Social Media: The God That Failed

[Peeps]

bless your heart

[BurtReynolds]

Every day is a blessing!

[---]

no one is being censored

truly beyond parody

[JuanHamm]

The people banned from Twitter are the lucky ones

[Peeps]

no one is being censored

truly beyond parody

censorship - the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

no one is stopping these people from saying what they are saying. they have been stopped from saying it on a private platform that has rules of conduct and the things they are saying violate said rules.

there is a huge difference


is alex jones still allowed to spread his bullshit to the masses? yes. he just has to find a different medium to spread it

[BurtReynolds]

The definition you provided doesn't even justify the rest of your post.

Yes, it is in fact censorship. It is suppression.

[---]

no one is being censored

truly beyond parody

censorship - the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

no one is stopping these people from saying what they are saying. they have been stopped from saying it on a private platform that has rules of conduct and the things they are saying violate said rules.

there is a huge difference


is alex jones still allowed to spread his bullshit to the masses? yes. he just has to find a different medium to spread it

thank you for defining censorship, until this post it was an entirely ambiguous concept for me

[---]

no one is stopping these people from saying what they are saying

they have been stopped from saying it on a private platform

[Peeps]

no one is stopping these people from saying what they are saying

they have been stopped from saying it on a private platform

there is a difference between not saying something out in public and not being allowed on a platform for breaking the rules and saying it

[Peeps]

show me where you are guaranteed the freedom to have an account on twitter (or any social media)


i'll hang up and listen to your answer

[---]

show me where you are guaranteed the freedom to have an account on twitter (or any social media)

i'll hang up and listen to your answer

"does one have the right to censor?" is a very different question than "is censorship occurring?"

i suspect you aren't even aware that you've moved the goalposts

[---]

"does one have the right to censor?" - of course

"is censorship occurring?" - of course

[Peeps]

you two cant even see the goal posts

again not being allowed to post on twitter is not censorship of speech which is what elon has stated he wants to bring back to twitter.

[---]

again not being allowed to post on twitter is not censorship of speech which is what elon has stated he wants to bring back to twitter.

i've read this sentence four times and still can't untangle it

what is elon stating he wants to bring back to twitter?

[BurtReynolds]

show me where you are guaranteed the freedom to have an account on twitter (or any social media)


i'll hang up and listen to your answer

Nobody is guaranteed anything. Again you are thinking about this is in terms of legality - you are thinking of this in terms of what rights the government allows you to have, which isn't even how our society is set up - the Bill of Rights doesn't bestow rights like freedom of expression on people and is in fact only meant to specify a few important things the government can't do (which many argue is unnecessary - if the state isn't specifically given a power by the constitution, it doesn't have it.)

But free speech in itself - regardless of what the 1st Amendment says - is a cultural value, one with massive utility, and its a fundamental element of the entire western liberal framework we operated under until about 15 years ago. It's a good idea. [Edit; It also isn't limited to government censorship. it applies to giant multinational corporate censorship as well.]

What I'm saying is that even if the 1st Amendment didn't exist, you'd still have a right to free speech, at least as rights are concieved under the liberal democratic framework.

Censorship has little to no value. It's not good for you. It should be resisted. it doesn't matter if it's coming from the state or giant corporations (but I repeat myself).

I'm not even talking about government intervention. I'm talking about popular intervention. People shouldn't stand for it, and resist censorship for their own good, and these institutions should be pressured to allow it. But you don't because you've been convinced that nazis spamming the N-word on Twitter - something that can easily be avoided - is somehow more dangerous than allowing people with immense power control over information, deciding for you what information is allowed to reach you. What institution do you trust to decide for you what information you are allowed to interact with?

[---]

free speech in itself - regardless of what the 1st Amendment says - is a cultural value

the fundamental issue

[McParadigm]

Yikes

[Peeps]

show me where you are guaranteed the freedom to have an account on twitter (or any social media)


i'll hang up and listen to your answer

Nobody is guaranteed anything. Again you are thinking about this is in terms of legality - you are thinking of this in terms of what rights the government allows you to have, which isn't even how our society is set up - the Bill of Rights doesn't bestow rights like freedom of expression on people and is in fact only meant to specify a few important things the government can't do (which many argue is unnecessary - if the state isn't specifically given a power by the constitution, it doesn't have it.)

But free speech in itself - regardless of what the 1st Amendment says - is a cultural value, one with massive utility, and its a fundamental element of the entire western liberal framework we operated under until about 15 years ago. It's a good idea. [Edit; It also isn't limited to government censorship. it applies to giant multinational corporate censorship as well.]

What I'm saying is that even if the 1st Amendment didn't exist, you'd still have a right to free speech, at least as rights are concieved under the liberal democratic framework.

Censorship has little to no value. It's not good for you. It should be resisted. it doesn't matter if it's coming from the state or giant corporations (but I repeat myself).

I'm not even talking about government intervention. I'm talking about popular intervention. People shouldn't stand for it, and resist censorship for their own good, and these institutions should be pressured to allow it. But you don't because you've been convinced that nazis spamming the N-word on Twitter - something that can easily be avoided - is somehow more dangerous than allowing people with immense power control over information, deciding for you what information is allowed to reach you. What institution do you trust to decide for you what information you are allowed to interact with?

just because my being ok with a person being removed from a site because they broke the rules doesnt mean me being pro-censorship. it means i expect you to act like an adult and follow the rules. if you chose to not follow the rules then there are consequences. especially on a site where you agree to the TOS and then whine like a little child when you break those rules and face the repercussions.

if you break the rules on twitter and get banned you are free to go to youtube, facebook, parlor, neighborhood or any number of other social sites and spout your information until you break their rules.

at some point it stops being about censorship and more like youre just an asshole who cant follow rules

[BurtReynolds]

That's just a long way of saying you are ok with censorship.

[Peeps]

That's just a long way of saying you are ok with censorship.

again since you cant seem to grasp the context. if you are on a site and you break their rules and they no longer allow you to use the site that is their right.

that is punishing someone who cant or wont follow the rules. not censorship. those people are still allowed to say what they want just not on that particular site. no-one is punishing them for speaking however they are being punished for not being able to follow the rules.