive?

If it's the former then of course you should be allowed to remove their content, that shit is always open for removable even for tech companies.

Things are also different when you're a company. Kranar is just running this site as a hobby, he actually loses money running it. If "Jewish Safespace" is an actual company then no, they shouldn't be censoring people unless they are willing to moderate content. It would even be an easy thing to do. Verify people before they are allowed on the board, have heavy moderation and remove people as soon as they become a problem. But that's all burdensome and costs money, Twitter and Facebook want to allow everyone on (even actual Islamic terrorist groups), do bare minimum moderation, and remain immune from lawsuits.

When/if Trump's new social media service is launched I would also think it's wrong if the service just bans anyone with a left leaning opinion, unless they want to open themselves to lawsuits.

How about just posting hate messages in general?

[Tgo01]

How about just posting hate messages in general?

I think if they had a set of neutral rules that applied to everyone it would be fine.

Like clearly you can't threaten someone with real life violence, you can't harass another user, etc. But I think hate speech is entirely too vague and that's how social media and tech companies are skirting around these rules to begin with. Just make a rule against "hate speech" then you get to decide what is hate speech and what isn't, and it just so happens that "hate speech" is whatever right leaning people say.

[Gelston]

I think if they had a set of neutral rules that applied to everyone it would be fine.

Like clearly you can't threaten someone with real life violence, you can't harass another user, etc. But I think hate speech is entirely too vague and that's how social media and tech companies are skirting around these rules to begin with. Just make a rule against "hate speech" then you get to decide what is hate speech and what isn't, and it just so happens that "hate speech" is whatever right leaning people say.

And that is the thing, EVERY single one of these sites, FB, Twitter, Instagram, w/e, does have a set of rules to follow, called their Terms of Service, which you AGREE to when you create an account. You also agree they can change them at any time.

[Methais]

right to censor


https://youtu.be/3gYu-Q3_288





You're still misunderstanding the law, at this point I have to believe it's purposefully. Or you're really stupid. I'd been reigning in the insults but since you can't seem to help but throw in homophobia and (FOR SOME REASON) a slur against little people I don't see the point.

Are you saying that your wife has never been banged by a midget?

Level up your cuck game. Reported for putting in minimal effort.

[Tgo01]

And that is the thing, EVERY single one of these sites, FB, Twitter, Instagram, w/e, does have a set of rules to follow, called their Terms of Service, which you AGREE to when you create an account. You also agree they can change them at any time.

My issue is their rules are too broad and clearly not evenly enforced.

Take GoFundMe for example. The trucker rally going on in Canada was just so happened to be deemed to be engaging in illegal activity so they canceled the fundraiser and refunded everyone's money. Yet GoFundMe not only let BLM fundraisers and fundraisers setup to bond left wing rioters out of jail, but they actively pushed and supported these fundraisers on social media pages.

That's just one example out of probably tens of thousands out there.

Hell look at this whole COVID "misinformation" bullshit narrative is being thrown around on all major social media sites. 1 year ago you were censored and kicked off the platform if you said mask don't work, now the "experts" like Fauci and the CDC are saying the exact same thing yet somehow BOTH sides of their comments (both masks work and masks don't work) somehow are still up and don't run afoul of the COVID misinformation label. How can one person (again coincidentally a right leaning person) be censored for saying masks don't work, yet left leaning people who both said masks work and masks don't work don't have at least one of their comments censored? Because it's all political bullshit and that's what I'm against.

What about when Twitter used the lame excuse of "Trump said he won't attend the presidential inauguration! Clearly he knows something bad is gonna happen!" as a reason to permanently ban him from the platform, yet Biden said the exact same thing, that Trump shouldn't attend, and Biden wasn't kicked off the platform?

Either have a very specific set of rules that everyone has to adhere to or have no rules at all.

[Gelston]

My issue is their rules are too broad and clearly not evenly enforced.

Take GoFundMe for example. The trucker rally going on in Canada was just so happened to be deemed to be engaging in illegal activity so they canceled the fundraiser and refunded everyone's money. Yet GoFundMe not only let BLM fundraisers and fundraisers setup to bond left wing rioters out of jail, but they actively pushed and supported these fundraisers on social media pages.

That's just one example out of probably tens of thousands out there.

Hell look at this whole COVID "misinformation" bullshit narrative is being thrown around on all major social media sites. 1 year ago you were censored and kicked off the platform if you said mask don't work, now the "experts" like Fauci and the CDC are saying the exact same thing yet somehow BOTH sides of their comments (both masks work and masks don't work) somehow are still up and don't run afoul of the COVID misinformation label. How can one person (again coincidentally a right leaning person) be censored for saying masks don't work, yet left leaning people who both said masks work and masks don't work don't have at least one of their comments censored? Because it's all political bullshit and that's what I'm against.

What about when Twitter used the lame excuse of "Trump said he won't attend the presidential inauguration! Clearly he knows something bad is gonna happen!" as a reason to permanently ban him from the platform, yet Biden said the exact same thing, that Trump shouldn't attend, and Biden wasn't kicked off the platform?

Either have a very specific set of rules that everyone has to adhere to or have no rules at all.

At the end of the day, it isn't a public company. The GoFundMe, I can see being hit with regulations because that involves substantial amounts of money.

[Neveragain]

My issue is their rules are too broad and clearly not evenly enforced.

Take GoFundMe for example. The trucker rally going on in Canada was just so happened to be deemed to be engaging in illegal activity so they canceled the fundraiser and refunded everyone's money. Yet GoFundMe not only let BLM fundraisers and fundraisers setup to bond left wing rioters out of jail, but they actively pushed and supported these fundraisers on social media pages.

That's just one example out of probably tens of thousands out there.

Hell look at this whole COVID "misinformation" bullshit narrative is being thrown around on all major social media sites. 1 year ago you were censored and kicked off the platform if you said mask don't work, now the "experts" like Fauci and the CDC are saying the exact same thing yet somehow BOTH sides of their comments (both masks work and masks don't work) somehow are still up and don't run afoul of the COVID misinformation label. How can one person (again coincidentally a right leaning person) be censored for saying masks don't work, yet left leaning people who both said masks work and masks don't work don't have at least one of their comments censored? Because it's all political bullshit and that's what I'm against.

What about when Twitter used the lame excuse of "Trump said he won't attend the presidential inauguration! Clearly he knows something bad is gonna happen!" as a reason to permanently ban him from the platform, yet Biden said the exact same thing, that Trump shouldn't attend, and Biden wasn't kicked off the platform?

Either have a very specific set of rules that everyone has to adhere to or have no rules at all.

From my understanding, GoFundMe was going to take that money and give it to BLM. Basically theft.

[Tgo01]

From my understanding, GoFundMe was going to take that money and give it to BLM. Basically theft.

From what I read they were going to ask the trucker group which charity they wanted the money donated to, and I'm going to assume rather than allowing the trucker group to choose ANY charity, that GoFundMe would have provided them with a list of "acceptable" charities, of which BLM being on the list wouldn't surprise me at all.

It's still essentially theft. You can't raise money for one cause then give it to another cause.

Reminds me of the days following the 9/11 attacks when the Red Cross (I think it was them) raised so much money to help the victims of 9/11 that they eventually told everyone they were going to divert some of the money raised for 9/11 victims to other causes. This rightfully pissed a lot of people off because they donated that money specifically to help the victims of 9/11. Yes there are other causes that the Red Cross engages in, but that's besides the point. You can't raise money for one specific cause then just divert the money to another cause.

[Flap]

No I really don't.

I doubt that, but go on and argue in bad faith, it's the conservative way nowadays. Or be really stupid, that also seems to be what a lot of conservatives are embracing!


Explain why having access to a phone is considered a "necessity" but having access to social media isn't.

You can't get a job without having a phone.

[Tgo01]

I doubt that, but go on and argue in bad faith, it's the conservative way nowadays.


You can't get a job without having a phone.

Talk about irony.

[Flap]

Talk about irony.

So you seriously don't see what the difference is between not having a cell phone, and not being able to post Minions memes on Facebook? If you'll confirm that I'll go about my day happily.

[Tgo01]

So you seriously don't see what the difference is between not having a cell phone, and not being able to post Minions memes on Facebook? If you'll confirm that I'll go about my day happily.

I asked you what made a phone a necessity and you came back with the fake news answer of "You can't get a job without having a phone."

You played yourself. Now get outta here.

[Shaps]

Again.. this is not hard...

Leave 230 in place...

If a company wants 230 protections - they act as a platform, and not a publisher.

If a company wants to act as a publisher, and not a platform - they do not get 230 protections and they can censor/remove/deny whatever and whoever they want.

Not sure how that involves Government taking over private companies (230 already exists and every company does not get those protections).... it is up to the company to decide what umbrella they fall under.

People are making all these distortions about what it would mean for some Tech companies to lose those protections, when already not every tech company gets them. It would be no different than all the other corporations being run.

Stop mixing and matching your arguments... as I pointed out that people like to do much earlier in this thread.

[Flap]

I asked you what made a phone a necessity and you came back with the fake news answer of "You can't get a job without having a phone."

You played yourself. Now get outta here.

https://media.giphy.com/media/SXS950PdvjSfu9bCpV/giphy-downsized-large.gif

Fake news answer? LMAO are you so brainwashed that you think my common sense answer is something I saw on EVIL CNN?

[Tgo01]

https://media.giphy.com/media/SXS950PdvjSfu9bCpV/giphy-downsized-large.gif

Fake news answer? LMAO are you so brainwashed that you think my common sense answer is something I saw on EVIL CNN?

So it's impossible for someone to get a job without owning a phone? This is your "common sense" answer you are giving us here and now?

[Flap]

So it's impossible for someone to get a job without owning a phone? This is your "common sense" answer you are giving us here and now?

Obviously it's not. But here I go making the mistake of making statements in good faith, assuming that you wouldn't take my statement to hyperbolic extremes.

You aren't going to get any kind of decent job without a phone and you know that. Obviously you can get work washing dishes or something without a phone. Fuck off.

[Tgo01]

Obviously it's not.

So you're a lying idiot and when called out on being a lying idiot you insist it's the other person who is a lying idiot.

Why do you fail so hard?

[Flap]

So you're a lying idiot and when called out on being a lying idiot you insist it's the other person who is a lying idiot.

Why do you fail so hard?

Anyone with a lick of sense sees that you're the fool in this exchange.

Anyway, we were talking about how having a phone and being able to post to facebook is the same thing?

[time4fun]

Well now you're getting into the finer details of things. By "filled up with NeoNazis" do you mean they are actively threatening the Jewish members of the board? Or are they just saying things that Jews would clearly find offensive?

If it's the former then of course you should be allowed to remove their content, that shit is always open for removable even for tech companies.

Things are also different when you're a company. Kranar is just running this site as a hobby, he actually loses money running it. If "Jewish Safespace" is an actual company then no, they shouldn't be censoring people unless they are willing to moderate content. It would even be an easy thing to do. Verify people before they are allowed on the board, have heavy moderation and remove people as soon as they become a problem. But that's all burdensome and costs money, Twitter and Facebook want to allow everyone on (even actual Islamic terrorist groups), do bare minimum moderation, and remain immune from lawsuits.

When/if Trump's new social media service is launched I would also think it's wrong if the service just bans anyone with a left leaning opinion, unless they want to open themselves to lawsuits.

Tgo, the fundamental premise of the 1st amendment is that private citizens (and corporations now because that's the world we live in) cannot- in absence of a compelling state interest- be punished by the US government for the content of their speech nor can they be compelled to speak by that same government.

The 1st amendment only protects you from US government interference when it comes to speech. Forcing companies to host speech they find objectionable is literally and legally the same thing as forcing you to put a pro-Biden poster on your lawn. That's tyranny, and it's why the 1st Amendment was written to begin with.

Likewise when Trump tried to weaponize Section 230 to punish tech companies for not carrying enough positive coverage of their administration, THAT was tyranny. That was the opposite of a free and democratic society. It happens in countries like Russia, Hungary, Poland, and China. It does not happen in functional democracies.

You have a right to express your opinions in public spaces. You do NOT have a right to force others to carry and amplify those opinions. Nor do they have a right to make you do the same with their opinions.

Freedom does not mean giving a select group of people the right to do whatever they want no matter the consequences to anyone else. That's tyranny. not freedom.

[Parkbandit]

Seran... a grizzled challenger steps into your ring...

[Neveragain]

The fundamental premise of the 1st amendment is that private citizens (and corporations now because that's the world we live in)

Sooo...you don't want corporations to be private?

[time4fun]

Sooo...you don't want corporations to be private?

Nothing I said gives any evidence of, or justification for, that comment.

In fact, it runs completely counter to my entire argument. So I'm not really sure why you're wasting your time and everyone else's on that comment.

[Neveragain]

Nothing I said gives any evidence of, or justification for, that comment.

In fact, it runs completely counter to my entire argument. So I'm not really sure why you're wasting your time and everyone else's on that comment.

What did you mean then?

Should corporations be private?

[time4fun]

What did you mean then?

Should corporations be private?

I was criticizing the notion that corporations have the same inherent rights as human beings. That's my way of saying- this is how things are- even though I don't necessarily agree with all of the pieces of that puzzle.

i.e. Google, Facebook, Spotify, and everyone else who has dared to remove content that calls for violence, spreads misinformation, and/or that is bad for business, have 1st amendment rights.

The entire argument Tgo and those who agree with him are making here isn't about free speech. At all.

It is about giving preferential treatment to the speech of conservatives who want to post the aforementioned content on someone else's private space over the 1st amendment rights of those who own that space. That is NOT what free speech is. This current notion on the right that freedom means never being told no, no matter whose rights are trampled on the process, is perversely wrong. They are trying to get the government to give them privileged speech, and they're doing it by intentionally ignoring or downplaying the rights of other private individuals who then have to lose their own 1st amendment rights in order to give these conservatives what they want.

[Gelston]

What did you mean then?

Should corporations be private?

Corporations are people.

[Tgo01]

Forcing companies to host speech they find objectionable is literally and legally the same thing as forcing you to put a pro-Biden poster on your lawn.

It's literally not. This is how things have worked in this country for decades. A bookstore can't simultaneously censor speech they find objectionable while at the same time be immune from slander lawsuits. It's one or the other.

Right now you can go on Barnes & Noble's website and order Mein Kampf. Do you REALLY think Barnes & Noble approves of the words found in that book? Or are they acting as a platform and not a publisher and thus are selling anything?

[Flap]

It's literally not. This is how things have worked in this country for decades. A bookstore can't simultaneously censor speech they find objectionable while at the same time be immune from slander lawsuits. It's one or the other.

Right now you can go on Barnes & Noble's website and order Mein Kampf. Do you REALLY think Barnes & Noble approves of the words found in that book? Or are they acting as a platform and not a publisher and thus are selling anything?

Owned by your own metaphor. Damn.

Book stores can absolutely choose to not sell books if they don't like the contents. What world are you living in? B&N sells Mein Kampf because Nazis like you will pay them money for it, not because they're required to by law or to protect themselves from lawsuits.

[time4fun]

It's literally not. This is how things have worked in this country for decades. A bookstore can't simultaneously censor speech they find objectionable while at the same time be immune from slander lawsuits. It's one or the other.

Right now you can go on Barnes & Noble's website and order Mein Kampf. Do you REALLY think Barnes & Noble approves of the words found in that book? Or are they acting as a platform and not a publisher and thus are selling anything?

Yeah Tgo I have to be honest with you- this isn't a real argument. Your speculations, as Flap has pointed out, have concrete answers. Book publishers are not required to publish anything they don't want to, and neither are book sellers. These are facts of law.

And the 1st amendment rights of private companies who host content to decide what they will- and won't- host are likewise settled facts of law.

So the question you need to answer here is why it's okay to nullify the 1st amendment rights of others to ensure that one political group can have their own messages hosted and amplified by anyone, anywhere, and anytime. And likewise how that can possibly be construed as freedom generally and free speech specifically.

[Neveragain]

I was criticizing the notion that corporations have the same inherent rights as human beings. That's my way of saying- this is how things are- even though I don't necessarily agree with all of the pieces of that puzzle.

i.e. Google, Facebook, Spotify, and everyone else who has dared to remove content that calls for violence, spreads misinformation, and/or that is bad for business, have 1st amendment rights.

The entire argument Tgo and those who agree with him are making here isn't about free speech. At all.

It is about giving preferential treatment to the speech of conservatives who want to post the aforementioned content on someone else's private space over the 1st amendment rights of those who own that space. That is NOT what free speech is. This current notion on the right that freedom means never being told no, no matter whose rights are trampled on the process, is perversely wrong. They are trying to get the government to give them privileged speech, and they're doing it by intentionally ignoring or downplaying the rights of other private individuals who then have to lose their own 1st amendment rights in order to give these conservatives what they want.

Sooo...you don't want corporations to be private.

A simple yes or no would have sufficed. Understandably, a liars tell is to answer simple questions with long drawn out non-answers.

[Tgo01]

Yeah Tgo I have to be honest with you- this isn't a real argument. Your speculations, as Flap has pointed out, have concrete answers. Book publishers are not required to publish anything they don't want to, and neither are book sellers. These are facts of law.

I didn't say book publishers, I said bookstores.

I also didn't say they are REQUIRED to stock anything, I said they can't censor.

You really think they sell Mein Kampf to cater to the dozens of people a year who might buy the book from them? Get real.

[time4fun]

Sooo...you don't want corporations to be private.

A simple yes or no would have sufficed. Understandably, a liars tell is to answer simple questions with long drawn out non-answers.

Yes this is an excellent reminder that it's very important to dumb things down for you so that you don't get lost.

[Tgo01]

Also people say racist shit every day when talking on the phone and the phone companies sure as shit are forced to allow this speech on their service.

This is where you say that’s different for some reason.

[Gelston]

Also people say racist shit every day when talking on the phone and the phone companies sure as shit are forced to allow this speech on their service.

This is where you say that’s different for some reason.

That is also generally a private conversation. FB and Twitter isn't moderating your DMs.

[time4fun]

I didn't say book publishers, I said bookstores.

I also didn't say they are REQUIRED to stock anything, I said they can't censor.

You really think they sell Mein Kampf to cater to the dozens of people a year who might buy the book from them? Get real.

Tgo there is absolutely no distinction between saying someone can't "censor" and saying that they are required to carry something. They are literally the same thing. And the very 1st amendment we're discussing here is what prevents the government from forcing a book store to carry any particular work. Your understanding of what the 1st amendment does and doesn't say seems...lacking honestly.

And Mein Kampf, by the way, is very commonly assigned in University classes across the country. There is actually massive demand for it. In 2016 it became a best seller again in the US, in fact.



And none of this answers the real question:

You are arguing that the US Government should force private individuals and entities to sacrifice their constitutionally guaranteed 1st amendment rights not to be compelled to speech in order to ensure that a particular political group has the right to force their speech onto anyone they choose (which by the way, is NOT currently a right they have).

In what sense is depriving people of actual 1st amendment rights to give another select group a new- and constitutionally unsupported- right to force their speech onto others, an example of freedom generally or free speech specifically?

[time4fun]

Also people say racist shit every day when talking on the phone and the phone companies sure as shit are forced to allow this speech on their service.

This is where you say that’s different for some reason.

Phone companies are public utilities- to your reference earlier in the conversation. Specifically they're common carriers- which means they have to offer their infrastructure to the general public. They're also prohibited from monitoring individual conversations on their phone lines to begin with.

But Google, Meta, Twitter, etc. are not analogous to telecom companies. They aren't providing the access to the internet. The internet is providing access to them.

And I'm sorry Tgo, but none of this is up for philosophical debate. These are legal facts and realities, not subject to your personal opinions.

[Tgo01]

Oh yeah, let’s not forget that during election season broadcasters are absolutely required to run political ads for candidates running for office, and the broadcasters can’t edit the ad at all.

That’s now two examples of private companies being forced to host content they might not agree with.

Why do you insist on always being wrong?

Also there is a huge difference between censorship and refusing to sell a book.

[Shaps]

Again... everyone here is trying ignore the fact that certain "social media sites/functions" are how BILLIONS of people communicate.

Not recognizing that fact, or trying to ignore it, leads to this utter back and forth bullshit. It's again... for the third time... how people can argue this non-stop depending on what way they're feeling that day - to support their position.

Certain entities have taken over (ie. "official Twitter accounts for the Office of the President") - but they can still censor that "Official" Twitter Account of a sitting President....

If people want to be blind to that...and argue that Twitter (and those like it) are "just normal private companies"... you are being 100% disingenuous. Hell most "news" is just "news agencies" posting links to Facebook/Twitter/etc... they are in effect "public utilities" aka "telecom companies" aka "the 21st century Phone company".

Stop trying to make like they're not. This isn't some small company trying to make a buck.

[Gelston]

Again... everyone here is trying ignore the fact that certain "social media sites/functions" are how BILLIONS of people communicate.

Not recognizing that fact, or trying to ignore it, leads to this utter back and forth bullshit. It's again... for the third time... how people can argue this non-stop depending on what way they're feeling that day - to support their position.

Certain entities have taken over (ie. "official Twitter accounts for the Office of the President") - but they can still censor that "Official" Twitter Account of a sitting President....

If people want to be blind to that...and argue that Twitter (and those like it) are "just normal private companies"... you are being 100% disingenuous. Hell most "news" is just "news agencies" posting links to Facebook/Twitter/etc... they are in effect "public utilities" aka "telecom companies" aka "the 21st century Phone company".

Stop trying to make like they're not. This isn't some small company trying to make a buck.

But they are private companies.

[Flap]

Again... everyone here is trying ignore the fact that certain "social media sites/functions" are how BILLIONS of people communicate.

Not recognizing that fact, or trying to ignore it, leads to this utter back and forth bullshit. It's again... for the third time... how people can argue this non-stop depending on what way they're feeling that day - to support their position.

Certain entities have taken over (ie. "official Twitter accounts for the Office of the President") - but they can still censor that "Official" Twitter Account of a sitting President....

If people want to be blind to that...and argue that Twitter (and those like it) are "just normal private companies"... you are being 100% disingenuous. Hell most "news" is just "news agencies" posting links to Facebook/Twitter/etc... they are in effect "public utilities" aka "telecom companies" aka "the 21st century Phone company".

Stop trying to make like they're not. This isn't some small company trying to make a buck.

They are ONE OPTION that billions of people have to communicate. Kicking someone off of FB or Twitter doesn't prevent them from communicating.

It's actually pretty difficult to keep people from communicating online, in case you didn't know. There are wholeass nations that completely block FB and Twitter, but people still use Telegram and Signal and other encrypted messaging to get around it.

[Parkbandit]

Remove all the artificial protections offered by Congress and let the legal system sort it out.

[~Rocktar~]

Remove all the artificial protections offered by Congress and let the legal system sort it out.

^^ This

[Methais]

It is about giving preferential treatment to the speech of conservatives who want to post the aforementioned content on someone else's private space over the 1st amendment rights of those who own that space. That is NOT what free speech is. This current notion on the right that freedom means never being told no, no matter whose rights are trampled on the process, is perversely wrong. They are trying to get the government to give them privileged speech, and they're doing it by intentionally ignoring or downplaying the rights of other private individuals who then have to lose their own 1st amendment rights in order to give these conservatives what they want.

Pretty sure it's about the heavy handed leftist selective enforcement of their own "rules" where as long as they agree with what's being said, then the rules don't matter.

But you knew that already. You're just a huge liar.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Remove all the artificial protections offered by Congress and let the legal system sort it out.

Down for this.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

So apparently not all of Neil Young's work is off of Spotify.

[Tgo01]

So apparently not all of Neil Young's work is off of Spotify.

That's hilarious.

[Parkbandit]

So apparently not all of Neil Young's work is off of Spotify.

There's more than 1 song?

[Suppressed Poet]

Well I hope Neil Young will remember a Southern man don’t need him around.

(That’s seriously what comes to my mind when I try to think of a Neil Young song.)

[Bhaalizmo]

Well I hope Neil Young will remember a Southern man don’t need him around.

(That’s seriously what comes to my mind when I try to think of a Neil Young song.)

Same.

Followed closely by "keep on rockin the free world"

I can't explain why but him and Dylan have always been on a short list of harsh vocalists that get some acclaim, but that I'm not really into. From his era I love some songs by Janis, Hendrix, or even Crosby, but I've never really loved a Neil Young song.