Just go make your own website. Just go make your own banking system. Just go make your own country.
If mods want to, they can word filter stuff. Turn the dreaded words into something else - like Joggers or Tribe.
But your argument is circular. It's exactly what the left say to the right. It's circular censorious logic. It's exactly WHY we're in the mess we're in.
It's exactly why Time magazine wrote an article outlining why and how they rigged the election. It's the same logic.
You may as well say "well... the banks can block whoever they like from having an account because they're a private company". Then the government makes it so you can ONLY pay by card. No cash.
Or the airlines will only let you fly if you get the vaccine. Private companies only let you work if you get the vaccine. Then the government "phases out" private ownership.
That's your argument. There's common sense censorship where something is inciting violence and that's bad, but people discussing the ills of a certain group of people really isn't doing anything.
And no, the website is the property of the owners. Not the mods.
1.) The website is the property of the owners, you are correct, but by extension, this forum, greatawakening, is effectively licensed by the mods, making the license of the forum their property.
2.) There's a difference between what action is being discussed on this forum versus what is happening in the mainstream/with the left/big tech/etc. I don't think I need to spell that out to you, but in case I do, here we go:
The constitution grantees right to freedom of expression
We also have guarantees of autonomy and property ownership/control.
These rights go as far as they can without infringing upon the rights of another individual; we all should possess as equal rights as possible.
When we sign up with these businesses engaged in censorship, or make a social media account, or anything like that, we are entering into a contract; an agreement. You might say that those contracts and agreements cannot supersede the Constitution; that is correct, and it goes both ways. While you may argue we are guaranteed freedom of expression, it exists only within the limitations of not infringing upon the rights of others. I cannot legally vandalize property of someone to express something to them. In that same sense, we are permitted "onto" their "property" (the platform) under the conditions of the contract. More on this in later points.
Social media companies are enforcing their rules in defiance of their own contracts. They are, in those instances, violating the contract, and to some extent, the law (though in most of those instances, the damages are negligible).
Big businesses are violating other laws about both censorship and monopolistic collusion; they don't just ban people in breach of their own applicable terms, they coordinately ban people for political expression. Perhaps most importantly, these bans and repercussions extend beyond the property of the platform. I could be banned on say, Twitter, for something I say here. I am not on Twitter's property when I say it; I am not infringing upon their rules, they are attempting to punish the execution and usage of my rights, outside of their "jurisdiction". Similarly, the punishments they deal extend beyond their "jurisdiction"; they seek to defame, shame, and mass-censor, through illegal collusion with their partners. Sometimes, they even seek to incite violence against those they ban. This overstepping of boundaries, coupled with their other infractions of law combine to make for an egregious assault on the constitutional rights. The so-called "slippery slope" referred to by many on this thread doesn't exist in that sense because there is already a well defined set of criteria for the violation of constitutional rights versus the simple utilization of property rights.
To muddy this all, we have government intervention. When these platforms or companies become the government appointed (more like anointed) arbiters of their sector/industry, suddenly their rights over their own property change, because they have done dealings with the government that effectively make a percentage or portion of their company public property, by nature of receiving public funding and protection from competition. This is the biggest factor that defeats the use of the "go make your own" argument; in an instance where businesses were not colluding on grand scale, or where the government weren't significantly involved, the "go make your own" argument would be valid. It's validity is evident in the very existence of this (communities.win) website. Reddit did not possess complete monopolistic control, so whilst they were violating contracts and in collusion, creating competition for them was totally possible and doable, and it was done. As an example of difference, you can look at the Parler situation. By my understanding, Amazon terminated, possibly illegally, their contract with Parler, for reasons of illegal collusion, and with illegal government support. In that sense, the monopolistic conglomeration of big businesses is protecting its own, and downright preventing the creation of alternate social media platforms to an illegal level. Collusion from banks (who, by my understanding, have enormous government ties) sets an even greater level of concern, as it is the same problem but scaled up massively.
In a society with a justice system not totally compromised (like ours has been for a decent chunk of American history), it would be up to the judges and juries to determine the fine details as to where between conflicting rights the line should be drawn.
I want to comment on your mentions about practicality, as well:
What is the difference between banning for usage of a slur versus banning for posting pornographic content? How about the difference between banning or censoring for reasons of utility (IE: off topic/unrelated to Q threads) versus slurs?
You say that "There's common sense censorship where something is inciting violence and that's bad"; I would actually advocate (once this is all over) for the legalization of speech that incites violence. Our country was founded upon speech inciting violence. The right to bear arms is pointless without the right to organize the bearing of arms. That said, just because I am for the constitutional and public legalization of that speech, that doesn't mean I'm for the right or ability to use that speech across the board; that is because I seek to obtain balance between rights, not just the over-exaggeration of one until it usurps and supersedes all others.
See this is just circular. You're not neutral. You're pro free speech when it's you doing the speaking and on your terms, but anti free speech when it offends you.
Trump offended the democrats. He's facing impeachment for incitement. He'll contend that was his freedom of speech. They'll contend elsewise. There's always a loophole.
Either you're for it completely or you're against it completely. There can be no "but muh private companies". That's called a loophole and you're slithering through it at an increasing rate.
Also, you can hate the word and you can think people shouldn't say it, you can wish they wouldn't, you can even make it clear that you wish they wouldn't.
But you can also defend the right to say it.
That said I would prefer actually egregious examples be removed because it gets pretty bad sometimes and it just ends up being a distraction
Yeah I don't disagree with that at all. Like if someone is really ott.
It's just there's a lot of facebook boomers coming here and wanting everything clean and cozy. Like no mention of jewish conspiracies.
And that clown yesterday was just talking about casual examples.
You go down the route of censorship and you end up where the country is today.
All these people arguing for it really don't understand that a little bit of this and a little bit of that leads to people wanting more.
If you're going to call an argument circular, you should include proof of your claim.
Of course, to do that, you would have had to read it, which it doesn't appear you did.
I never said the N word offends me. I defend the right for people to use it and not get crucified, and to use it in public. It really doesn't offend me; very little if anything offends me.
Trump will not argue based on freedom of speech, he will argue on their terms, as we have seen; they have used speech just as inciting of violence, and he will demonstrate that easily.
From the sounds of it, you aren't so pro-free speech either? Are you against it too, then, if you're against banning incitement of violence?
I ask again; do you believe people should be posting pornographic content on this forum? How is that any different?
That was very well articulated. What I have never understood is why is the platform held responsible for the speech of the users utilizing the platform? Can’t it just be a mutually beneficial arrangement where the platform requires a waiver and the user has the ability to control their exposure? You could even have separate requirements that confirm adult age. Beyond that, if the platform is not held responsible (and isn’t responsible for the actions of others) the users are only held responsible for threats of violence. This all started with “hate” crime. Please tell me, what crime isn’t hateful?
There already are platforms like that! Most of them happen to be extremely toxic, but I appreciate that they exist.
There's more to the laws about what constitutes a platform versus what constitutes a publisher; these laws have been basically stretched to the breaking point in recent years with blatant infraction from social media companies.
Ultimately, because the website owner is effectively the property owner, they are legally responsible for what happens on it, in some capacity. If some degenerate sicko starts posting child porn, or something like that, they are legally obligated to remove that as soon as they are aware of it, or they will face charges as well. The same can be said about, as you mentioned, incitements of violence, though, to a lesser degree.
But yeah, the biggest reason that the "jurisdictions" of forums and individuals have blended so much is because there is a group actively seeking to destroy opposition opinion. If you were to have a government working to preserve freedoms, or an organization of [the] people with the will and teeth to enforce it (like some groups used to be/claim to be), you'd see things in a lot better state.
Unlike what a lot of people on here are claiming with regards to censorship being the slippery slope that got us here, I think the truth is far more painful:
What brought us here wasn't censorship or some "slippery slope" regarding it. What really got us here was complacency by the populace; pretty much everyone is responsible; the people here included. By allowing them to systemically infiltrate and seize our institutions whilst we made no effort to maintain them, we destroyed our rights. This isn't just about freedom of speech, it's about all of our constitutional rights. They didn't die because most forums censored the N word, they died because the institutions that would have been in place to fight them overstepping their own bounds were allowed to be corrupted.
Muh private companies.
Just go make your own website. Just go make your own banking system. Just go make your own country.
If mods want to, they can word filter stuff. Turn the dreaded words into something else - like Joggers or Tribe.
But your argument is circular. It's exactly what the left say to the right. It's circular censorious logic. It's exactly WHY we're in the mess we're in. It's exactly why Time magazine wrote an article outlining why and how they rigged the election. It's the same logic.
You may as well say "well... the banks can block whoever they like from having an account because they're a private company". Then the government makes it so you can ONLY pay by card. No cash.
Or the airlines will only let you fly if you get the vaccine. Private companies only let you work if you get the vaccine. Then the government "phases out" private ownership.
That's your argument. There's common sense censorship where something is inciting violence and that's bad, but people discussing the ills of a certain group of people really isn't doing anything.
And no, the website is the property of the owners. Not the mods.
Going in backwards order:
1.) The website is the property of the owners, you are correct, but by extension, this forum, greatawakening, is effectively licensed by the mods, making the license of the forum their property.
2.) There's a difference between what action is being discussed on this forum versus what is happening in the mainstream/with the left/big tech/etc. I don't think I need to spell that out to you, but in case I do, here we go:
In a society with a justice system not totally compromised (like ours has been for a decent chunk of American history), it would be up to the judges and juries to determine the fine details as to where between conflicting rights the line should be drawn.
I want to comment on your mentions about practicality, as well: What is the difference between banning for usage of a slur versus banning for posting pornographic content? How about the difference between banning or censoring for reasons of utility (IE: off topic/unrelated to Q threads) versus slurs?
You say that "There's common sense censorship where something is inciting violence and that's bad"; I would actually advocate (once this is all over) for the legalization of speech that incites violence. Our country was founded upon speech inciting violence. The right to bear arms is pointless without the right to organize the bearing of arms. That said, just because I am for the constitutional and public legalization of that speech, that doesn't mean I'm for the right or ability to use that speech across the board; that is because I seek to obtain balance between rights, not just the over-exaggeration of one until it usurps and supersedes all others.
lol
See this is just circular. You're not neutral. You're pro free speech when it's you doing the speaking and on your terms, but anti free speech when it offends you.
Trump offended the democrats. He's facing impeachment for incitement. He'll contend that was his freedom of speech. They'll contend elsewise. There's always a loophole.
Either you're for it completely or you're against it completely. There can be no "but muh private companies". That's called a loophole and you're slithering through it at an increasing rate.
Also, you can hate the word and you can think people shouldn't say it, you can wish they wouldn't, you can even make it clear that you wish they wouldn't.
But you can also defend the right to say it.
That said I would prefer actually egregious examples be removed because it gets pretty bad sometimes and it just ends up being a distraction
Yeah I don't disagree with that at all. Like if someone is really ott.
It's just there's a lot of facebook boomers coming here and wanting everything clean and cozy. Like no mention of jewish conspiracies. And that clown yesterday was just talking about casual examples.
You go down the route of censorship and you end up where the country is today.
All these people arguing for it really don't understand that a little bit of this and a little bit of that leads to people wanting more.
If you're going to call an argument circular, you should include proof of your claim.
Of course, to do that, you would have had to read it, which it doesn't appear you did.
I never said the N word offends me. I defend the right for people to use it and not get crucified, and to use it in public. It really doesn't offend me; very little if anything offends me.
Trump will not argue based on freedom of speech, he will argue on their terms, as we have seen; they have used speech just as inciting of violence, and he will demonstrate that easily.
From the sounds of it, you aren't so pro-free speech either? Are you against it too, then, if you're against banning incitement of violence?
I ask again; do you believe people should be posting pornographic content on this forum? How is that any different?
That was very well articulated. What I have never understood is why is the platform held responsible for the speech of the users utilizing the platform? Can’t it just be a mutually beneficial arrangement where the platform requires a waiver and the user has the ability to control their exposure? You could even have separate requirements that confirm adult age. Beyond that, if the platform is not held responsible (and isn’t responsible for the actions of others) the users are only held responsible for threats of violence. This all started with “hate” crime. Please tell me, what crime isn’t hateful?
Thank you!
There already are platforms like that! Most of them happen to be extremely toxic, but I appreciate that they exist.
There's more to the laws about what constitutes a platform versus what constitutes a publisher; these laws have been basically stretched to the breaking point in recent years with blatant infraction from social media companies.
Ultimately, because the website owner is effectively the property owner, they are legally responsible for what happens on it, in some capacity. If some degenerate sicko starts posting child porn, or something like that, they are legally obligated to remove that as soon as they are aware of it, or they will face charges as well. The same can be said about, as you mentioned, incitements of violence, though, to a lesser degree.
But yeah, the biggest reason that the "jurisdictions" of forums and individuals have blended so much is because there is a group actively seeking to destroy opposition opinion. If you were to have a government working to preserve freedoms, or an organization of [the] people with the will and teeth to enforce it (like some groups used to be/claim to be), you'd see things in a lot better state.
Unlike what a lot of people on here are claiming with regards to censorship being the slippery slope that got us here, I think the truth is far more painful:
What brought us here wasn't censorship or some "slippery slope" regarding it. What really got us here was complacency by the populace; pretty much everyone is responsible; the people here included. By allowing them to systemically infiltrate and seize our institutions whilst we made no effort to maintain them, we destroyed our rights. This isn't just about freedom of speech, it's about all of our constitutional rights. They didn't die because most forums censored the N word, they died because the institutions that would have been in place to fight them overstepping their own bounds were allowed to be corrupted.