• 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!

Censoring people on social media

i use FB to post pictures of my family. i don't get on there or on Twitter and threaten to annihilate other countries or tell lies about why i don't get to poop in the private residence of the WH anymore. if i want to get all political and stuff, i come here. i don't violate the rules of a social media site. works great. if any site decides that it doesn't want me around anymore, i have tons of other options.

Helix:

Who should make these rules which you willingly follow on a social media site? Should it be the owners and managers of the company owning/operating the platform/site, the advertisers paying for eye-balls, the users like you who generate the social interactions and the revenue stream supporting the site, both in conjunction with each other or the state?

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
And the first thing I think has to go is the anonymity. So that people like the one behind Q doesn't recieve the kind off attention from people who kind of live in alternative worlds. I mean with the anonymity gone, he could no longer claim to have "the highest security level" and things like that and he would fall to the ground. It would also make it difficult for other states to influence elections.

eliminating anonymity could do more to crush political speech than almost anything else. it's a terrible idea. politically motivated employers could easily track every political and social opinion that you hold, and many would. one's online enemies could track them down even more effectively and bring flamewars into RL.

no thanks.
 
Can we arrest cult leaders BEFORE they suggest passing out the coolant?

No?

Then whats the difference with social media? Scale? Hello, slippery slope.
 
Helix:

Who should make these rules which you willingly follow on a social media site? Should it be the owners and managers of the company owning/operating the platform/site, the advertisers paying for eye-balls, the users like you who generate the social interactions and the revenue stream supporting the site, both in conjunction with each other or the state?

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

social media moderators and admins generally make the rules. FB is looking at a SCOTUS type system. either way, there's no right to do anything one wants to do on some else's platform any more than there's a right for me to go into someone's business and demand that the TV be switched to Cop Rock.
 
Conspiracy theories are not "points of view," they are just nonsense posted to enflame and disinform.

Social media platforms have every reason and right to remove content per any end user license agreement all users have to acknowledge. If enough "points of view" are being removed from a platform then capitalism suggests fulfilling that demand with some other platform who caters more to conspiracy theory and disinformation.

We should not overly complicate this as there is a solution that conservatives used to be all about, forces of market supply and demand.

As for Bernie Sanders, he is lost in the political climate of left wing authoritarianism and lazy liberalism.
 
As I've stated above, the world's major social media sites are under no obligation to administer or protect free speech. They can be as heavy-handed as they wish.

A far more interesting question, however, is not whether the likes of Facebook and Twitter should be considered public utilities, but whether internet access should be. A hypothetical: what if the major internet service providers got together and decided they would not allow Donald Trump to connect to the internet? (For the sake of discussion, put aside the logistical issues with accomplishing that; just assume they could.) Should we allow private organizations to do that?
 
eliminating anonymity could do more to crush political speech than almost anything else. it's a terrible idea. politically motivated employers could easily track every political and social opinion that you hold, and many would. one's online enemies could track them down even more effectively and bring flamewars into RL.

no thanks.
I like anonymity as much as any other but at the end of the day: What you can't stand up for you shouldn't say. We have only had Social media for about 10 years. Before that. One of the very first platforms where you as an individual could be active was GeoCities, which was launched in 1995. Before that the capability to publicly say just about anything or claim anything didn't exist. People did still do political speeches and free speech worked just fine. Face it: Anonymity is a free card from liability and ask yourself: If the russian think tanks hadn't spread rumers and character like Q invented conspirity theories, would Donald Trump have had the same impact?
 
I like anonymity as much as any other but at the end of the day: What you can't stand up for you shouldn't say. We have only had Social media for about 10 years. Before that. One of the very first platforms where you as an individual could be active was GeoCities, which was launched in 1995. Before that the capability to publicly say just about anything or claim anything didn't exist. People did still do political speeches and free speech worked just fine. Face it: Anonymity is a free card from liability and ask yourself: If the russian think tanks hadn't spread rumers and character like Q invented conspirity theories, would Donald Trump have had the same impact?

i take it that you don't live in a right to work / fire at will state. if i had to put my name next to everything i post, one would only see the occasional pic of my kid doing something cute. while i enjoy doing that, political speech online would be crushed. most people on here don't post under their full names, as they don't want the IRL blowback for expressing their full opinions. that's something that i support. i don't even use the same anonymous handle between websites.
 
We have had a couple of incidents in Sweden were politicians (outside the obvious racist party on the right and they have been from al other parties: Far left, enviroment to the conservatives) or high officials has had their anonyómity lifted and been caught in posting racistic or antisemitistic posts on different forums. Since this is against the politics and guidelines for officials they have been removed. And let's face it: Do we voters for an openly liberal politic on migration and integration want a person like that investigating if an arson on a synagogue is a hatecrime or not? Do we want them to have influence on developing new laws?
 
A hypothetical: what if the major internet service providers got together and decided they would not allow Donald Trump to connect to the internet? (For the sake of discussion, put aside the logistical issues with accomplishing that; just assume they could.) Should we allow private organizations to do that?

We could call a concept that protects against this something like network neutrality... ;)
 
i take it that you don't live in a right to work / fire at will state. if i had to put my name next to everything i post, one would only see the occasional pic of my kid doing something cute. while i enjoy doing political speech online would be crushed. most people on here don't post under their full names, as they don't want the IRL blowback for expressing their full opinions. that's something that i support. i don't even use the same anonymous handle between websites.
I know, there is a cost. We have to go back to freely speaking without consequenses with our loveones and freinds and only post things we can stand behind online. It is a cost for us who in general doesn't post to influence others but the question is what cost is the biggest one?

Thing is: Just 10 or 15 years ago, that is how it was.
 
Since Twitter and Facebook basically banned Trump and his followers....they will now move to another site

Could this be what Bernie is afraid of?

A site not controlled by the left, but by Trump and his minions....spreading whatever information they want to spread

TO millions of people....unchecked by the editors of those sites

And to those of you who say so what....i bet the thought of losing MILLIONS of customers, posters, and advertisers is no longer looking as rosy to the board of directors at either company

You wanted them to go away....go away they did.....only now they will get to do the same damn thing to every leftist who tries to post on his site
 
I know, there is a cost. We have to go back to freely speaking without consequenses with our loveones and freinds and only post things we can stand behind online. It is a cost for us who in general doesn't post to influence others but the question is what cost is the biggest one?

Thing is: Just 10 or 15 years ago, that is how it was.

20 years ago i was expressing political opinions on a different message board under a different anon handle. 15 years ago, i had my own, and people didn't even have to register to post. that isn't how it was.
 
There's nothing to really be done that I can see would work well.
Maybe beef up the laws or better define the laws that relate to certain types of crimes already on the books but that's about it

Platforms/posters that share classified or illegal information, platforms/posters that promote and organize violence etc but even that is a gray area

Facebook, twitter, tiktok, Instagram etc has ZERO obligation to let you, or me or anybody post and they can delete or block whoever they wish . . .
if tomorrow all those platforms said no posters starting with the letter A then boom . . thats what it is 🤷‍♂️ what power is there to force them otherwise?

people can bitch about it, say its not right, try to complain, boycott etc etc but thats it

popularity doesn't change things. Take DP for example if they want they could ban all Trump or Biden or <insert name here> supporters today and thats their right, just like if YOU owned/ran a site . . its your rules . . . .just because if in a year DP had the traffic and membership of Twitter that doesn't magically change the rules.

If the government or the people think something needs done the only real solution is for there to be a government-run platform open to all, ran as a utility and policed by law/rights and that's it really it. It would be a platform open as possible based on laws/rights (which is STILL limited) but at least everybody would be treated equally within those rules.

Every other platform still gets to do what it wants as it should be, again within some legal boundaries.
 
social media moderators and admins generally make the rules. FB is looking at a SCOTUS type system. either way, there's no right to do anything one wants to do on some else's platform any more than there's a right for me to go into someone's business and demand that the TV be switched to Cop Rock.

Helix:

I asked who should make the rules, not who does. Since the people reading and posting are the real drivers of any social media platform, should they be included or even be dominant in the decision making process for a business they do so much to generate? Should the sheep have any say in the shearing process?

Cheers and be well.
Arab.
 
Since Twitter and Facebook basically banned Trump and his followers....they will now move to another site

Could this be what Bernie is afraid of?

A site not controlled by the left, but by Trump and his minions....spreading whatever information they want to spread

TO millions of people....unchecked by the editors of those sites

And to those of you who say so what....i bet the thought of losing MILLIONS of customers, posters, and advertisers is no longer looking as rosy to the board of directors at either company

You wanted them to go away....go away they did.....only now they will get to do the same damn thing to every leftist who tries to post on his site


LMAO.... Millions and millions... They already had Gab, Parler and Telegram to run away to and it didn't seem to affect those companies at all...
 
Helix:

I asked who should make the rules, not who does. Since the people reading and posting are the real drivers of any social media platform, should they be included or even be dominant in the decision making process for a business they do so much to generate? Should the sheep have any say in the shearing process?

Cheers and be well.
Arab.

They're involved in the rules. If they don't like them, they generally quit. If they do like them, they bring in others.
 
They're involved in the rules. If they don't like them, they generally quit. If they do like them, they bring in others.

Helix:

I meant a more cooperative and proactive role rather than a "take it or leave it", contract of adhesion paradigm.

Cheer and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
LMAO.... Millions and millions... They already had Gab, Parler and Telegram to run away to and it didn't seem to affect those companies at all...

I have never heard of Gab or Telegram....and Parler only became well known during the fiasco during the election

it may have been known to the alt-right, but not to most people

You could be right, and the site may bomb.....but i think it not bombing is what worries a LOT of people
 
As long as the agreement is clearly outlined in the TOS and both sides abide by what they each agreed to, I have no issue with anything they want to do.

For instance Twitter should just state up front that they do not tolerate conservative opinions on their platform. People can then decide if they want to be part of a community that does not allow conservative opinions. What Twitter is currently doing is dishonest and amounts to fraud in my book.
 
Helix:

I meant a more cooperative and proactive role rather than a "take it or leave it", contract of adhesion paradigm.

Cheer and be well.
Evilroddy.

I don't work for FB, but I'd be surprised to learn that they ignore the preferences of their users. If they ignored the desire of the Punkinheads to spread misinformation campaigns, that wouldn't surprise me as much.
 
I think everyone who refuses to condemn the January 6 terrorist attack should be banned.

Instead, Republicans have launched a national effort to overturn elections state by state, with a committee to identify how to do it made of 24 Republican Congressmen who supported overturning the election and deny that Biden won. See my Rachel Maddow thread tonight.
 
Instead, Republicans have launched a national effort to overturn elections state by state, with a committee to identify how to do it made of 24 Republican Congressmen who supported overturning the election and deny that Biden won. See my Rachel Maddow thread tonight.

It is depressing that some posters agree with those idiots.

Where is your Rachel Maddow thread?
 
Back
Top Bottom