• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Amazingly, former reddit CEO Ellen K. Pao doesn't quite understand social media

NatMorton

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
37,056
Reaction score
18,259
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Musk’s appointment to Twitter’s board shows that we need regulation of social-media platforms to prevent rich people from controlling our channels of communication.
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...scrimination-speech/?variant=95d42e19c24b03e7

Wow. A call to have government decide who can and cannot buy significant stakes in social media companies. And she things such a "solution" will curb impingement on speech?

Quick question. Should Trump win in 2024, who wants a Trump appointee making the decisions on who can and cannot influence Twitter or Facebook?
 
The last thing that walking piece of shit cares about is free speech. She is the reason reddit sucks so bad today.
 
The last thing that walking piece of shit cares about is free speech. She is the reason reddit sucks so bad today.

Let's see how well the person with the sexist username understands free speech. If Reddit censors anyone, is that a free speech violation?
 
Let's see how well the person with the sexist username understands free speech. If Reddit censors anyone, is that a free speech violation?

It's not a rights violation, if that's what you mean, and my username doesn't violate AOC's rights either.
 
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...scrimination-speech/?variant=95d42e19c24b03e7

Wow. A call to have government decide who can and cannot buy significant stakes in social media companies. And she things such a "solution" will curb impingement on speech?

Quick question. Should Trump win in 2024, who wants a Trump appointee making the decisions on who can and cannot influence Twitter or Facebook?

I read the article.and I get your point. I wonder if this is a modern dilemma, since social media wasn't around 30 years ago. I can't think of anything similar in the rapid information exchange and wildfire trending that can happen on a site like Twitter in years past. 2 quick questions:
Is this a case where wealth is buying influence?
Is this worse than banning books?
 
See, this is why I never had anything to do with social media. No one has any idea what the **** it's for.
 
I read the article.and I get your point. I wonder if this is a modern dilemma, since social media wasn't around 30 years ago. I can't think of anything similar in the rapid information exchange and wildfire trending that can happen on a site like Twitter in years past. 2 quick questions:
Is this a case where wealth is buying influence?
Is this worse than banning books?
Of course it’s a case of wealth buying influence, but I don’t see how or why that’s relevant here.

I don’t think it rises to book burning in the traditional sense which is usually part of a larger effort to suppress all speech from someone or on some topic, not just speech in one medium. But the impulse is still the same: use authoritarian means to silence opposing points of view.
 
Of course it’s a case of wealth buying influence, but I don’t see how or why that’s relevant here.

I don’t think it rises to book burning in the traditional sense which is usually part of a larger effort to suppress all speech from someone or on some topic, not just speech in one medium. But the impulse is still the same: use authoritarian means to silence opposing points of view.

I refer you to my question in Post #3. What is your answer?
 
Some people just don't understand that there isn't such "free speech" apart from the first amendment right to free speech (others need to keep things simple because the world's complexity makes them go cross-eyed). Have any of them defined it? Where does it come from? The trees? The air? Aether? God? What even is it? No, "free speech" independent from the 1st is an empty term. (Hell, they call it that rather than something else specifically to vaguely invoke-without-invoking the first).

It's a term used when a Trumpist or Trumpist-adjacent wants to complain about not being able to force someone else to carry or broadcast their statements, aka, they couldn't follow social media rules so they get banned and that one single platform will no longer host their content at their will.


The physical comparison would be: you choose to allow a house guest to eat dinner with you, but your house rules apply. The guest hops on the table and starts lighting his farts, but it turns out he didn't know he had diahhrea brewing. You make him stand in a garbage bag and then carry him to the sidewalk, where you leave him. This person starts squawking about how they violated their "free speech".

Apparently, to @aociswundumho, the pants-shitter is standing on the moral high ground. (And pants-shitting is a great analogy for Trumpists pumping out QAnon and the Big Lie).

Does @NatMorton get the problem?




It's stupid in so many directions. If they have a moral right-but-not-right to speak without any impedement, then so does the business/service/etc they want to force to host their own speech.

Twitter hosts other peoples' speech (for free, isn't it?) on certain terms, and they want to pretend they have some right-but-not-right to make Twitter host whatever they say?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom