• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is this ok with you?

Do stores have to carry every magazine, sell every brand, even if they only don't carry those due to political or personal opinions? If not, is that censorship? Should they be forced to carry those other brands, brands that they don't approve of the leadership, the politics, the stories that perhaps those magazines put out?
Stores are not publishers.
 
What's with the "publish everything" strawman? THe issue is censorship. Under your theory Facebook could refuse all advertisements from the Trump campaign, but allow the same from the Biden campaign. Everyone could see the Trump advertisements on some other platform, right?

It's not a straw man. If you believe Twitter has the legal authority/prerogative to ban some articles, then we agree it's their platform, their rules. Now you're claiming some middle ground - that of course they can restrict/ban links to some speech, but only if you agree with their decisions, as best I can tell. If you don't agree, your 'free speech' rights are being trampled. That's not how it works.

Maybe you want some government bureaucrats deciding what articles deserve promotion and which can be banned? I don't know what solution you're proposing here.

Of course you can disagree with Twitter's decisions, boycott the service, write about your disapproval, and lots more, but then it's not a free speech issue as you're framing it but a market thing.

And of course FB and Twitter and Fox News and everyone else CAN refuse any ad they want. It happens all the time. The networks have public licenses of spectrum and maybe the law requires some notion of 'fairness' with the ads the over the air networks accept or reject, but I don't care enough to look. The rest of the internet can do as they want. A gun forum can clearly ban ads for the gun grabbers Biden/Harris and the evil Democrats if they want and only run ads touting our great and Glorious Dear Leader who will protect their right to own any gun they want.

Here the NYP published the article. They have no right for them or others to pimp that output on someone else's platform, and if some platform decides they'd rather not allow people to promote someone else's content, they can do it. No one is being "censored."
 
Censorship. Twitter. Facebook. Banning, removing, blocking posts exposing Bidens involvement in corruption, specific knowledge and involvement of his sons cash for access to Joe incidents, Bidens knowledge and involvement in illegal election tampering and spying, and more and more. Serious allegations. Seemingly with proof. And then blocking content, posts, that are pro Trump.
Look. Im not a Trump freak. I AM someone who VALUES MY FREEDOM AND YOURS!!!!
The easy response is the "theyre private companies" response. Dont cut it anymore. Social media has become too integrated into our lives. If the phone company cut you off if you were talking about something they didnt like, would you defend that? If we dont have access to ALL the information, ESPECIALLY at this level, we are in REAL trouble. And its only a matter of time to where it effects YOU!!! Not just those you may or may not support.
So.........
Do you support media...on line, in print, broadcast...blocking SERIOUS content harmful to one, but not the other.
Is this the America YOU want?

Why can’t Conservatives just create their own social media formats where they can say and do whatever they want?

What’s that? “They have.” Oh. And those formats inevitably turn into decrepit swamps full of white supremacy and terror threats? Oh.
 
It's not a straw man. If you believe Twitter has the legal authority/prerogative to ban some articles, then we agree it's their platform, their rules.
WHat was their rule that was violated?
 
Neither are Facebook or Twitter. They are a store offering a service, offering access to things they approve of, just like physical stores.
THat's the kicker, once they get into the business of selecting which content to publish and which to censor, they are a publisher.
 
Why can’t Conservatives just create their own social media formats where they can say and do whatever they want?

What’s that? “They have.” Oh. And those formats inevitably turn into decrepit swamps full of white supremacy and terror threats? Oh.
Because of monopoly power.
 
Stores are not publishers.

That avoids the point. Why shouldn't they be required to sell every magazine? If the store doesn't allow the NYP to be promoted in that store, they are "censoring" that outlet!! Sure, people can get copies of the NYP directly, or at other places, but if that big store - call it Walmart - doesn't carry it, it might take someone a whole 10 seconds of extra work. Sounds like censorship and an infringement on free speech! Why does Walmart hate free speech?
 
THat's the kicker, once they get into the business of selecting which content to publish and which to censor, they are a publisher.

That's not true, unless DP, where you're posting right now, is a "publisher."
 
Because of monopoly power.

Really? That's the reason? It has nothing to do with spaces where Conservatives are free to say whatever they want inevitably turning into toxic racist hellscapes?
 
Because of monopoly power.

OK, and lots of liberals agree with that. The answer to unchecked monopoly power is to break up monopolies. Warren supported that.

The bottom line is I think we all agree that the problem is not that DP and other places can censor anyone they damn well want to censor. Getting rid of trolls, cranks, and open racists makes this place better, and if someone doesn't like that, they can leave and don't let the door hit them on the ass on the way out.

The issue is a few big platforms that wield too much power, now that they are seen as in some ways hostile to conservatives, conservatives want them regulated by Big Government. Well, maybe we should have DIFFERENT rules for the biggest platforms. That's an argument, but it's not a "free speech" argument. It's more of a public good argument. And even for those platforms, we would have to allow censorship because if not then the racists, trolls, bot armies and others would make life miserable for lots of users, and they'd flee the privately owned, for profit platform, which is bad for business and shareholders. So we need rules that allow for some censoring but not too much censoring, etc. It's a really damn hard thing to do, which is why the law as it is says private property owners get to regulate their own sites as they see fit.
 
Really? That's the reason? It has nothing to do with spaces where Conservatives are free to say whatever they want inevitably turning into toxic racist hellscapes?

No, it's definitely....

giphy.gif


:LOL: :LOL: (y)
 
THat's the kicker, once they get into the business of selecting which content to publish and which to censor, they are a publisher.
By this chain of logic, if stores select which content of magazines they allow, which to censor, then they too are publishers. Before the Internet, stores were where you found magazines, newspapers, print news in the same way we go to various social media sites now. Which means you would have to use the same logic for those stores selling those magazines that you do for social media sites.
 
I have seen no evidence that Trump is capable of work. Any past incident where he engaged in actual labor or put forth sustained effort to accomplish or learn something?
I know right, he works in a circle. lol

Speaking of Trump, at his town hall he seemed to be suffering from short-term memory loss. When asked if he took a test the day of the debate his reply was, IDK.


When asked if he knows who QAon is, he just knows that they're against child abuse and that's ok with him. He seems to be having a bit of delusional behavior.

Definitely needs the old man's test I think.
 
WHat was their rule that was violated?
These platforms have been pressured to stop spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories because there is a subset of Americans who hold them to the info, believe it, and then get injured, and sometimes kill themselves or others.
Trump just happens to tweet and retweet lies and conspiracy theories often.
 
The rules of a particular social media outlet should be uniformly applied, but as a private business they do have the right to censor and edit the content on their site. However, there is no statistical evidence that these platforms have been targeting conservative posts and applying the rules inconsistently.
 
Censorship. Twitter. Facebook. Banning, removing, blocking posts exposing Bidens involvement in corruption, specific knowledge and involvement of his sons cash for access to Joe incidents, Bidens knowledge and involvement in illegal election tampering and spying, and more and more. Serious allegations. Seemingly with proof. And then blocking content, posts, that are pro Trump.
Look. Im not a Trump freak. I AM someone who VALUES MY FREEDOM AND YOURS!!!!
The easy response is the "theyre private companies" response. Dont cut it anymore. Social media has become too integrated into our lives. If the phone company cut you off if you were talking about something they didnt like, would you defend that? If we dont have access to ALL the information, ESPECIALLY at this level, we are in REAL trouble. And its only a matter of time to where it effects YOU!!! Not just those you may or may not support.
So.........
Do you support media...on line, in print, broadcast...blocking SERIOUS content harmful to one, but not the other.
Is this the America YOU want?

Think about your framing.

Is the American you want one where the government tells a private company what it may and may not allow on its site? A theocractic president could have the FCC order no site to carry pornography. Or, he could have the FCC order Facebook to carry propaganda.

Now, constitutionally speaking, it does not have that power. But is the America you want one where that could happen?



PS: the Biden thing is because twitter has a rule against hacking. Twitter took the NYPost at its words that the emails were real, considering the way they were claimed to have been obtained hacking, and thus censored it.

But they appear to be laughably shabby forgeries. They're not even emails. They're pdfs of alleged emails, but it's very easy to put together a fake pdf that looks like something real. And the account of how they were "discovered" is hilariously shaky.
 
Really? That's the reason? It has nothing to do with spaces where Conservatives are free to say whatever they want inevitably turning into toxic racist hellscapes?
Yes that is the reason Twitter, Facebook and Google do not have any serious competitors - monopoly power. Thjs is not rocket science.
 
Yes that is the reason Twitter, Facebook and Google do not have any serious competitors - monopoly power. Thjs is not rocket science.

Multiple competitors DO exist. People flee them because they turn into toxic environments.
 
Censorship. Twitter. Facebook. Banning, removing, blocking posts exposing Bidens involvement in corruption, specific knowledge and involvement of his sons cash for access to Joe incidents, Bidens knowledge and involvement in illegal election tampering and spying, and more and more. Serious allegations. Seemingly with proof. And then blocking content, posts, that are pro Trump.
Look. Im not a Trump freak. I AM someone who VALUES MY FREEDOM AND YOURS!!!!
The easy response is the "theyre private companies" response. Dont cut it anymore. Social media has become too integrated into our lives. If the phone company cut you off if you were talking about something they didnt like, would you defend that? If we dont have access to ALL the information, ESPECIALLY at this level, we are in REAL trouble. And its only a matter of time to where it effects YOU!!! Not just those you may or may not support.
So.........
Do you support media...on line, in print, broadcast...blocking SERIOUS content harmful to one, but not the other.
Is this the America YOU want?

I don't favor their actions, but twitter is the only one I use and I don't do a lot of politics there. It seems to me they have always had a thing about too many activities at once by throttling trends etc. to keep those One Direction, Beliebers, and KPop fans from taking over the site 24/7. #CrookedJoeBiden was trending for awhile yesterday though.
 
OK, and lots of liberals agree with that. The answer to unchecked monopoly power is to break up monopolies. Warren supported that.

The bottom line is I think we all agree that the problem is not that DP and other places can censor anyone they damn well want to censor. Getting rid of trolls, cranks, and open racists makes this place better, and if someone doesn't like that, they can leave and don't let the door hit them on the ass on the way out.

The issue is a few big platforms that wield too much power, now that they are seen as in some ways hostile to conservatives, conservatives want them regulated by Big Government. Well, maybe we should have DIFFERENT rules for the biggest platforms. That's an argument, but it's not a "free speech" argument. It's more of a public good argument. And even for those platforms, we would have to allow censorship because if not then the racists, trolls, bot armies and others would make life miserable for lots of users, and they'd flee the privately owned, for profit platform, which is bad for business and shareholders. So we need rules that allow for some censoring but not too much censoring, etc. It's a really damn hard thing to do, which is why the law as it is says private property owners get to regulate their own sites as they see fit.
We are not asking for the Gvt. to reglulate them. WE are asking the Gvt. tp remove the legal shields that protect them. The NYTimes runs an OpEd that calls "JasperL a whore and here's his address to go harrass him at home." The NYTimes is liable for publishing that. Under Section 230, Internet publishers are not liable. 20 years ago that made sense - we wanted open and free platforms. Now, the argument goes that Twitter and Facebook, by going down the road of censoring content they have violated the entire rationale for the protection that Congress gave them 20 years ago. And no matter what you say, yes, it is an issue of censorship.
 
Multiple competitors DO exist. People flee them because they turn into toxic environments.
What is the "conservative" alternative to Twitter or Facebook or Google?
 
Back
Top Bottom