- Joined
- Apr 28, 2020
- Messages
- 907
- Reaction score
- 166
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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."
Getting a book published is slightly more involved than posting on facebook.
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.
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."
Conservatives have been burning actual books since the 1950's
[/QUOTE]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."
The best revenge is to be different from your enemy.
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.
There is no such requirement. see Roger Stone
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?
Or... not.There is no difference between burning a book and removing something from the internet.
That's nice, but it doesn't change anything.The Philosopher, Aristotle, wrote that, "A mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain ideas without accepting them."
:roll:For example, in my opinion, those who wear masks would wear tinfoil hats if the same scope and scale of authorities told them to.
Yes. We are.Private businesses should most certainly be "allowed" to make those decisions. But we're not talking about private businesses, are we?
Facebook is a privately owned company.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.
So, you want the government to decide what can and can't be posted on Facebook? :dohAll I want is for the legal protections to be taken away from 'public forums' that conduct themselves like private publishers by editing their content.
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.
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.
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
Or, you are completely clueless.You're absolutely correct. Therefore, the companies you cite above should not enjoy the legal protections afforded to public forums.
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.There is no difference between burning a book and removing something from the internet.
Cry us a river. :boohoo: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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?