Fuck Facebook with a leftist strap-on
BobbyEdwards said:
David, I think that the days of "free" ANYTHING are near an end. :-(
Genuinely curious why anyone sees this as a bad thing?
Where is your line? Should the nastiest kind of predatory baby rapist be free to stand on a street corner and extol the virtues of his lifestyle? Is that free enough speech for you?
David, I think that the days of "free" ANYTHING are near an end. :-(
Genuinely curious why anyone sees this as a bad thing?
Where is your line? Should the nastiest kind of predatory baby rapist be free to stand on a street corner and extol the virtues of his lifestyle? Is that free enough speech for you?
Question: what do you mean when you talk about free speech? Do you mean all people’s voices have a right to be heard, which means sometimes established cultural or political systems such as a racist government must have elements silenced to allow the voices of the powerless to come forward. Or, do you mean “I should be able to say whatever I want, wherever I want, regardless of the affect on the listener”?
Is it possible that having one type then excludes the other? Which of the two do you see as being more valuable to society?
Is it possible that having one type then excludes the other? Which of the two do you see as being more valuable to society?
the constriction of speech and expression drive predators and evil doers underground and hidden. Hidden speech still goes on but you just don't see it. I want my monsters to be seen and identifiable, out in the open.
hidden hate speech will easily bite you in the ass. Technology provides a connection to unfettered free speech right now via the tor browser but the provider is anonymous - so the debate is a bit of a moot point
hidden hate speech will easily bite you in the ass. Technology provides a connection to unfettered free speech right now via the tor browser but the provider is anonymous - so the debate is a bit of a moot point
David_Macleod said:the constriction of speech and expression drive predators and evil doers underground and hidden. Hidden speech still goes on but you just don't see it. I want my monsters to be seen and identifiable, out in the open.
hidden hate speech will easily bite you in the ass. Technology provides a connection to unfettered free speech right now via the tor browser but the provider is anonymous - so the debate is a bit of a moot point
The technology question: A person may have rights to free speech (ignoring definitions for a moment), but does a corporation? Technology platforms are able to sell, steer and manage influence of public opinion, by holding monopolies over publishing platforms. What Facebook is trying to do is say that they have a right to do this as being their “free speech”.
If I own the bulk of social media outlets, and sell influence and what people can or can’t see on those platforms behind close doors, am I entitled to expect no public discussion and potentially legislative control? Is this free speech? What responsibilities do I have as the owner and controller of the algorithms that control what each person does and does not see?
Is Putin’s Russia then a good example of free speech, since his “free speech” is government policy through state owned media. Should people be able to challenge this, or is this fair on society? Should government be able to challenge his use of media to control populations?
hidden hate speech will easily bite you in the ass. Technology provides a connection to unfettered free speech right now via the tor browser but the provider is anonymous - so the debate is a bit of a moot point
The technology question: A person may have rights to free speech (ignoring definitions for a moment), but does a corporation? Technology platforms are able to sell, steer and manage influence of public opinion, by holding monopolies over publishing platforms. What Facebook is trying to do is say that they have a right to do this as being their “free speech”.
If I own the bulk of social media outlets, and sell influence and what people can or can’t see on those platforms behind close doors, am I entitled to expect no public discussion and potentially legislative control? Is this free speech? What responsibilities do I have as the owner and controller of the algorithms that control what each person does and does not see?
Is Putin’s Russia then a good example of free speech, since his “free speech” is government policy through state owned media. Should people be able to challenge this, or is this fair on society? Should government be able to challenge his use of media to control populations?
Anonymous
hemihead said:
The technology question: A person may have rights to free speech (ignoring definitions for a moment), but does a corporation? Technology platforms are able to sell, steer and manage influence of public opinion, by holding monopolies over publishing platforms. What Facebook is trying to do is say that they have a right to do this as being their “free speech”.
If I own the bulk of social media outlets, and sell influence and what people can or can’t see on those platforms behind close doors, am I entitled to expect no public discussion and potentially legislative control? Is this free speech? What responsibilities do I have as the owner and controller of the algorithms that control what each person does and does not see?
Is Putin’s Russia then a good example of free speech, since his “free speech” is government policy through state owned media. Should people be able to challenge this, or is this fair on society? Should government be able to challenge his use of media to control populations?
This poses the debate between platform and publisher I believe
The technology question: A person may have rights to free speech (ignoring definitions for a moment), but does a corporation? Technology platforms are able to sell, steer and manage influence of public opinion, by holding monopolies over publishing platforms. What Facebook is trying to do is say that they have a right to do this as being their “free speech”.
If I own the bulk of social media outlets, and sell influence and what people can or can’t see on those platforms behind close doors, am I entitled to expect no public discussion and potentially legislative control? Is this free speech? What responsibilities do I have as the owner and controller of the algorithms that control what each person does and does not see?
Is Putin’s Russia then a good example of free speech, since his “free speech” is government policy through state owned media. Should people be able to challenge this, or is this fair on society? Should government be able to challenge his use of media to control populations?
This poses the debate between platform and publisher I believe
runaway-mindtrain said:That is sad about Canada, man, but it was never codified into law. The U.S is the only country in the world that has free speech protections. Sadly, the alt-left is trying very hard to remove the first amendment here. I don't know of any right-wing groups calling for free speech censorship or whining about hate speech. Terroristic threats are illegal but you can hate "on" someone all you like. Just look at any current political march to see that in action.
how dya feel about the right calling for the restriction of free-reading? a former 4-star general calls this trump's 'mussolini moment'
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/this-is-mussolini-former-four-star-general-warns-of-trumps-watershed-moment-in-national-history/
On Friday, President Donald Trump ordered the entire federal government cancel subscriptions to The New York Times and The Washington Post.
Both newspapers have been honored with Pulitzer Prizes for their coverage of the Trump administration.
how dya feel about the right calling for the restriction of free-reading? a former 4-star general calls this trump's 'mussolini moment'
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/this-is-mussolini-former-four-star-general-warns-of-trumps-watershed-moment-in-national-history/
On Friday, President Donald Trump ordered the entire federal government cancel subscriptions to The New York Times and The Washington Post.
Both newspapers have been honored with Pulitzer Prizes for their coverage of the Trump administration.
And here we have a person in a position of power using their interpretation of free speech to limit free speech....who among you sees this as just, and would stand before your peers to defend it? In all of man’s ugly history has a good and fair ruler ever insisted on the destruction of alternate views or knowledge? To what kind of ruler does an action such as this usually fall?
