• 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!

Reactions to Corporate Political Censorship?

Conaeolos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
416
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I am sure as most of us here follow up with the latest News. So you've heard some version of the various events which have lead to calls of coordinated political censorship by Big Tech: on youtube, Twitter, facebook, Patreon, paypal, stripe certian voices are deplatformed for wrong-think/trolling/abuse. These same corporations have directly been shown to be coordinating to suppress competitors that have sought to come into the market to fill this part of the market like SubscribeStar, Gab and Bitchute.

At the same time, we hear evidence that Political actors are exploiting social media and should be held more accountable for the actions and 'fake news' of their users. This of course being used as further reasoning to intensify this deplatforming and widening the scope of when to apply these actions.

What are your thoughts and where do you think the line exists? If anything, what should the government do in response to either issue? What actions would you recommend to individuals concerned by deplatforming?
 
Free speech works both ways.
 
Free speech works both ways.

The thread's about corporations, not the government. The First Amendment doesn't impact private citizens or corporations, other than ensuring that the government cannot restrict the speech either private citizens or corporations.

The free market controls corporate speech, not the government. If a corporation does something that their clients do not agree with, then those clients can decide to act by continuing to pay for the corporation's services/products, or not. That's the control, not the government.
 
I am sure as most of us here follow up with the latest News. So you've heard some version of the various events which have lead to calls of coordinated political censorship by Big Tech: on youtube, Twitter, facebook, Patreon, paypal, stripe certian voices are deplatformed for wrong-think/trolling/abuse. These same corporations have directly been shown to be coordinating to suppress competitors that have sought to come into the market to fill this part of the market like SubscribeStar, Gab and Bitchute.

At the same time, we hear evidence that Political actors are exploiting social media and should be held more accountable for the actions and 'fake news' of their users. This of course being used as further reasoning to intensify this deplatforming and widening the scope of when to apply these actions.

What are your thoughts and where do you think the line exists? If anything, what should the government do in response to either issue? What actions would you recommend to individuals concerned by deplatforming?

Fox News was created for the same basic reason. Someone, or a number of someones, should create their own platform. However, there are already platforms on the far right that are scum sucking swamps, and I'm concerned that any reasonable center/right platform would be quickly overtaken by the same bottom feeders that are on those other sites.
 
The thread's about corporations, not the government. The First Amendment doesn't impact private citizens or corporations, other than ensuring that the government cannot restrict the speech either private citizens or corporations.

The free market controls corporate speech, not the government. If a corporation does something that their clients do not agree with, then those clients can decide to act by continuing to pay for the corporation's services/products, or not. That's the control, not the government.

Exactly corporations have the right to control speech on their platforms. An act of free expression if you will.
 
Last edited:
Fox News was created for the same basic reason.
True, but I am not sure this cuts one way. I may follow ‘right’ alt-media more than the ‘left’ alt-media; but, this certainly is including people from both sides, a plethora of offences and the more and more content creators including ones that don’t even talk politics..

The other concern here is with the internet now is moving to mobile - you can already block people from these mobile stores[blocking millions] via just two Google/Apple, internet provider can start blocking people, advertising is 90% facebook and google and block providers, banks will not host alternative and charge higher fees in order to use their services. In almost all case they use evidence outside their platform so one post to facebook for example can ban you cross-platform.
If the corporations were not so big and working together so closely an alternative might have merit but the corporate censorship seems to comes from all levels since tech companies own every aspect of the supply chain.

The real only perfect tech solution is an alternative P2P internet. Problem – since these technologies facilitate and hence are utilized for illegal/explicit activity they are shutdown via law enforcement.
Someone, or a number of someones, should create their own platform. However, there are already platforms on the far right that are scum sucking swamps, and I'm concerned that any reasonable center/right platform would be quickly overtaken by the same bottom feeders that are on those other sites.
It certainly the current state but like I said the problem seem to be including more and more and government is accelerating the process by making platforms more accountable for the actions of the users and you can't blame companies playing safe to avoid liability.
 
Exactly corporations have the right to control speech on their platforms. An act of free expression if you will.
I agree in principle Problems:
1. We talking about trillion dollar corporations that have vast controls of the underlying infrastructure and would work together to stifle meaningful competition.
2. As for the reasons in part be are being pressured to do this via governments to varying degrees by country
3. All forms of deplatforming is often defended as free speech. That is outrageous, free speak does not include violating the rights of others to express their opinions.
 
True, but I am not sure this cuts one way. I may follow ‘right’ alt-media more than the ‘left’ alt-media; but, this certainly is including people from both sides, a plethora of offences and the more and more content creators including ones that don’t even talk politics..

The other concern here is with the internet now is moving to mobile - you can already block people from these mobile stores[blocking millions] via just two Google/Apple, internet provider can start blocking people, advertising is 90% facebook and google and block providers, banks will not host alternative and charge higher fees in order to use their services. In almost all case they use evidence outside their platform so one post to facebook for example can ban you cross-platform.
If the corporations were not so big and working together so closely an alternative might have merit but the corporate censorship seems to comes from all levels since tech companies own every aspect of the supply chain.

The real only perfect tech solution is an alternative P2P internet. Problem – since these technologies facilitate and hence are utilized for illegal/explicit activity they are shutdown via law enforcement.

It certainly the current state but like I said the problem seem to be including more and more and government is accelerating the process by making platforms more accountable for the actions of the users and you can't blame companies playing safe to avoid liability.

First, extra points for using "plethora" correctly and appropriately.

Second, Net neutrality is a must, if we are to extend the First Amendment to the web vis-a-vis freedom of assembly and speech through freedom of access to the internet in it's entirety, unencumbered, unfettered, and without infringement by government restrictions or corporations empowered by the government to monopolize content availability.
 
I agree in principle Problems:
1. We talking about trillion dollar corporations that have vast controls of the underlying infrastructure and would work together to stifle meaningful competition.
2. As for the reasons in part be are being pressured to do this via governments to varying degrees by country
3. All forms of deplatforming is often defended as free speech. That is outrageous, free speak does not include violating the rights of others to express their opinions.

The right to free speech only protects you from government action not the actions of private individuals or corporations. How can a Libertarian support forcing companies to tolerate everything on their platforms?

There are arguments for net neutrality and anti-monopoly action but what you seem to support is not that.
 
The right to free speech only protects you from government action not the actions of private individuals or corporations. How can a Libertarian support forcing companies to tolerate everything on their platforms?

There are arguments for net neutrality and anti-monopoly action but what you seem to support is not that.

If you supported Net Neutrality regulations under Obama, then you already agree with the underlying principal: That the Internet is a public utility requiring government regulation. Just as your electric company can't shut off your lights because they didn't like something you posted, I think it's perfectly reasonable to demand that these giant tech companies operate from an ideologically neutral position.

Let's be clear: The first Amendment may apply only to the government, but the ethic behind it, and the logic that guided it, is to prevent a powerful force from silencing all dissent. I've been a liberal my entire adult life, and if private companies that control vast swaths of the mainstream public discourse aim to become de facto tyrants, then it's perfectly appropriate to use the government to force them to operate from a neutral position.
 
The right to free speech only protects you from government action not the actions of private individuals or corporations. How can a Libertarian support forcing companies to tolerate everything on their platforms?

There are arguments for net neutrality and anti-monopoly action but what you seem to support is not that.
Net neutrality and anti-monopoly actions are but one solution nor really cover either issue at play from the original post as this involves multi-companies working together and many factors and people including the culture itself. I am curious as to people's opinions/comments on the issue here, if they even view it as a problem, as most of what I've observed/read is from commentators so it is their opinion not in a form where I'd hear points to counterpoints. And banking especially is far from open.

I am not personally at risk of being deplatformed. I was only personally impacted in being sad to lose Gavin Mcginnes removed recently to the point he is no longer producing content. I found him quite entertaining when he did not get too drunk. He appeared on infowars once post and seemed quite defeated and not interested in fighting back outside the courts for the proud boys.

I certainly think deplatforming should be called out in the culture, but I honestly not sure politically. Similar to my stance on Net Neutrality before all this, I both understand the dangers of providers giving preference to their own media properties and stifling innovation via not charging bandwidth hogs like Netflix.

If we lived in a libertarian society,there would be a free-market, I'd help the P2P internet, end of story. We do not and have a government that very much is involved and does not allow for mechanisms which make allow for the type of privacy and freedom that makes enforcing laws difficult. So the answer will not be addressed simply by being Libertarian.
 
Corporations are run by the corporate class, the same ones who have corrupted government...you can expect them to always support government attacks on freedom and most attacks on freedom....they are about power and money not principles.

The solution is to remove corruption from America, and to depower the corporate class, which includes moves to defund the corporate class slime....they need to be chopped back just as badly as government needs to be chopped back....until they act like they understand their duties at least.
 
Corporations are run by the corporate class, the same ones who have corrupted government...you can expect them to always support government attacks on freedom and most attacks on freedom....they are about power and money not principles.

The solution is to remove corruption from America, and to depower the corporate class, which includes moves to defund the corporate class slime....they need to be chopped back just as badly as government needs to be chopped back....until they act like they understand their duties at least.
How would you say one helps to do that?

I have some connections and influence and sough reasonable efforts to this aim. I have financially supported many causes that resist the further enshrinement of power of the "corporate class" and supported projects that expose those who seek to corrupt government and stifle competition. I keep my businesses and those I work with lean, apolitical and non-beurocratic[no middle management]. Politically I have supported at the grass roots multiple candidates seeking public service over politics [sadly, not a one has gotten very far so can't say I voted that way].

In that time, I've met many people equally as active and diverse in approach toward this aim. In all of that I have barely seen a dent of progress except perhaps my own independence and freedom. Now maybe its nostalgic naive but all I've seen is a progressive strengthen of the grip and influence of those who covet power and class. I see more allies today sure but still within counter-culture(s) not that of the mainstream.
 
If you supported Net Neutrality regulations under Obama, then you already agree with the underlying principal: That the Internet is a public utility requiring government regulation. Just as your electric company can't shut off your lights because they didn't like something you posted, I think it's perfectly reasonable to demand that these giant tech companies operate from an ideologically neutral position.

Let's be clear: The first Amendment may apply only to the government, but the ethic behind it, and the logic that guided it, is to prevent a powerful force from silencing all dissent. I've been a liberal my entire adult life, and if private companies that control vast swaths of the mainstream public discourse aim to become de facto tyrants, then it's perfectly appropriate to use the government to force them to operate from a neutral position.

I agree with net neutrality but companies like Google, Twitter, or whoever have the right to remove content. Don't like it use another platform, there are alternatives available. Don't like YouTube, host it on DailyMotion, Vimeo, or your your own servers. Do you beileve YouTube should just accept any video uploaded to it?
 
How would you say one helps to do that?

I have some connections and influence and sough reasonable efforts to this aim. I have financially supported many causes that resist the further enshrinement of power of the "corporate class" and supported projects that expose those who seek to corrupt government and stifle competition. I keep my businesses and those I work with lean, apolitical and non-beurocratic[no middle management]. Politically I have supported at the grass roots multiple candidates seeking public service over politics [sadly, not a one has gotten very far so can't say I voted that way].

In that time, I've met many people equally as active and diverse in approach toward this aim. In all of that I have barely seen a dent of progress except perhaps my own independence and freedom. Now maybe its nostalgic naive but all I've seen is a progressive strengthen of the grip and influence of those who covet power and class. I see more allies today sure but still within counter-culture(s) not that of the mainstream.

You dont beat the powers of corruption unless there is a national decision to do so, then competent people put in the work to defeat them. So long was we keep fighting over stuff like abortion and immigration and other emotional disputes which consume us where half the country feels one way and half the other way there is no bandwidth to take on the criminals who are robbing and weakening this nation. In fact you should put some money on the bet that the crooks are promoting all of this fighting that diverts us from dealing with the real problems, in fact which divide us and keep us from getting anything done.

And of course you are encouraged that "You too can make a difference, go out there and do it!" because after you devote much of your life to such schemes to solve as an individual problems that can only be solved by mass effort and of course thus fail then you will be so demoralized that you will not get your back up again.

I am told that I am cynical.
 
Last edited:
If you supported Net Neutrality regulations under Obama, then you already agree with the underlying principal: That the Internet is a public utility requiring government regulation. Just as your electric company can't shut off your lights because they didn't like something you posted, I think it's perfectly reasonable to demand that these giant tech companies operate from an ideologically neutral position.

To butcher a quote about voting, it is not the neutrality that matters, but those who define and enforce it.
That is why classical liberties were always negative. Because the civil rights thinkers of old were familiar with 1984 type scenarios long before Orwell was a glint in the milkman's eye.

Giving government agencies power to destroy those they deem unethical is a recipe for disaster, because it is Human nature to think of one's opponents as unethical and whether in a day or 100 years, they will eventually act on it. The safest way of dealing with unethical conglomerates is to keep people informed of what they do and how they make their money, so people can boycot and thus disempower them. Much more difficult, but also much more safe.
 
To butcher a quote about voting, it is not the neutrality that matters, but those who define and enforce it.
That is why classical liberties were always negative. Because the civil rights thinkers of old were familiar with 1984 type scenarios long before Orwell was a glint in the milkman's eye.

Giving government agencies power to destroy those they deem unethical is a recipe for disaster, because it is Human nature to think of one's opponents as unethical and whether in a day or 100 years, they will eventually act on it. The safest way of dealing with unethical conglomerates is to keep people informed of what they do and how they make their money, so people can boycot and thus disempower them. Much more difficult, but also much more safe.

If there are no reasonable options that does not work, all it does is rub peoples faces into their lack of power.
 
If there are no reasonable options that does not work, all it does is rub peoples faces into their lack of power.

Agree in principle, but not in this particular case.
This is not a lack of power, but of convenience. It's too damn annoying to carry the trash out, and so it accumulates until we drown in it.
How can we have popular rule if the populace isn't prepared to lift a finger to defend it?
 
I agree with net neutrality but companies like Google, Twitter, or whoever have the right to remove content. Don't like it use another platform, there are alternatives available. Don't like YouTube, host it on DailyMotion, Vimeo, or your your own servers. Do you beileve YouTube should just accept any video uploaded to it?

Should these social media companies be considered common carriers where they take no active interest in what is on their portal? If they are a common carrier, then they can't be sued for what is posted on their platform. If they are not a common carrier, then anything anyone posts could hold them liable since they govern what is on their site.

I truly don't know which status they would prefer.
 
Should these social media companies be considered common carriers where they take no active interest in what is on their portal? If they are a common carrier, then they can't be sued for what is posted on their platform. If they are not a common carrier, then anything anyone posts could hold them liable since they govern what is on their site.

I truly don't know which status they would prefer.

The latter would be the death of the internet and is exactly what media companies are pushing the EU to doing the name of protecting copyright. Do you believe YouTube should accept all videos, including pornography, Neo-Nazi recruitment videos, copyright infringing material, etc.? Why should they be responsible for what content is posted on their sites? They can't screen thousands of hour of video every second for everything pornography, to hate speech, to copyright but they should have the right to when they find it. Are you going to pay Google for this? Since all those videos have to be hosted somewhere and YouTube never made profits to begin with.

Don't like it, go host your stuff elsewhere or yourself.
 
Last edited:
The latter would be the death of the internet and is exactly what media companies are pushing the EU to doing the name of protecting copyright. Do you believe YouTube should accept all videos, including pornography, Neo-Nazi recruitment videos, copyright infringing material, etc.? Why should they be responsible for what content is posted on their sites? They can't screen thousands of hour of video every second for everything pornography, to hate speech, to copyright but they should have the right to when they find it. Are you going to pay Google for this? Since all those videos have to be hosted somewhere and YouTube never made profits to begin with.

Don't like it, go host your stuff elsewhere or yourself.

You are either a common carrier or you aren't. If you and I are on the telephone, should the phone company be engaged in limiting what we can talk about? In the case of the internet, you are paying for viewing the videos on youtube, your information is minimum price of admission and then it gets monetized on the back end. Yes, and even shared beyond the scope of the T&C/Privacy policies at times.

The internet is more robust than you are making it out to be. I would prefer more Youtube accepting all videos rather than selecting what is and what is not available. On the other hand, because of various "community standards" laws, there could be explicit acceptance for those who wish to view the various categories you mentioned. That could be the shield you seem to be looking for to protect the Youtubes of the world.
 
You are either a common carrier or you aren't. If you and I are on the telephone, should the phone company be engaged in limiting what we can talk about? In the case of the internet, you are paying for viewing the videos on youtube, your information is minimum price of admission and then it gets monetized on the back end. Yes, and even shared beyond the scope of the T&C/Privacy policies at times.

The internet is more robust than you are making it out to be. I would prefer more Youtube accepting all videos rather than selecting what is and what is not available. On the other hand, because of various "community standards" laws, there could be explicit acceptance for those who wish to view the various categories you mentioned. That could be the shield you seem to be looking for to protect the Youtubes of the world.

You can't just use another phone carrier to make a phone call, however you can just use another service for video hosting, search, etc. I don't think you are the one who does not understand the internet. Under the same rules DP would have to allow all posts and users as well, subreddits cannot remove content, either way it is the end of the internet. What you are advocating is either the removal of all moderation from the internet or holding them responsible for things they have no control over.

The phone company or the ISP does not have to keep all phone calls and data traffic, they only have to facilitate the exchange. Also you need internet, you do not need to use Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc.
 
Last edited:
You can't just use another phone carrier to make a phone call, however you can just use another service for video hosting, search, etc. I don't think you are the one who does not understand the internet. Under the same rules DP would have to allow all posts and users as well, subreddits cannot remove content, either way it is the end of the internet. What you are advocating is either the removal of all moderation from the internet or holding them responsible for things they have no control over.

The phone company or the ISP does not have to keep all phone calls and data traffic, they only have to facilitate the exchange. Also you need internet, you do not need to use Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc.

I didn't accuse you of not understanding the internet, I'd appreciate if you extended me the same meager courtesy. I specifically mentioned community standards which should be neutral in nature. DP isn't a common carrier and there are procedures for removing adjudicating offensive material that violate community standards. Any website/host has control over their platform so if they are not a common carrier, then they can be help accountable for maintaining community standards. It isn't expected that every video on youtube is personally viewed by a Google employee, but they have procedures for the community to alert YouTube to a violation. Not every video on youtube is viewable in ever jurisdiction around the world, so somehow they manage with those constraints.

Again, you are a common carrier or you are not.
 
I didn't accuse you of not understanding the internet, I'd appreciate if you extended me the same meager courtesy. I specifically mentioned community standards which should be neutral in nature. DP isn't a common carrier and there are procedures for removing adjudicating offensive material that violate community standards. Any website/host has control over their platform so if they are not a common carrier, then they can be help accountable for maintaining community standards. It isn't expected that every video on youtube is personally viewed by a Google employee, but they have procedures for the community to alert YouTube to a violation. Not every video on youtube is viewable in ever jurisdiction around the world, so somehow they manage with those constraints.

Again, you are a common carrier or you are not.

Well you do not seem to understand that there are other services freely available as alternatives just by typing in another web address. You have not made the case for why internet services with freely available alternatives should be considered "common carriers" especially when they are hosting the content. Why should companies have to choose between controlling their content and liability for their content?
 
Well you do not seem to understand that there are other services freely available as alternatives just by typing in another web address. You have not made the case for why internet services with freely available alternatives should be considered "common carriers" especially when they are hosting the content. Why should companies have to choose between controlling their content and liability for their content?

Perhaps if you reread my post #19, you would realize that I made no such case. I didn't define the term common carrier, I'm wondering how that standard applies. It doesn't change the fact that they either are or they are not. I think these sites would prefer the benefits of both with none of the negatives.
 
Back
Top Bottom