Book Burning Authoritarians (1 Viewer)

[bricklayer]

There is no difference between burning a book and removing something from the internet.

The Philosopher, Aristotle, wrote that, "A mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain ideas without accepting them.".

The influence that 'media' has is not a measure of the power that 'media' has; it's a measure of the weakness of those over whom they have it.

For example, in my opinion, those who wear masks would wear tinfoil hats if the same scope and scale of authorities told them to.

"The emperor has no clothes."

 

[Deuce]

There is no difference between burning a book and removing something from the internet.

The Philosopher, Aristotle, wrote that, "A mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain ideas without accepting them.".

The influence that 'media' has is not a measure of the power that 'media' has; it's a measure of the weakness of those over whom they have it.

For example, in my opinion, those who wear masks would wear tinfoil hats if the same scope and scale of authorities told them to.

"The emperor has no clothes."

You're right, just not for the reason you think you are. Both are purely symbolic because only a copy of the information is destroyed.

 

[d0gbreath]

Getting a book published is slightly more involved than posting on facebook.

 

[bricklayer]

Getting a book published is slightly more involved than posting on facebook.

Does that affect the principle? Is the principle the same even if one is more "involved" than the other?
Isn't that what they said about actual book burning after the printing press made publishing less "involved"?

 

[bricklayer]

Apostasy-phobic authoritarians are afraid of ideas with which they do not agree.
Ideas contrary to particular narratives are censored as blasphemous while those narratives are treated as orthodox.

 

[vegas giants]

Apostasy-phobic authoritarians are afraid of ideas with which they do not agree.
Ideas contrary to particular narratives are censored as blasphemous while those narratives are treated as orthodox.

Conservatives have been burning actual books since the 1950's

 

[SoCal]

There is no difference between burning a book and removing something from the internet.

The Philosopher, Aristotle, wrote that, "A mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain ideas without accepting them.".

The influence that 'media' has is not a measure of the power that 'media' has; it's a measure of the weakness of those over whom they have it.

For example, in my opinion, those who wear masks would wear tinfoil hats if the same scope and scale of authorities told them to.

"The emperor has no clothes."

Repubs can't seem to decide who's an authority, our countries most esteemed medical experts and doctors, or Trump and his politicians. Jeez, talk about blind faith. I hear injecting yourself with bleach knocks virus right out of your system.

"The emperor has no clothes."[/QUOTE]

 

[bricklayer]

Conservatives have been burning actual books since the 1950's

The best revenge is to be different from your enemy.

 

[bricklayer]

Repubs can't seem to decide who's an authority, our countries most esteemed medical experts and doctors, or Trump and his politicians. Jeez, talk about blind faith. I hear injecting yourself with bleach knocks virus right out of your system.

"The emperor has no clothes."

[/QUOTE]

You would wear the tinfoil hat if you were told to.

 

[vegas giants]

The best revenge is to be different from your enemy.

When will you start?

 

[d0gbreath]

Does that affect the principle? Is the principle the same even if one is more "involved" than the other?
Isn't that what they said about actual book burning after the printing press made publishing less "involved"?

It does affect the principle. Books that are simply made up stories are required to be labeled as fiction. The same applies to donnie's campaign staff on facebook and twitter.

 

[bricklayer]

It does affect the principle. Books that are simply made up stories are required to be labeled as fiction. The same applies to donnie's campaign staff on facebook and twitter.

There is no such requirement.

The most important decision, in any situation is, who decides. I think that decision is best left to the individual. You do not want me to decide for you what is and is not fiction. You do not want me to decide for you what you can and cannot see on the internet. We all, each and every one of us, feel the same exact way, even about you. None of us want you to make any of those decisions for us either. You can sort it out for yourself. We can each sort it out for ourselves. There's no need for any censorship whatsoever.

 

[d0gbreath]

There is no such requirement. see Roger Stone

There's no requirement, yet both platforms have begun labeling certain posts as fiction, or removing them. It's almost as if they feel that they have a responsibility to the truth. What you call censorship, some of us refer to as decency.

 

[armycowboy]

There is no difference between burning a book and removing something from the internet.

The Philosopher, Aristotle, wrote that, "A mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain ideas without accepting them.".

The influence that 'media' has is not a measure of the power that 'media' has; it's a measure of the weakness of those over whom they have it.

For example, in my opinion, those who wear masks would wear tinfoil hats if the same scope and scale of authorities told them to.

"The emperor has no clothes."

So a private business shouldn't be allowed a decision on what content is displayed on its site?

 

[bricklayer]

So a private business shouldn't be allowed a decision on what content is displayed on its site?

Private businesses should most certainly be "allowed" to make those decisions. But we're not talking about private businesses, are we?

If Facebook and other supposed 'public forums' want the legal protections afforded to 'public forums' they should not conduct themselves as private publishers do by editing their content.

All I want is for the legal protections to be taken away from 'public forums' that conduct themselves like private publishers by editing their content.

 

[Visbek]

There is no difference between burning a book and removing something from the internet.

Or... not.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility. If you say something, other people are fully within their rights to hold you accountable for what you say.

Freedom of speech does not mean that every individual has unfettered access to any and every platform they desire. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube et al do not have an obligation to turn into 8chan.

The Philosopher, Aristotle, wrote that, "A mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain ideas without accepting them."

That's nice, but it doesn't change anything.

Threats of violence, doxxing, brigading, trolling, harassment, intentionally spreading lies and misinformation, election interference and more are not examples of "expressing ideas." Anyone who engages in that behavior ought to expect consequences.

For example, in my opinion, those who wear masks would wear tinfoil hats if the same scope and scale of authorities told them to.

:roll:

Is that what this is about? Fer cryin' out loud. Wear a mask. Stop getting other people sick. Yeesh.

 

[Visbek]

Private businesses should most certainly be "allowed" to make those decisions. But we're not talking about private businesses, are we?

Yes. We are.

If Facebook and other supposed 'public forums' want the legal protections afforded to 'public forums' they should not conduct themselves as private publishers do by editing their content.

Facebook is a privately owned company.

Their site. Their rules. If you don't like it, Parler is thataway -->

All I want is for the legal protections to be taken away from 'public forums' that conduct themselves like private publishers by editing their content.

So, you want the government to decide what can and can't be posted on Facebook? :doh

 

[bricklayer]

There's no requirement, yet both platforms have begun labeling certain posts as fiction, or removing them. It's almost as if they feel that they have a responsibility to the truth. What you call censorship, some of us refer to as decency.

That's fine. No problem, but that's not a public forum; it's publishing. All I ask is that the legal protections afforded to 'public forums' not be extended to publishers that edit their content.

That's the difference between a public forum and a publisher. Public forums do not edit their content; publishers do edit their content.

 

[armycowboy]

Private businesses should most certainly be "allowed" to make those decisions. But we're not talking about private businesses, are we?

If Facebook and other supposed 'public forums' want the legal protections afforded to 'public forums' they should not conduct themselves as private publishers do by editing their content.

All I want is for the legal protections to be taken away from 'public forums' that conduct themselves like private publishers by editing their content.

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc. are privately owned businesses that should be allowed a say on what is posted on their sites.

Book publishers are not required to publish every manuscript they are sent. Why should internet forums be any different? You certainly can't post anything you want on this forum.

 

[bricklayer]

Yes. We are.



Facebook is a privately owned company.

Their site. Their rules. If you don't like it, Parler is thataway -->



So, you want the government to decide what can and can't be posted on Facebook? :doh

You're absolutely correct. Therefore, the companies you cite above should not enjoy the legal protections afforded to public forums. The companies you cite above are clearly publishers because they edit their content.

 

[Visbek]

You're absolutely correct. Therefore, the companies you cite above should not enjoy the legal protections afforded to public forums.

Or, you are completely clueless.

What are these "public forums," exactly? There are none, they are all privately owned. Are you thinking about people who stand on the street corner and shout?

What are those protections, exactly? All they do is say that the Internet host isn't responsible for the content of their customers. If you take those protections away, then Facebook, Reddit and so on will need to become MORE censorious, because they can't risk potentially harmful or misleading content getting published and then getting sued for it.

Maybe you should think a little more carefully about what you ask for.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

There is no difference between burning a book and removing something from the internet.

If you’re referring to Facebook, Twitter, or any other internet site, you’re 100% wrong. Management removing content from their site is the equivalent of somebody erasing another’s unwanted scribbling from their book.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Apostasy-phobic authoritarians are afraid of ideas with which they do not agree.
Ideas contrary to particular narratives are censored as blasphemous while those narratives are treated as orthodox.

Cry us a river. :boohoo:

You want a site where you can go to post and read lies and absurd conspiracy theories, start your own.

 

[SoCal]

Cry us a river. :boohoo:

You want a site where you can go to post and read lies and absurd conspiracy theories, start your own.

There's already plenty to choose from. They read and post about their lies, even electing absurd conspiracists to Congress...