What is?

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

So you think privately-owned companies should not be able to make their own decisions as to what gets posted on their privately-owned websites?

What other constitutionally-protected rights do you think should be taken away from the people?

At a certain point this companies have become the "town square" - Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Youtube, etc. At the same time, they do have a civic duty to do the right thing. I didn't support the censorship, but in the end it didn't matter and may have even helped the anti-vaxxers get the message out.

IMHO, the problem lies in the Facebook, et al algorithm, which will feed you the same crap and more of the same crap until you eventually get sucked down the Lizard People rabbithole. FB & Company should have put resources into fixing the issue, but it was easier and cheaper to boot the bad actors. I guess in light of that, it kinda sheds some light on why "they" are trying to silence the LGBTQxyz'ers.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

‘If FBI agents politely ask a private construction firm to bulldoze your house, and the firm patriotically cooperates, the FBI will have acted unconstitutionally—even though the private firm is merely private and acted consensually. Similarly, when FBI agents or other officials persistently seek the consensual cooperation of social-media platforms in suppressing disfavored speech, the FBI agents are abridging the freedom of speech.’

When Government Uses Private Companies to Regulate Speech

The new symbiotic relationship of government and private power—which used to be called "fascism"—is the constitutional challenge of our age.

reason.com

@RobGMN do you get it yet or do I need to keep going?

That says the FBI agents are abridging the free speech, not the social media companies.
They have no obligation to honor your right to free speech, any more than a movie theater owner has to honor it by letting you stand up and sing during a movie.

So yes, please keep going and explain why you think Farcebook, Twatter, Instaslam, et al, are all not allowed to censor anything that comes across their bow. Even to the point of banning users.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

That says the FBI agents are abridging the free speech, not the social media companies.
They have no obligation to honor your right to free speech, any more than a movie theater owner has to honor it by letting you stand up and sing during a movie.

So yes, please keep going and explain why you think Farcebook, Twatter, Instaslam, et al, are all not allowed to censor anything that comes across their bow. Even to the point of banning users.

You can’t be under section 230 and censor for personal/political bias. You can’t censor Americans because the gov asked you to. Big tech and the gov are working together to ban protected speech, period. Both parties are guilty. As an American, it should concern you. And did you not read any of those other articles? Once again you just choose one little thing to center your argument around, because I guess you’re not sophisticated enough to put the whole picture together. Idk how you can defend social media or the gov for their actions. Like Zuckerberg admits they censored true info. You’re clapping your hands for the gov and FB censoring true info and acting like they’re censoring someone yelling fire in a movie theater for no reason. They’re censoring correct information for their own selfish agendas at the detriment of all of society, and that’s what you like. You love big gov D forcefully shoved deep down your throat.

And the movies aren’t a social platform lol, what a stupid comparison. The whole point of social media is to speak freely; that’s not the point of movie theaters. Theaters aren’t under section 230.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

You can’t be under section 230 and censor for personal/political bias. You can’t censor Americans because the gov asked you to. Big tech and the gov are working together to ban protected speech, period. Both parties are guilty. As an American, it should concern you. And did you not read any of those other articles? Once again you just choose one little thing to center your argument around, because I guess you’re not sophisticated enough to put the whole picture together. Idk how you can defend social media or the gov for their actions. Like Zuckerberg admits they censored true info. You’re clapping your hands for the gov and FB censoring true info and acting like they’re censoring someone yelling fire in a movie theater for no reason. They’re censoring correct information for their own selfish agendas at the detriment of all of society, and that’s what you like. You love big gov D forcefully shoved deep down your throat.

And the movies aren’t a social platform lol, what a stupid comparison. The whole point of social media is to speak freely; that’s not the point of movie theaters. Theaters aren’t under section 230.

Section 230 is a whopping 26 words. Go read it.
And as an owner of the website, those companies can censor anything they damn well please, up to the point of removing you from the site completely.

Go read a user agreement to understand why. Try this one for starters: https://www.facebook.com/policies_center

And again I will ask you: What makes you think these platforms are not allowed to censor anything that gets posted to their sites?

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Section 230 is a whopping 26 words. Go read it.
And as an owner of the website, those companies can censor anything they damn well please, up to the point of removing you from the site completely.

Go read a user agreement to understand why. Try this one for starters: https://www.facebook.com/policies_center

And again I will ask you: What makes you think these platforms are not allowed to censor anything that gets posted to their sites?

It’s not that simple Rob. You fail to see the bigger legal picture. I’ve already explained and shown plenty of other reputable explanations as to what big tech and the gov are colluding to do. The gov and social media can’t work together to censor true info. That’s a totalitarian state, man. Once again you hang onto one little thing that you can argue about, when the picture is much broader. Everyone knows your ways. Enjoy your big gov D down your throat.

Late edit: the problem is social media companies are becoming an arm of the government. When the gov forces social media censorship against protected speech, that social media company is now acting like an arm of the government. It’s illegal for the US gov to request social media companies to censor protected speech. Once a social media company has illegally censored a platform user at the behest of the government, then that social media company becomes an accomplice to the violation of our rights. The social media companies shouldn’t obey the illegal orders to censor people off their own platforms. The social media companies don’t have to obey the gov, because the gov isn’t doing what’s legal, but they chose to comply anyways, which is why the whole terms of service BS is out the window. We’re in a whole different ball game.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

It’s not that simple Rob. You fail to see the bigger legal picture. I’ve already explained and shown plenty of other reputable explanations as to what big tech and the gov are colluding to do. The gov and social media can’t work together to censor true info. That’s a totalitarian state, man. Once again you hang onto one little thing that you can argue about, when the picture is much broader. Everyone knows your ways. Enjoy your big gov D down your throat.

Late edit: the problem is social media companies are becoming an arm of the government. When the gov forces social media censorship against protected speech, that social media company is now acting like an arm of the government. It’s illegal for the US gov to request social media companies to censor protected speech. Once a social media company has illegally censored a platform user at the behest of the government, then that social media company becomes an accomplice to the violation of our rights. The social media companies shouldn’t obey the illegal orders to censor people off their own platforms. The social media companies don’t have to obey the gov, because the gov isn’t doing what’s legal, but they chose to comply anyways, which is why the whole terms of service BS is out the window. We’re in a whole different ball game.

‘The Digital Services Act will essentially oblige Big Tech to act as a privatized censor on behalf of governments — censors who will enjoy wide discretion under vague and subjective standards."’

‘"The European policies do not apply in the U.S., but given the size of the European market and the risk of legal liability, it will be tempting and financially wise for U.S.-based tech companies to skew their global content moderation policies even more toward a European approach to protect their bottom lines and streamline their global standards," adds Mchangama. The result, he predicts will be "a wide-ranging, incoherent, multilevel censorship regime operating at scale."’

‘Journalists including Michael Shellenberger and Matt Taibbi have pointed to collaboration between government agencies and tech companies to suppress voices and messages disfavored by officialdom as evidence of a "censorship-industrial complex" of privatized speech control that bypasses First Amendment protections. These very real arrangements have largely taken place behind the scenes, retreating (though not disappearing) when exposed. The E.U.'s Digital Services Act formalizes such deputized speech control, putting nominally private entities in the unenviable position of screening online content so as to escape massive fines.’

E.U.'s Digital Services Act threatens Americans' free speech

Online platforms should resist binding us all to the rules of censorship-happy jurisdictions.

reason.com

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

I’m triggered; lots of posts. This is why social media and the gov both must be held accountable for violating our free speech rights:

‘According to the leaked DHS documents in The Intercept’s report, third-party entities such as Facebook and Twitter are willing “clearing houses” that funnel information to the public to “avoid the appearance of government propaganda.”

Both Facebook and Twitter created online portals where government agents submitted, and perhaps still submit, censorship directives for official corporate action. These relationships reflect a coordinated campaign to promote a certain definition of truth and solidify the power of the Biden administration, and Big Tech’s participation undermines its claim to offer neutral platforms.’

When Government Colludes With Big Tech to Censor Americans

Despite plenty of negative media attention this year on the now-dissolved Disinformation Governance Board, government collusion with social media platforms is ramping up. This collaboration between the Department of Homeland Security and companies such as Twitter and Facebook to police the...

www.heritage.org

 

[chillin 10+ year member]

Manhattan is a part of new York city. A very densely populated part. New York is the city, but is not as densely populated as one of the burrows. Which is what Rob was talking about. You're both right about your facts and both too stubborn to say to the other, " I was thinking of the most populous city" or "I was thinking of the most densely populated area.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

I’m triggered; lots of posts. This is why social media and the gov both must be held accountable for violating our free speech rights:

‘According to the leaked DHS documents in The Intercept’s report, third-party entities such as Facebook and Twitter are willing “clearing houses” that funnel information to the public to “avoid the appearance of government propaganda.”

Both Facebook and Twitter created online portals where government agents submitted, and perhaps still submit, censorship directives for official corporate action. These relationships reflect a coordinated campaign to promote a certain definition of truth and solidify the power of the Biden administration, and Big Tech’s participation undermines its claim to offer neutral platforms.’

When Government Colludes With Big Tech to Censor Americans

Despite plenty of negative media attention this year on the now-dissolved Disinformation Governance Board, government collusion with social media platforms is ramping up. This collaboration between the Department of Homeland Security and companies such as Twitter and Facebook to police the...

www.heritage.org

It's not as easy as that either. Youtube for example has a "lite" form of censorship in that it will prevent/restrict monetization of some content. Remember when ISIS would post their beheading videos to youtube; I think we can agree those should probably be censored. At some point youtube should have control over what is on their website.

Furthermore, it's not uncommon for gov't to work with media for the greater good and because they do work hand-in-hand at times doesn't mean that the papers back in the day were propaganda clearing houses and hasn't lead to a fascist state with carefully controlled information. Even though I agree the covid censorship shouldn't have taken place, it did and did nothing to prevent the spread of covid misinformation.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Manhattan is a part of new York city. A very densely populated part. New York is the city, but is not as densely populated as one of the burrows. Which is what Rob was talking about. You're both right about your facts and both too stubborn to say to the other, " I was thinking of the most populous city" or "I was thinking of the most densely populated area.

I very clearly referred to the population and the land mass BECAUSE of the density of population, not as a reference to a city.

It was in response to Spokey making a typically uninformed comment that he “grew in a bigger metro area” than me, and Thxone once again thinking he had a “gotcha” moment on me.
He’s jumped the gun like that before, made the error, but then he backpedals and spins like a preacher caught with a hooker.
Just as he did this time.

One of his common claims is people don’t “comprehend” things.
Obviously, he didn’t comprehend a pretty simple sentence: “Are we talking bigger than 1.7 million people in 22 square miles?”

And then Spokey followed lock-step in not even comprehending his own post by saying he was sure I wasn't from Manhattan. Spokey specifically mentioned his life in a "metro area""
"What defines a metro area?
The general concept of a metropolitan area (MA)1 is that of a core area containing a large population nucleus, together with adjacent communities that have a high degree of economic and social integration with that core."

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

It's hump day

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

View attachment 49758

It's hump day

Do mom and dad let you stay up late to celebrate? Extra Cheetos and Mountain Dew?

Maybe one day you’ll grow out of your homophobia. Thx is 48 and still stuck with it like a teenager.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Do mom and dad let you stay up late to celebrate? Extra Cheetos and Mountain Dew?

Maybe one day you’ll grow out of your homophobia. Thx is 48 and still stuck with it like a teenager.

Aww it's ok buddy...don't be brittle

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Do mom and dad let you stay up late to celebrate? Extra Cheetos and Mountain Dew?

Maybe one day you’ll grow out of your homophobia. Thx is 48 and still stuck with it like a teenager.

49

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Aww it's ok buddy...don't be brittle

That man needs a strong woman in his life to tell him what to do. He has gotten way to sure of himself.

Like this one... Fallon Fox