# Let's talk first amendment, and social media



## Deleted User (Jan 10, 2021)

Since this seems like Trump is going to try to spin the narrative (after his ban from twitter) that for some reason, somehow with twitter banning him being a violation of the first amendment. Which is stupid, and arguably is actually backwards with him trying to force these entities to allow his speech or (similar rhetoric) on it's platforms. The first amendment protects the people FROM the government. Aka companies, such as facebook and twitter, banning people or a certain group DOES NOT VIOLATE the first amendment, they are not a government entity.  I feel like it's important to state this before everything unfolding this week. If anything, trump trying to force his speech onto those platforms would be a violation of the first amendment.
It's like saying every newspaper in the country needs to have what he says...
which would be very authoritarian considering that thought


----------



## Shadow#1 (Jan 10, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Since this seems like Trump is going to try to spin the narrative (after his ban from twitter) that for some reason, somehow with twitter banning him being a violation of the first amendment. Which is stupid, and arguably is actually backwards with him trying to force these entities to allow his speech or (similar rhetoric) on it's platforms. The first amendment protects the people FROM the government. Aka companies, such as facebook and twitter, banning people or a certain group DOES NOT VIOLATE the first amendment, they are not a government entity.  I feel like it's important to state this before everything unfolding this week. If anything, trump trying to force his speech onto those platforms would be a violation of the first amendment.
> It's like saying every newspaper in the country needs to have what he says...
> which would be very authoritarian considering that thought


Right on u said it best and totally true


----------



## smf (Jan 10, 2021)

After living through brexit in the UK where as soon as you mention the NHS you automatically win any argument because people are dumb, as soon as you mention the first amendment then you win the argument because again people are dumb.

If Trump said that refusing to be tea bagged by him was a violation of the first amendment, then there are people who would line up.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jan 11, 2021)

Is Twitter a platform or a publisher?


----------



## Shadow#1 (Jan 11, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Is Twitter a platform or a publisher?


Platform


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jan 11, 2021)

Shadow#1 said:


> Platform


Then they don't get to ban people.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 11, 2021)

This is as much a first amendment issue as "no shirt, no shoes, no service" is.  In other words: it's not a first amendment issue at all.  Just more hypocrisy from conservatives who love it when businesses find a way to deny service to LGBTQ individuals, but hate when_ they're_ denied service for blatantly violating clearly-defined rules.


----------



## Shadow#1 (Jan 11, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Then they don't get to ban people.


It does not matter what they r they r a private Corporation


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jan 11, 2021)

Shadow#1 said:


> It does not matter what they r they r a private Corporation


They are a public forum.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> This is as much a first amendment issue as "no shirt, no shoes, no service" is.  In other words: it's not a first amendment issue at all.  Just more hypocrisy from conservatives who love it when businesses find a way to deny service to LGBTQ individuals, but hate when_ they're_ denied service for blatantly violating clearly-defined rules.


A gay cake was simply not something that the baker sells. That's like going to a book store and demanding they sell you a pair of shoes.


----------



## Shadow#1 (Jan 11, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> They are a public forum.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


A cake is a cake it does not matter what the end result is


----------



## Tigran (Jan 11, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> They are a public forum.



Sorry.. You are wrong. They are a private company, they could ban anyone for saying "Cake" if they wanted to.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jan 11, 2021)

Tigran said:


> Sorry.. You are wrong. They are a private company, they could ban anyone for saying "Cake" if they wanted to.


Either you can ban people but you can get sued (publisher), or you're immune to the law but you can't ban anyone (platform).


----------



## Shadow#1 (Jan 11, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Either you can ban people but you can get sued (publisher), or you're immune to the law but you can't ban anyone (platform).


U can't sue because they didn't silence your first amendment


----------



## djpannda (Jan 11, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Either you can ban people but you can get sued (publisher), or you're immune to the law but you can't ban anyone (platform).


or ...better yet.. don't  incite and plan a failed coup and you won't be banned!


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jan 11, 2021)

Shadow#1 said:


> U can't sue because they didn't silence your first amendment


If they can ban people, they are responsible for anything that's put up. If someone posts CP, Twitter is responsible. If someone gaslights someone else, Twitter is responsible. If they don't want to be subject to the law, they have to remove all rules.


----------



## Shadow#1 (Jan 11, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> If they can ban people, they are responsible for anything that's put up. If someone posts CP, Twitter is responsible. If someone gaslights someone else, Twitter is responsible. If they don't want to be subject to the law, they have to remove all rules.


U don't know what your talking about u got it reversed


----------



## djpannda (Jan 11, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> If they can ban people, they are responsible for anything that's put up. If someone posts CP, Twitter is responsible. If someone gaslights someone else, Twitter is responsible. If they don't want to be subject to the law, they have to remove all rules.


... no I think someone needs to learn how the law works... ( from a real lawyer)


----------



## Xzi (Jan 11, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> If they can ban people, they are responsible for anything that's put up. If someone posts CP, Twitter is responsible. If someone gaslights someone else, Twitter is responsible. If they don't want to be subject to the law, they have to remove all rules.


I don't know where the hell you pick up on this nonsense.  Section 230 removes liability from social media for what their users post.  That's all.  It doesn't prevent private companies from refusing service to people at their own discretion.  This would only be a first amendment issue if the US government owned Twitter.


----------



## Shadow#1 (Jan 11, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I don't know where the hell you pick up on this nonsense.  Section 230 removes liability from social media for what their users post.  That's all.  It doesn't prevent private companies from refusing service to people at their own discretion.


Fox news and all right wing media that's where


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jan 11, 2021)

Shadow#1 said:


> Fox news and all right wing media that's where


Fox is no longer right-wing.


Xzi said:


> I don't know where the hell you pick up on this nonsense.  Section 230 removes liability from social media for what their users post.  That's all.  It doesn't prevent private companies from refusing service to people at their own discretion.  This would only be a first amendment issue if the US government owned Twitter.


Section 230 is unconstitutional.

To anybody saying "build your own Twitter", did you see what happened to Parler?


----------



## Shadow#1 (Jan 11, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Fox is no longer right-wing.
> 
> Section 230 is unconstitutional.
> 
> To anybody saying "build your own Twitter", did you see what happened to Parler?



What happen to parler is the right thing as they don't want that unmoderated filth on their platform


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jan 11, 2021)

Shadow#1 said:


> What happen to parler is the right thing as they don't want that unmoderated filth on their platform


Where are you supposed to post right-wing opinions, then?


----------



## Xzi (Jan 11, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Section 230 is unconstitutional.


So take it up with the Supreme Court.  Until they rule otherwise, it is indeed constitutional.



UltraSUPRA said:


> To anybody saying "build your own Twitter", did you see what happened to Parler?


Yeah, Apple and Google removed it from their storefronts, which is their right.  It still exists though, regardless of the fact that it won't be gaining many new users.


----------



## Shadow#1 (Jan 11, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Where are you supposed to post right-wing opinions, then?


If your right wing opinions have threats and hate it does not belong no place


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jan 11, 2021)

Shadow#1 said:


> If your right wing opinions have threats and hate it does not belong no place


Thoughtcrime, basically.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 11, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Thoughtcrime, basically.


No, straight up crime crime.  Even the first amendment does not protect threats and incitement of riots.


----------



## Frankfort42 (Jan 11, 2021)

First off, there's no such thing as "hate speech". That's simply a label from people who don't like free speech.

Secondly, if you support private entities censoring speech then guess what! You guessed it! You won a "you don't support free speech" trophy.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jan 11, 2021)

Xzi said:


> No, straight up crime crime.  Even the first amendment does not protect threats and incitement of riots.


The government only has as much power as we let it get away with. The founding of this country was the product of a riot.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 11, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> The government only has as much power as we let it get away with.


And Republicans want the government to have absolute power and rule with an iron fist so as long as its their side in charge.  What's your point?  This discussion is focused on private businesses.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jan 11, 2021)

Xzi said:


> And Republicans want the government to have absolute power and rule with an iron fist so as long as its their side in charge.  What's your point?  This discussion is focused on private businesses.


Private businesses who are trying to purge society of opinions.


----------



## Shadow#1 (Jan 11, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Private businesses who are trying to purge society of opinions.


Of hate speech yes


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 11, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Fox is no longer right-wing.


lol  



UltraSUPRA said:


> Section 230 is unconstitutional.


As said before, the repeal would actually make them stricter with their banning. Unless that is what you want?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jan 11, 2021)

Shadow#1 said:


> Of hate speech yes


Hate speech or not, it's an opinion.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 11, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Hate speech or not, it's an opinion.


"We should've just debated the Nazis in the marketplace of ideas!"


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jan 11, 2021)

Xzi said:


> "We should've just debated the Nazis in the marketplace of ideas!"


Imagine comparing five murders to six million.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 11, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Imagine comparing five murders to six million.


I didn't make any comparison, I was just mocking your argument for being ridiculous.  When all your "opinions" are the same as those held by America's past enemies, it's time to do a bit of soul-searching.  If you end up deciding that you do hate democracy and truly want to live in a white ethnostate ruled over by a fascist strongman, moving to Russia is always an option.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 11, 2021)

Tigran said:


> Sorry.. You are wrong. They are a private company, they could ban anyone for saying "Cake" if they wanted to.



Well if you read the text of what you attached, the Federal Court that decided Knight v. Trump actually determined that President Donald Trump's account, by virtue of him being the POTUS, _is_ a public forum. And so Trump could not block people from posting on his account. The Court did not answer the flipside of that, i.e. whether Twitter can ban the President (or other government office holders). Your text snippet, wherever it comes from, doesn't answer it either.

This question of when a privately-owned space becomes so public that the 1st amendment does apply is not as simple as the OP believes. As for SCOTUS opinions, the debate started with Marsh v. Alabama, then Cyber Promotions v. AOL, then Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, and Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck. Every time the Supreme Court steps into this issue, it seems they come out with a new conclusion or exception, due to the quickly changing landscape of public communication online. Progressives have been arguing for some time, for example, that internet access is a right, a necessity, and should be treated as a public utility. If that is true, then it's not a big jump from there to concluding that a social media hub like Twitter or Facebook does operate as "a public forum" even if it is privately provided. 

Just saying, it's not really a legal slam dunk. Could go either way. But what Courts decide and what ought to be are two different things. My personal opinion is Twitter can allow, or disallow, as they see fit. It's their private space, everyone who makes an account knows that going in.


----------



## Shadow#1 (Jan 11, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Section 230 is unconstitutional.



U don't want 230 removed the right thinks removing it u can spew your hate speech all u want and that's not what's going to happen what will happen is Well there goes all mews papers because of no opinion articles and no social media and no more and other media in existances today


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jan 11, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I didn't make any comparison, I was just mocking your argument for being ridiculous.  When all your "opinions" are the same as those held by America's past enemies, it's time to do a bit of soul-searching.  If you end up deciding that you do hate democracy and truly want to live in a white ethnostate ruled over by a fascist strongman, moving to Russia is always an option.


"America's enemies were free-market capitalists that wanted diversity of thought."


----------



## Frankfort42 (Jan 11, 2021)

Shadow#1 said:


> U don't want 230 removed the right thinks removing it u can spew your hate speech all u want and that's not what's going to happen what will happen is Well there goes all mews papers because of no opinion articles and no social media and no more and other media in existances today



You do realize that this “hate speech” you keep referring to is simply anything that Conservatives say that the Liberals don’t like, right?


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 11, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Fox is no longer right-wing.


BAH

That's a stupid claim


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 11, 2021)

Frankfort42 said:


> You do realize that this “hate speech” you keep referring to is simply anything that Conservatives say that the Liberals don’t like, right?


Or is it because it's actually hate speech?
I mean it's convenient that, most prominent hate groups are in the right. Doesn't mean all in the right are a hate group as a whole. But that's a very convenient excuse for them. But even then it doesn't matter .Twitter can go ban whoever they choose. They aren't a government entity


----------



## omgcat (Jan 11, 2021)

Frankfort42 said:


> First off, there's no such thing as "hate speech". That's simply a label from people who don't like free speech.
> 
> Secondly, if you support private entities censoring speech then guess what! You guessed it! You won a "you don't support free speech" trophy.




First Amendment prohibits the government from targeting the content of speech unless it falls within an unprotected category such as incitement to violence, true threats, fighting words, and obscenity. In the 1969 case of _Brandenburg v. Ohio_, the Court reversed the conviction of a member of the Ku Klux Klan because his speech was not directed to inciting imminent lawless action. However, in the 2003 case, _Virginia v. Black_, the Court ruled that cross burning can be punishable if the state can prove an intent to intimidate; such acts would constitute “true threats” unprotected by the First Amendment.

the first amendment only covers government action, not private corporations. twitter, Facebook, google+(now dead), YouTube, etc,  need to police the content on their platform due to section 230. if you rule section 230 unconstitutional, your strip the protections that parlor would have and the service would get shut down anyways.

AWS (amazon web services) have given parlor multiple warnings since november to clean up their fucking platform or get deleted. parlor didn't.

the examples amazon used to come to their conclusion are these and 95+ others:


















when you guys say censoring this filth is bad, you promote that filth.


----------



## Frankfort42 (Jan 11, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Or is it because it's actually hate speech?
> I mean it's convenient that, most prominent hate groups are in the right. Doesn't mean all in the right are a hate group as a whole. But that's a very convenient excuse for them. But even then it doesn't matter .Twitter can go ban whoever they choose. They aren't a government entity



There's no such thing as hate speech. There's only an ever growing list of things that Conservatives say that the Liberals  don't like. You also don't support free speech because you started a thread based on justifying limiting speech.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 11, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> "America's enemies were free-market capitalists that wanted diversity of thought."


Well it's true that if left unchecked, capitalism will lead to fascism.  I wouldn't say the nazis or confederates were known for their diversity of thought though, and neither are Trump supporters.  You just believe whatever he tells you without question.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 11, 2021)

Frankfort42 said:


> There's no such thing as hate speech. There's only an ever growing list of things that Conservatives say that the Liberals don't like. You also don't support free speech because you started a thread based on justifying limiting speech.


Did I really justify it? Or did I point out that the facts say you can't use the first amendment as a argument against platforms banning people. Since it's not a government entity
I'm just stating a simple fact that is often seemingly forgotten.
Also yes there is such a thing called hate speech. Then again, given the fact the right-wing is very compatible with with a lot of anti (group of people here) rhetoric. I guess you really wouldn't pick up on it and consider it the norm

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraSUPRA said:


> Either you can ban people but you can get sued (publisher), or you're immune to the law but you can't ban anyone (platform).


Hey...
Did you read the term of service?
Cough cough, this is how they can ban you. You agreed to it when you make an account. Chances are, if your getting banned, it's somewhere validated in the ToS.


----------



## notimp (Jan 11, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Since this seems like Trump is going to try to spin the narrative (after his ban from twitter) that for some reason, somehow with twitter banning him being a violation of the first amendment. Which is stupid, and arguably is actually backwards with him trying to force these entities to allow his speech or (similar rhetoric) on it's platforms. The first amendment protects the people FROM the government. Aka companies, such as facebook and twitter, banning people or a certain group DOES NOT VIOLATE the first amendment, they are not a government entity. I feel like it's important to state this before everything unfolding this week.


Do you consume your propaganda intravenously by now - or is there still a thinking person behind this?

The big social media companies ideologically still want to work under 'free harbor rules' - meaning, they want to be 'a carrier' and nothing else.

This PRETEXT allowed them FIRST AND FOREMOST, to scale into their current size. THEY gave everyone their 'bubble', because it made everyone more confindent in the opinion they copied from a marketing agency - including you and as a result they stayed longer in those spaces - which was sold to advertisers.

This was 'optimum'.

This scaled to the point, where people replaced news media consumption, TV consumption - scratch it - ALL media consumption, with what they were fed by small, niche networks told them was "great" (as surfaced by algorithms, that feed me right wing propaganda on a constant bases, because I watch gaming videos on youtube. They dont effing care. Other people liked it! Watch Gorden Peterson all day! Learn about heterodox economic theory! Gigi Hadid Calls Out YouTuber Jake Paul, because its trendy!).

If social media, right now feels the need to ACTIVELY interject into politics, and ACTIVELY take actions to stear an entire pre election discussion a certain way, and to suppress Evertrumpers - then this is NOT a thing, thats 'just ok, and just within their terms of conditions, and nothing else.

IT IS AGAINST THEIR PROPOSED SOCIAL CONTRACT.

They are becoming the fourth power in a state, that showed f*cking jack sh*t interest to curb them, make them impartial, guarantee competitiveness, support non commercially driven vectors, and so on.

And now we have a problem. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and so on are ENTIRELY unfit to create a balanced political sphere - heck, they dont even know what a public discussion looks like, because its bad for adviews.

And if they start forming the major narratives, then help us god.


On some level, what they are doing now, is probably reacting to national security requests. And once this is over - we have to have a SERIOUS DISCUSSION, about how the HECK they think to drive societies in the future.

Because all of this - is very much their fault.

And you - personally, start listening to Greenwald, before becoming a corporate appologist first and foremost. Please.

This is the problem:


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Jan 11, 2021)

Frankfort42 said:


> There's no such thing as hate speech. There's only an ever growing list of things that Conservatives say that the Liberals  don't like. You also don't support free speech because you started a thread based on justifying limiting speech.


Saying "I hate (black/gay/trans/white/hispanic etc.) people" is hate speech. Saying these things aren't illegal, but since racism/homophobia is against Twitter/YouTube/Facebook's rules, you are warranted for a ban.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 11, 2021)

notimp said:


> This scaled to the point, where people replaced news media consumption, TV consumption - scratch it - ALL media consumption, with what they were fed by small, niche networks told them was "great".


Okay...
So how does this defeat the fact that the first amendment is not a defense from getting banned from a platform?
It's great that your asking about media literacy, aka asking questions about the information your consuming and being aware of bubbles.
But, it doesn't change what is written.
Also I'm pretty damn sure this is been a thing for a long while. Newspapers can carry their own bias even before giant cooperation overlords we have now. However while bias exist, it doesn't mean it's impossible to either figure out what is opinion from facts. Because facts and opinions are different. Course then that comes to paying attention to see if statistics have been tampered with or selective evidence. Or, in the case of a lot of more extreme media outlets, incorrect/false information.


----------



## notimp (Jan 11, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> So how does this defeat the fact that the first amendment is not a defense from getting banned from a platform?


Doesnt. In the small/small you are correct. Bigger picture - this is worrying as heck. Want to let Trump drive this debate while everyone else just plays 'everything is normal now' society? I think thats a bad move.

Just have some sensitivity for that, thats all I'm ranting for..


----------



## Lumstar (Jan 11, 2021)

Frankfort42 said:


> There's no such thing as hate speech. There's only an ever growing list of things that Conservatives say that the Liberals  don't like. You also don't support free speech because you started a thread based on justifying limiting speech.



Technologically, free speech cannot exist on the internet. Without the "bare minimum" of measures to stop bots, automated messages will flood the place.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 11, 2021)

notimp said:


> Want to let Trump drive this debate while everyone else just plays 'everything is normal now' society? I think thats a bad move.


Oh so... you think I'm saying it because it is the president?
It is not because it is the president. I don't dislike him for the sake of disliking him.
No one told me to dislike him.
His actions had royally pissed me off however. In other words, I don't like him not because he is, but because for what he has done.
Stripping LGBTQ rights. Bruteforcing in justice into the supreme court when that same party said they will let elections decide. His handling of the pandemic. The fact he tried bribing Ukraine. Or the fact he tried getting a favor Georgia's officials.
And many many more.
Now in regards to corporate giant overlords. If it wasn't a capitalist society, money above all else. This wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem. In a socialist society or communist one. Even playing field, from start to finish. No buying up competition. Which also means inevitability to feel like your work is worth, you would actually have to report on what is true. or else another person could do the exact same thing and contest. Capitalism fails at the level playing field. Just need more money to advertise, and you already won most of the battle.


----------



## notimp (Jan 11, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Oh so... you think I'm saying it because it is the president?
> It is not because it is the president. I don't dislike him for the sake of disliking him.
> No one told me to dislike him.
> His actions had royally pissed me off however. In other words, I don't like him not because he is, but because for what he has done.
> ...


No I dont think that. I'm not second guessing your motivation.

I read 'social media companies have every right, because they are private entities, and' and flipped the table.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 11, 2021)

notimp said:


> I read 'social media companies have every right, because they are private entities, and' and flipped the table.


Which with how the laws are currently written, and the current setup. That's exactly true. Since they are still private entities. And as such don't fit in the government clause.



And honestly I don't see any easy way to safely thread the needle. To make it work. If you have any mandate through the government. Well... That would be extremely terrifying. As that would be a step to fascism. Don't do anything about the fact companies are influencing politics massively. You get an oligarchy. The only real solution, I can see, is throw out capitalism. get rid of the incentive, since really, cash is the goal of the game here.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Facebook and the rest want money, plain and simple. You remove money, you remove the problem. 
Of course, it's not really that simple. Since getting a whole society to change in the economic spectrum while possible... can't just be forced. Authoritarians are disgusting. And considering that you have about 19million people in the top 1%
they would certainly have a stake in keeping status quo. Really it would have to start with the people. Such as people deciding to no longer abide by capitalism. But instead ignoring as much of the system in it's entirety. Building community support networks, essentially parable of stone soup.
One can't provide for just themselves alone, a group of people can feed everyone in that group. Reaching the point that there is no longer a reliance on that system.


----------



## Frankfort42 (Jan 11, 2021)

Big Man Tyrone2 said:


> Saying "I hate (black/gay/trans/white/hispanic etc.) people" is hate speech. Saying these things aren't illegal, but since racism/homophobia is against Twitter/YouTube/Facebook's rules, you are warranted for a ban.



Saying those things isn't "hate speech". I'll repeat myself one last time. "Hate Speech" is an ever growing list of words and phrases that Liberals don't like to hear. There's no possible way to gauge how much hatred, if any, is motivating what people write. Labeling things "hate speech" is just a convenient way to alert others to not read something and have the content removed and all because you simply don't like what the person said. It's simply thought control and I just ignore the unfortunate souls who fall into yet another Liberal lie.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 11, 2021)

Frankfort42 said:


> Saying those things isn't "hate speech". I'll repeat myself one last time. "Hate Speech" is an ever growing list of words and phrases that Liberals don't like to hear.


You can repeat it a million times, it still won't make it true.  What is and isn't hate speech is clearly defined within the law.


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Jan 11, 2021)

Frankfort42 said:


> Saying those things isn't "hate speech". I'll repeat myself one last time. "Hate Speech" is an ever growing list of words and phrases that Liberals don't like to hear.



I'm pretty sure that decent human beings do not prefer to hear racist/homophobic/xenophobic slurs (or any kind of hateful comment really). Unfortunately, I'm not too sure about you.  



Frankfort42 said:


> There's no possible way to gauge how much hatred, if any, is motivating what people write.



What? It's safe to assume that people repeatedly saying hateful comments (whether they be online or in real life) are genuine in their hatred.



Frankfort42 said:


> Labeling things "hate speech" is just a convenient way to alert others to not read something and have the content removed and all because you simply don't like what the person said.



Again, I'd rather not give racists/homophobes/xenophobes a mainstream platform. I'm sure that there's a platform for comments like these (such as Parler, Voat (before it died), etc.), but it's against Twitter/Facebook/YouTube rules to post comments like these. Free Speech laws do not extend to private companies. You won't be arrested for spouting hateful comments on the middle of the street though, as you are within a public setting. There are social consequences, however. 

If a person was on my front lawn spouting hateful comments, however, I would have a right to ask them to get off of my property, as that would be in a private setting. I wouldn't be violating their First Amendment rights, and that wouldn't be censorship.


----------



## Jayro (Jan 11, 2021)

He has a teleconference room with a podium at his disposal, at any time. He is not being oppressed, he's trying to play a victim.


----------



## notimp (Jan 11, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Which with how the laws are currently written, and the current setup. That's exactly true. Since they are still private entities. And as such don't fit in the government clause.


I know. But they are also the most important determinants of public opinion, and so far have shed all responsibility that comes with that - by pointing at a self commitment to non interference.

As thats fallen, their role has changed. So now you have actors in the field of public opinion, that interfere in the political process - and do that without transparency (why their 'rules' werent enacted on the POTUS before, but now are), are acting almost in tandem - without rivals (coordination), and with impunity. Reaching more people than any medium ever before.

Thats problematic from a democracy perspective.


----------



## Jayro (Jan 11, 2021)

All of this hardly matters though. Come Monday morning, Mike Pence will have 24 hours to invoke the 25th amendment by Tuesday to have Trump removed, or the impeachment process will start on Wednesday. Basically, "Flush the turd, or we'll plunge it down for you." Either way, America wins.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jan 11, 2021)

Jayro said:


> All of this hardly matters though. Come Monday morning, Mike Pence will have 24 hours to invoke the 25th amendment by Tuesday to have Trump removed, or the impeachment process will start on Wednesday. Basically, "Flush the turd, or we'll plunge it down for you." Either way, America wins.


"America wins", you say as rampant voter fraud had spread around the country and a pedophile is preparing to enter the White House as the country burns down, fiddle in hand.


----------



## Jayro (Jan 11, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> "America wins", you say as rampant voter fraud had spread around the country and a pedophile is preparing to enter the White House as the country burns down, fiddle in hand.


There is zero evidence presented that "mass voter fraud" took place. Your candidate lost. Grow up and take the L with dignity. Us normal people (dems, along with the rest of the world) have been watching Trump destroy America for the last 4 years. We can finally heal and indict him with his criminal charges.


----------



## notimp (Jan 11, 2021)

EFF's Response to Social Media Companies' Decisions to Block President Trump’s Accounts


> The decisions by Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and others to suspend and/or block President Trump’s communications via their platforms is a simple exercise of their rights, under the First Amendment and Section 230, to curate their sites. We support those rights. Nevertheless, we are always concerned when platforms take on the role of censors, which is why we continue to call on them to apply a human rights framework to those decisions. We also note that those same platforms have chosen, for years, to privilege some speakers—particularly governmental officials—over others, not just in the U.S., but in other countries as well. A platform should not apply one set of rules to most of its users, and then apply a more permissive set of rules to politicians and world leaders who are already immensely powerful. Instead, they should be precisely as judicious about removing the content of ordinary users as they have been to date regarding heads of state. Going forward, we call once again on the platforms to be more transparent and consistent in how they apply their rules—and we call on policymakers to find ways to foster competition so that users have numerous editorial options and policies from which to choose.


src: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/...nies-decision-block-president-trumps-accounts

As all of silicon valley has now banned Trump related campaigning -

Updated 10 hours ago - Technology All the platforms that have banned or restricted Trump so far
https://www.axios.com/platforms-soc...ump-d9e44f3c-8366-4ba9-a8a1-7f3114f920f1.html

Country Star Wives are producing 'pro resistance' videos citing conspiracy theories, not understanding the world anymore:
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/brittany-aldean-conspiracy-theories-1111370/

While silicon valley CEOs call for more than deplatforming:
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-deplatforming/

Why? Partly to whitewash their own actions as of now:


> *We need more than deplatforming*
> Mitchell Baker January 8, 2021
> 
> 
> ...


src: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-deplatforming/

But at least its an invitation to an open discourse and transparency.

How social media can identify "factual voices", and how 'academic research' will help to identify algorithmical solutions - is entirely unknown, but as of yesterday - this - has become our democracy.

While politicians were entirely passive on the issue for years, championing social medias capability to get them more followers.


----------



## linuxares (Jan 11, 2021)

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



If the US put up their own platform, no one are allowed to be silenced. But since Twitter isn't the US platform, the Corporation behind Twitter can do whatever they want. Heck they can ban others from speaking about competitors to it. 

It's not so hard to understand.
Twitter =/= Public


----------



## notimp (Jan 11, 2021)

linuxares said:


> If the US put up their own platform, no one are allowed to be silenced. But since Twitter isn't the US platform, the Corporation behind Twitter can do whatever they want. Heck they can ban others from speaking about competitors to it.
> 
> It's not so hard to understand.
> Twitter =/= Public


At the same time, those platforms are entirely fulfilling public roles, like informing the public or interpersonal communication, or giving the appearance of being public forums.

If you've become the defacto way how people filter reality these days - the "we just company" defense is out.

Go transparent on your decision structures - or be broken up. Those are your options at this point.

And you - dont know nothing. So easy on promoting your opinion as valuable in this debate. Which is "hail to legally, we are not responsible". No, but societally you are.


----------



## linuxares (Jan 11, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> "America wins", you say as rampant voter fraud had spread around the country and a pedophile is preparing to enter the White House as the country burns down, fiddle in hand.


What voter fraud? The one that happened in 2016 with Russia?
There need to be an investigation for sure, but so far. Every "voter fraud" has been debunked.

You don't think Trump might be a kiddie diddler then? He did personally know Epstein after all?

The man that now enters office worked with Obama. He probably going to follow in those footsteps. After all, Obama did bring the US out of a great depression kind of unscaved compared to a lot of other places.


----------



## linuxares (Jan 11, 2021)

notimp said:


> At the same time, those platforms are entirely fulfilling public roles, like informing the public or interpersonal communication.
> 
> If you've become the defacto way how people filter reality these days - the "we just company" defense is out.
> 
> ...


Sure, but the laws of the US is what they all play by right?
Twitter is still a company, they have their rights. The users got theirs. I do however agree that transparent structures are better imho. But this is not the reality we live in.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Jan 11, 2021)

fuck all social media i don't use any of it. all my family does is fight with each other on it keep me out of it.


----------



## linuxares (Jan 11, 2021)

Bladexdsl said:


> fuck all social media i don't use any of it. all my family does is fight with each other on it keep me out of it.


You know that GBAtemp fits in the roles of social media? Forums have been social media before the word was invented


----------



## notimp (Jan 11, 2021)

linuxares said:


> Sure, but the laws of the US is what they all play by right?
> Twitter is still a company, they have their rights. The users got theirs. I do however agree that transparent structures are better imho. But this is not the reality we live in.


gbatemp moderators for impunity on public censorship - without the public knowing the ruleset.

(Using the argument, that doesnt matter - legally they can still act as private entities. Horray.)

The powertrip hasnt reached their brains yet. We'll check again in a few hours.


----------



## Tigran (Jan 11, 2021)

Here is the thing... If any of us were given full "Freedom of speech" so to speak, you would be crying about how mean we are being to you.


----------



## FGFlann (Jan 11, 2021)

From its first post this thread is appallingly dishonest. If you need a law to prevent you from stifling the speech of others, then you are likely a person without principles. That's why the government requires the first amendment to keep it in check no matter who is running it, and that is why twitter should require similar safeguards to prevent it from abusing its power over the social domain. All this politically motivated sneering and corporate dick sucking against the principle of freedom of expression, one of our fundamental human rights, is disgusting and you should all be ashamed of yourselves.


----------



## p1ngpong (Jan 11, 2021)

notimp said:


> gbatemp moderators for impunity on public censorship - without the public knowing the ruleset.
> 
> (Using the argument, that doesnt matter - legally they can still act as private entities. Horray.)
> 
> The powertrip hasnt reached their brains yet. We'll check again in a few hours.


I beg you dont cry


----------



## Tigran (Jan 11, 2021)

So, you are saying the Mods and Admins here have no right to put rules in place?

That's LITERALY what you are saying.


----------



## notimp (Jan 11, 2021)

Also, lets be very clear here - Trump probably (the thing is, no one knows why) was banned from Twitter NOT for inciting violence, but for propagating election fraud lies.

So by what standard of public opinion are we now banning public reach?

Because, then ban the state department account after Collin Powell lied in front of the UN, or the White House twitter, after pretty much any declaration of war in recent years.

So who is the arbitor of truth in this instance - and if you go with 'the private company that owns public communication, and their business friends' - be consequent, and end democracy now.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



p1ngpong said:


> I beg you dont cry


I beg you to understand, that I'm not a Trump fan, I'm left leaning, I'm european - and you are trying to mobilize a mob against me for holding the EFFs position.

Again - I'll check in two hours from now, once your brain started working. And you stopped trying to send a mob of self proclaimed white knights after me.

While arguably destroying the basis for democracy - in an evening, because - under current lights, everyone sees it as rectified to engage private company rights, against the sphere of public opinion.

Lets close the agora then - the person who owns it called.


----------



## linuxares (Jan 11, 2021)

notimp said:


> Again - I'll check in two hours from now, once your brain started working. And you stopped trying to send a mob of self proclaimed white knights after me.
> 
> While arguably destroying the basis for democracy - in an evening, because - under current lights, everyone sees it as rectified to engage private company rights, against the sphere of public opinion.
> 
> Lets close the agora then - the person who owns it called.


You really swallowed the bait, hook and sinker...


----------



## Tigran (Jan 11, 2021)

I guess some of these people here think I should have full rights to call them child molesters and speak lies about them where ever I want. After all, doing anything less would "infringe on my freedom of speech."


----------



## notimp (Jan 11, 2021)

linuxares said:


> You really swallowed the bait, hook and sinker...


Who defines the bait.

The bait is in the setup.

Currently everyone has to declare - that he/she is so for the shunning, and deplattforming, because - look what happend, but hey are also for civil rights.

I'm fine with that.

I'm not fine with your position, that the companies who caused the issue, should now be able to play arbitors of public opinion, based on a nonpublic ruleset - acting from a point of impunity, censoring public opinion based on, and this is important -

the "real" risk, of someone inciting violence in the future.

If you are unable to differentiate those points, and instead want to accuse me to be 'with the terrorists', while at the same time arguing for how democracy should be upended by a private interpretation of 'we dont want you on our platform' - in the case of a top level political debate in your country - then I argue, that you swallowed the bait, hookline and sinker.

There has to be space for voices that point out - that by 'defending' democracy in this way, you are destroying democracy as well.


----------



## FGFlann (Jan 11, 2021)

Tigran said:


> I guess some of these people here think I should have full rights to call them child molesters and speak lies about them where ever I want. After all, doing anything less would "infringe on my freedom of speech."


You do have that right, you know. People exercise it every day to call each other the worst things you can imagine. The only thing you need be aware of is that there are legal avenues open to your targets for the most egregious lies.


----------



## p1ngpong (Jan 11, 2021)

notimp said:


> Who defines the bait.
> 
> The bait is in the setup.
> 
> ...


>Claims he has not eaten the bait.

>Proceeds to gobble up even more bait.


----------



## Tigran (Jan 11, 2021)

FGFlann said:


> You do have that right, you know. People exercise it every day to call each other the worst things you can imagine. The only thing you need be aware of is that there are legal avenues open to your targets for the most egregious lies.



Actually.. If you honestly think I do that right. I'm done with you. You obviously don't know the law and dumb as fuck... So yeah.


----------



## FGFlann (Jan 11, 2021)

Tigran said:


> Actually.. If you honestly think I do that right. I'm done with you. You obviously don't know the law and dumb as fuck... So yeah.


Damn...


----------



## notimp (Jan 11, 2021)

p1ngpong said:


> >Claims he has not eaten the bait.
> 
> >Proceeds to gobble up even more bait.


So I guess I dont give you two hours to think straight anymore.

Who defines the bait?

Because I'm definitely over, acting as if 'burning out the bad stuff' is the way to save a free society, whenever free speech, separation of power, or criticism of public censorship under a ruleset that is public and not transparent, is temporarily not convenient.

The reaction here is as harsh as it is, because companies want to detract from the fact, that they themselves moved society into this place, where you have no win/win outcome anymore.

So something has to give, and in this case its civil rights.

But what I'm not ok with, is people simply rectifying this, with resorting to the legal right of private companies, to 'do what they want' to speech on their platforms, based on terms of conditions, that were never meant to 'solve' a political or civic crisis.


And if you make them the toolsets to solve a political crisis, then dont hide from the consequences.

Standing shoulder to shoulder against extremism, is correct in this situation - but if that pattern repeats unreflected, dont even claim, that you have free political speech as part of your political system anymore.

Especially not, when CEOs now argue for preemptive actions taken, so their companies dont have to employ those restrictions, post facto, which puts them in the limelight. (Because that is all those actions are aiming for, delegation of responsibility to another 'centralized entity' not separation of power, limits to reach, enabling of counterspeech. No, deplatforming, silencing, finding opinions to promote 'truth' as defined by an elevated committee, .. And that as the heart of the democratic process.)

So yeah, lets get all back in line and promote, that censorship based on a private interpretation of a risk of further escalation is the wave of the future of democracy now.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 11, 2021)

Have not gone through the whole thread yet.

Yes the first amendment is for government actors as that is arguably the limit of the power, justifiably one at that (government overreach is a thing I would oppose).

The underlying principle of free speech however is a philosophical one, one that existed before the US was a thing (it is not like the people after they realised they hosed it up with the constitution and needed a quick change invented it themselves) and exists elsewhere. It is one that various social meeja companies have claimed to support and be expressions of at various points in time, though whether they now conform to it is a different matter entirely.
One can then judge someone by those standards. Just as it is not illegal to cheat on your partner (in most cases anyway -- military stuff where they are worried about blackmail material being a thing so they make it illegal is dubious but hey) but many would view you as an arsehole for doing it.

This is an important distinction and one often forgotten and overlooked or even unknown.

I happen to think freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, and the informally understood US model is not bad. This is to say libel/slander (as a general principle, public vs private figure stuff might be open for some debate) and direct incitement* or obvious incitement (leader at a speech) are the main exceptions. The pornography/obscenity stuff I am not going to sign off on as is. Equally they have not had the best history (we are only just over 100 years since some of the anti world war 1 stuff got someone locked up https://depts.washington.edu/antiwar/WW1_reds.shtml ) but I can go with ideals.
So not an absolutist but strong free speech is the way forward and that is a hill I am quite prepared to die on -- I can understand those willing to run silent, run deep (good luck there those going for it, enjoy the bonfires), however at this point I figure I am fucked either way.
I would say hate speech is free speech -- as a general principle the someone, somewhere is going to be offended (if it is "damaging" then maybe you need to go back into shelter and try this real world thing after you get over that) by something and frankly the option to always do it makes sense. Might well make you an arsehole. Does not mean the government can fine or imprison you (government sanctioned bodies like professional institutions is a different discussion, and sports bodies is another one again. Such things do not endear such bodies to me though, even if pragmatically "payment now means greater gains in the long run" is a thing you opt for). If someone does not want to be your friend, do a deal, sleep with you or employ you because of that then they might be losing out but actions and consequences and all that.
On gay cakes that would fall under compelled speech which is a parallel and inherent part of things here. Now I would say grow the fuck up and you no more care about karen and karen marrying than you do if John "the boy" Doe genuinely has a happy 50th birthday/retirement or had a fatal car crash on the way there. Never the less I can say compelling things is bad. This would extend to pronouns as well.
Would not have arrested that person that refused marriage certs either, scope to fire them on the spot without any severance (unless they managed to sneak that into contract) though -- refusal to do your job is scope for dismissal in most places.

*in another thread I saw someone say that el presidente supporting one Mr Rittenhouse (then categorised as a supporter even if that was anything but in the background of the situation or the time since) served as a traitorous (or akin to it) act. This would I would disagree with even if I did not see the situation as a self defence one in an unrelated matter, and as I do that is patently absurd.

As part of this I will also note that offensive today may well be someone's rights tomorrow. Or are we done as a general concept? All good, bit of cleanup but no more big works need doing.

I am not sure I agree with the "el presidente can't block people" but if it is being used as an official communique service/sole distribution point then I can see the reasoning for that at least.

Section 230 aka how do you run a website with comments or offer hosting/bandwidth services if any comment or content from your users (that you have no control over) could get you sued into oblivion is something of a necessary thing.
The various companies dancing between "I am merely a host service" vs "fuck you that is what you can't say, begone" as it befits their bizarre whims really does rankle. Not as much as banks saying begone troublesome peasant, with domain registrars not so far behind. 
As presumably that would not allow you to get rid of spam then there appears to be scope for limitations/exceptions to that.
I am not sure I buy the "new public square" even if it is arguably de facto that. If you do play to that you almost enshrine a monopoly.
Hopefully it is all rendered moot by a nice p2p and/or federated setup, would be amusing that it is basically a reinvented usenet after all this time.

That said I don't agree at all with Facebook's, youtube's and Twitter's standards here. Sorely wanting and overbearing being how I categorise them. Similarly if I were to pick someone to set standards for me on what I should and should not be allowed to see... the US tech sector is not the last place (give or take them being thralls to it then China would be a worse choice) but very very very low down on the list.

Google and Apple yanking things from their various shops... not a good look but whether I would make it illegal I don't know. It is another reason I like platforms I can control myself -- I am a big boy, don't need daddy google and apple, and were I inclined to have kids then I can sort those too. I don't however know that I would feel anything for andrios or otherwise object if they were told to allow full root access to devices people own else get lost -- my device, my rules.
Hopefully at least this spurs the end of "apps" and instead websites can be a thing again (with the remote control games via web browser thing I think we might be back at web tech being enough). In an ideal world a better competitor would arise though and blow them both away -- a nice open device I (or the local fixing guy) can replace the battery and screen on, maybe has some schematics with chips available, maybe even scope for an upgrade if someone wants to sell me a better camera module or whatever, that has SD slots and HDMI out... what a horrible world that would be.
Now if they take it upon themselves after that to block websites we have the stage set for a proper fight.


----------



## leon315 (Jan 11, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Since this seems like Trump is going to try to spin the narrative (after his ban from twitter) that for some reason, somehow with twitter banning him being a violation of the first amendment. Which is stupid, and arguably is actually backwards with him trying to force these entities to allow his speech or (similar rhetoric) on it's platforms. The first amendment protects the people FROM the government. Aka companies, such as facebook and twitter, banning people or a certain group DOES NOT VIOLATE the first amendment, they are not a government entity.  I feel like it's important to state this before everything unfolding this week. If anything, trump trying to force his speech onto those platforms would be a violation of the first amendment.
> It's like saying every newspaper in the country needs to have what he says...
> which would be very authoritarian considering that thought


not everyone 's american, why don't both explain what 's the first amendment 1st?


----------



## wartutor (Jan 11, 2021)

I don't see why people think this is funny or even justifiable. What would of happened if Twitter blocked all the black lives matters people because of all the riots. (And there was alot of riots even thought the media kept most a secret and down played them.) Cities looked like war zones when they went through but it was OK. When you take a big portion (almost half of america) and make them feel like they don't matter and their voice can't be heard you are asking them to just escalade and do something about it. Dumb ass's keep fanning a flame better hope their ass don't get burned. Remember these are American people with right and are willing to fight to keep those right. I have heard people blaming the police for standing back but when you are that out numbered and quiet truthfully probably don't care to protect the same people that was screaming "defund the police" a few months ago I don't blame them. All these democrats and liberals can only see shit one way. Keep it up and they will be walking the streets armed to the teeth. They need to calm shit down instead of pressing the issue or shits just goin to get worse. I don't know why people can't see that. Keep pushing and making them feel oppressed lets see what happends.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Jan 11, 2021)

wartutor said:


> I don't see why people think this is funny or even justifiable. What would of happened if Twitter blocked all the black lives matters people because of all the riots. (And there was alot of riots even thought the media kept most a secret and down played them.) Cities looked like war zones when they went through but it was OK. When you take a big portion (almost half of america) and make them feel like they don't matter and their voice can't be heard you are asking them to just escalade and do something about it. Dumb ass's keep fanning a flame better hope their ass don't get burned. Remember these are American people with right and are willing to fight to keep those right. I have heard people blaming the police for standing back but when you are that out numbered and quiet truthfully probably don't care to protect the same people that was screaming "defund the police" a few months ago I don't blame them. All these democrats and liberals can only see shit one way. Keep it up and they will be walking the streets armed to the teeth. They need to calm shit down instead of pressing the issue or shits just goin to get worse. I don't know why people can't see that. Keep pushing and making them feel oppressed lets see what happends.



This may be even more hypocritical than anything Tabitha has posted. Maybe. What a complete load of bullshit.


----------



## notimp (Jan 11, 2021)

@FAST6191: Wow, we went into abstractions really fast.

Why not stay with the example? A political leader is silenced by a subset of private companies, that control public discourse, on grounds of doing something bad in the future by a ruleset thats neither public nor consistent - as a deterrance from them having created the very forces that allowed that person to get to power in the first place?

How about - if employed as a constant this serves as a tool to silence all discontent, injects self censorship of fear of getting banned based on an unclear criteria, manipulates the political process, and only remains in place, so larger entities in the media space are even thinkable, without people being turned off by those network leads actual opinions on whats good or bad in society as a whole?

Currently their 'actual opinions', independent of their actions, are hidden behind "we dont know them yet, maybe science can come up with what opinion we will have on this in the future".

Wasnt that the motive behind first hiding them (we are only a public carrier), and is now behind containing a public narrative, that on certain issues has to be entirely void of criticism, resorting to censorship of the worst kind - as in one, that if people dont conform gets them put on the sidelines of society - unable to participate, at the whim of some floaty consensus forming in the minds of some tech CEOs?

Whats the 'family cheating' and 'free speech always had limitations' doing in there. I mean, sure - but come on. Thats not the way to rectify that form of overreach.


----------



## wartutor (Jan 11, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> This may be even more hypocritical than anything Tabitha has posted. Maybe. What a complete load of bullshit.


Dont know what's hypocritical about my post. How about you elaborate and tell me how my opinion is wrong. Go ahead and tell everyone how they should think while you are at it. This is what happens when these over privileged idiots get together and for what is now called cancel culture. If you dont agree with their ideas they instantly just call your opinion ignorant, racist, or even outright compare people to nazi's so go ahead tell me how I'm wrong when I see people passed off, believing they are not being heard, and being oppressed. I don't believe I said anything to far off the wall but go ahead supreme leader tell me how the fuck I should think.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Jan 11, 2021)

wartutor said:


> Dont know what's hypocritical about my post. How about you elaborate and tell me how my opinion is wrong. Go ahead and tell everyone how they should think while you are at it. This is what happens when these over privileged idiots get together and for what is now called cancel culture. If you dont agree with their ideas they instantly just call your opinion ignorant, racist, or even outright compare people to nazi's so go ahead tell me how I'm wrong when I see people passed off, believing they are not being heard, and being oppressed. I don't believe I said anything to far off the wall but go ahead supreme leader tell me how the fuck I should think.



Well I certainly wasn't expecting you to cry. But okay. You telling everyone how they should think, while crying about those dirty liberals telling everyone how they should think is being a hypocrite. Are you satisfied now? Or am I going to get the typical deplorable loser "But but but!!!!" rebuttal? Sorry facts hurt your feelings so much. Deal with it, snowflake. So much melting and tears you morons could create an entire new ocean. Big baby.


----------



## Goku1992A (Jan 11, 2021)

I don't really "agree" with Trump getting banned but I get it. It is a hidden rule once you become a public figure free speech or not what you say can hurt against you regardless how your personal stance is on it.  America is a cliché they say this is land of the free but it's far from free.

Right to free speech isn't right to free speech It's just like Sony despite you buying your PS4/PS5 per Sony it DOESNT belong to you.


----------



## Ericzander (Jan 11, 2021)

I wish the first amendment discussions were this misinformed and angry in my law school classes.

At the end of the day, Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest (lol), and all those other PRIVATE companies did not violate the law or anyone's rights as far as banning Trump is concerned. 

When are you subject to the first amendment? When you are either (I) a public entity or (II) performing a function that is traditionally exclusively done by the government. 

These social media sites (including GBAtemp) are not traditional public forums, nor are they performing functions that are traditionally exclusively done by the government. Exclusive being the key word here. Then there's the whole Section 230 situation that's being discussed. As long as it's around, we circumvent these issues entirely. 

Now, to counter anybody who wants to reply to this comment with something based entirely on feelings or what they think SHOULD be the case; just keep in mind that all I'm saying is what the case actually is. 

The law is what it is. The first amendment is what it is. You can argue that it needs to be changed, sure. But as an angry and sad man once said "the facts don't care about your feelings."


----------



## Goku1992A (Jan 11, 2021)

Ericzander said:


> I wish the first amendment discussions were this misinformed and angry in my law school classes.
> 
> At the end of the day, Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest (lol), and all those other PRIVATE companies did not violate the law or anyone's rights as far as banning Trump is concerned.
> 
> ...



I think 9/10 times you give up all of your rights when you accept the terms of conditions. Many people (including myself) scroll pass those long ass paragraphs because I'm pretty sure they do include in there what they can/cant do to your account.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Jan 11, 2021)

Even if there were no terms or conditions, and even if the 1st Amendment didn't apply very specifically to the things Ericzander laid out, it seems the right still have the odd notion that freedom of speech = freedom of consequence. I'll use this example again: Go tell your boss they're the most worthless asshole on the face of the planet and that they can fuck off and die. Was your freedom of speech violated because you were fired for enacting on said freedom?


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 11, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Fox is no longer right-wing.
> 
> Section 230 is unconstitutional.
> 
> To anybody saying "build your own Twitter", did you see what happened to Parler?


It died a quick yet still incredibly painful death, finishing off with all of the horrible and incriminating shit people put on there getting scraped and leaked to the public.
Like it deserved, tbh.
This is what happens when delusional tech-illiterate reality-distanced boomers try to make a platform basically just for their hate circlejerking (the whole "complete free speech" thing sure didn't apply to anyone that dared say or do anything vaguely left-wing) but simultaneously depend on numerous companies that really don't want to be stained with that.



D34DL1N3R said:


> Even if there were no terms or conditions, and even if the 1st Amendment didn't apply very specifically to the things Ericzander laid out, it seems the right still have the odd notion that freedom of speech = freedom of consequence. I'll use this example again: Go tell your boss they're the most worthless asshole on the face of the planet and that they can fuck off and die. Was your freedom of speech violated because you were fired for enacting on said freedom?


THIS.
Twitter bans, companies cutting ties with and basically technologically asphyxiating Parler...
are *consequences for actions.*
This entire discussion is basically a company-sized repeat of the whole "cancel culture" argument.
If someone does something bad (like saying something horrifically bigoted, inciting violence, COMMITTING violence...) and they get punished because of it, that is their consequence.
Private companies choosing to ban or otherwise 'silence' people for doing things like this is not unjust censorship- it's just the consequences for being a horrible person on social media.
This isn't some kind of Orwellian dystopia. It's a parent telling their grossly misbehaving child to go to their room, think about what they've done and come back out when they're going to behave better.


----------



## notimp (Jan 11, 2021)

Oh look, Chris Hedges is allowed on american news again...



Well, at least I'm a dissident voice then, but still allowed in the US discourse...?



Oh wait, this is just posturing, otherwise Hedges would not have been chosen to helm the contrarian position. This is really just, to drive home, that only mad people would take that stance. Damn, can I please make it undone that I took the bait? Please, let me back into your society again!


----------



## Seliph (Jan 11, 2021)

People acting like this is a grand conspiracy to "censor" conservative voices are so funny to me. This is just how Capitalism works. Platforms like Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, etc don't want to have a bad image from being associated with reactionary weirdos because that association hurts profits so they kick off reactionary weirdos to preserve their profits. They do this to any sort of content that hurts their influence/profit margins. For example, I've been suspended on Twitter for calling myself a f*ggot, and videos on YouTube have always been demonetized for talking about LGBT issues.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 11, 2021)

Seliph said:


> People acting like this is a grand conspiracy to "censor" conservative voices are so funny to me. This is just how Capitalism works. Platforms like Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, etc don't want to have a bad image from being associated with reactionary weirdos because that association hurts profits so they kick off reactionary weirdos to preserve their profits. They do this to any sort of content that hurts their influence/profit margins. For example, I've been suspended on Twitter for calling myself a f*ggot, and videos on YouTube have always been demonetized for talking about LGBT issues.



So they are seeing an injustice but attributing the wrong reason, or perhaps not understanding the full scope, like all those people claiming active current racism by police/society at large earlier in the summer? Laugh at them if you will but I would sooner redirect them into doing something useful -- rather than yelling at people for hairstyles or whatever if they started kicking in the virtual doors of such companies it would make for a rather different turn of events.

I agree most of these services seem to be loss leaders for driving people to other platforms, securing eyeballs for adverts or occasionally pushing the ideologies/philosophies of those in charge of the place (or occasionally their employees if they happen to listen to such things, fools if you ask me), somewhere in there being a profit motive, or what they think is a profitable course of action (plenty of advertisers, whom they desperately seem to want to court).

I am also content to judge them if not for being hypocritical in their support of free speech (many did claim to want to be that around their inception and rise) then for not supporting it as a general concept.


----------



## GanjiMEX (Jan 11, 2021)

TL;DR: Apparently Freedom of Speech is illegal because companies want AND must look like a white right-handed church


----------



## notimp (Jan 11, 2021)

Seliph said:


> People acting like this is a grand conspiracy to "censor" conservative voices are so funny to me. This is just how Capitalism works. Platforms like Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, etc don't want to have a bad image from being associated with reactionary weirdos because that association hurts profits so they kick off reactionary weirdos to preserve their profits.


Exactly the opposite of what the UCLA information studies professor above is saying, and the opposite of what happened in reality.

Trump was a boon to media conglomerates, especially cable news, they manufactured their entire media strategy around him being controversial and sold ads and subscriptions against that -- with FOX news becoming the Trump PR network until election day - but what do I and the media study professor know...

Social Media cut their ties at the latest possible moment, and is now trying to escape responsibility for the social media revolution, by acting especially tough on the rebound. Or do you know other sources, that spread the election fraud lie? Besides social media and a specifically created blogosphere (to influence social media pickup).

Also - this might be how capitalism works, but this (current deplatforming, of not only the politician, but also his entire network, his funding sources, their campaigns own social media tool, ...) is not how democracy works.


----------



## ghjfdtg (Jan 11, 2021)

I think no one mentioned this yet but freedom of speech ends exacly where you violate someone elses rights or laws. Freedom of speech doesn't mean what most trumpers think it does.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 11, 2021)

ghjfdtg said:


> I think no one mentioned this yet but freedom of speech ends exactly where you violate someone else's rights or laws. Freedom of speech doesn't mean what most trumpers think it does.


That and the fact that not only does it end there and no further, it also doesn't even START except for two scenarios mentioned earlier in the thread, *neither of which apply to privately-owned social media platforms like Twitter.*


----------



## notimp (Jan 11, 2021)

Shortly before Amazon kicked Parler from their service, and it was removed from the Android and Apple App stores, a 70TB dataleak 'happened':

70TB of Parler users’ messages, videos, and posts leaked by security researchers
https://cybernews.com/news/70tb-of-...eos-and-posts-leaked-by-security-researchers/


edit: The Hills take:


----------



## Deleted member 397813 (Jan 11, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> That and the fact that not only does it end there and no further, it also doesn't even START except for two scenarios mentioned earlier in the thread, *neither of which apply to privately-owned social media platforms like Twitter.*


*or a certain website named after a certain nintendo console*


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 11, 2021)

notimp said:


> Shortly before Amazon kicked Parler from their service, and it was removed from the Android and Apple App stores, a 70TB dataleak 'happened':
> 
> 70TB of Parler users’ messages, videos, and posts leaked by security researchers
> https://cybernews.com/news/70tb-of-...eos-and-posts-leaked-by-security-researchers/


...What's with the single quotes? It happened. The uploading part is still happening and probably won't be done in the next couple days, but it happened.
And honestly I'm not even slightly surprised- this is the kind of thing that happens when a bunch of delusional, tech-illiterate Boomers make a social media platform for other delusional, tech-illiterate Boomers and have absolutely no idea what they're doing!


----------



## ghjfdtg (Jan 11, 2021)

I guess with the leak you can at least preserve all the shit that was on there and make an example of it and how education has gone wrong for so many people.


----------



## linuxares (Jan 11, 2021)

CPG said:


> *or a certain website named after a certain nintendo console*


Nah its just temporary


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jan 11, 2021)

Well, at least there is one upside to Trump getting banned: you can't call him a dictator anymore. Dictators can't be censored.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 11, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Well, at least there is one upside to Trump getting banned: you can't call him a dictator anymore. Dictators can't be censored.


Alright, former dictator it is. Along with pathological narcissist, wannabe oligarch, delusional egotist, bigoted prick and all sorts of other rather fitting descriptors.
Oh, and tyrant.


----------



## ut2k4master (Jan 11, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Well, at least there is one upside to Trump getting banned: you can't call him a dictator anymore. Dictators can't be censored.


wannabe dictator*


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 11, 2021)

ghjfdtg said:


> I think no one mentioned this yet but freedom of speech ends exacly where you violate someone elses rights or laws. Freedom of speech doesn't mean what most trumpers think it does.


But what some might want those rights to be make this nebulous. See also the whole "right to not be offended" thing that gets bandied about.
Also what laws those might be are ill understood by many.

Equally what failings might there have been here?



Plasmaster09 said:


> That and the fact that not only does it end there and no further, it also doesn't even START except for two scenarios mentioned earlier in the thread, *neither of which apply to privately-owned social media platforms like Twitter.*


One can still judge said private platform by their adherence to the philosophical notions of free speech.
While the law does not require you personally to adhere to the notions of free speech (hard to mandate a philosophy in law -- freedom of religion and all that) it can still be something you aspire to and others judge you for not adhering to (even if they never claimed to be then the lack of it can be considered a failing), or being hypocritical in your adherence of ( https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/mar/22/twitter-tony-wang-free-speech , or https://archive.vn/https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/mar/22/twitter-tony-wang-free-speech for those that roll that way. ).



			
				said article said:
			
		

> The general manager of Twitter in the UK has said that the social network sees itself as "the free speech wing of the free speech party".
> Speaking at the Guardian Changing Media Summit on Thursday, Tony Wang said that Twitter takes a "neutral" view of messages posted by its users because of the company's founding principles.
> He was asked whether Twitter sidesteps legal issues, including privacy and libel, because it is not a mainstream media company.
> "There are Twitter rules about what you can and can't do on the platform," Wang told the conference in London.
> "Generally, we remain neutral as to the content because our general council and CEO like to say that we are the free speech wing of the free speech party."



That is a fairly strong series of statements and intentions there from movers and shakers within the company.


----------



## notimp (Jan 12, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Well, at least there is one upside to Trump getting banned: you can't call him a dictator anymore. Dictators can't be censored.


Well, Napoleon had to move to Elba..  (Its a joke...  C'mon..)


----------



## notimp (Jan 12, 2021)

Angela Merkel calls Trump Twitter ban 'problematic'


> The German chancellor said although Twitter was right to add warnings to Trump's posts, the move to permanently suspend his account raises concerns about free speech.


https://www.dw.com/en/angela-merkel-calls-trump-twitter-ban-problematic/a-56197684


edit: Guess I have to group this in the same posting, but I dont want to.. 

US Capitol riot: Donald Trump defends remarks as 'totally appropriate' 


> US President Donald Trump said there is "tremendous anger" over the latest bid to impeach him, but added he doesn't want any more violence. He also defended his remarks ahead of the attack as "totally appropriate."


https://www.dw.com/en/us-capitol-riot-donald-trump-defends-remarks-as-totally-appropriate/a-56205366


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Jan 12, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Well, at least there is one upside to Trump getting banned: you can't call him a dictator anymore. Dictators can't be censored.



He wasn't censored. He freely said what he wanted, which was in violation of the ToS. He had consequences for what he actually was 100% free to say, and did say. He was never censored. Liar.


----------



## notimp (Jan 12, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> He wasn't censored. He freely said what he wanted, which was in violation of the ToS. He had consequences for what he actually was 100% free to say, and did say. He was never censored. Liar.


TOS didnt apply to him for his entire presidency, until it did.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 12, 2021)

notimp said:


> TOS didnt apply to him for his entire presidency, until it did.


twitter has a policy for leaders.
Tl;Dr
They try to refrain from outright removing them if they do violate TOS.
It's just that what happened on the 6th was so bad of a violation that it seems to me they were forced to do so.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 12, 2021)

notimp said:


> TOS didnt apply to him for his entire presidency, until it did.


It really should've from the start, to be honest. A set of terms of service that, for the purpose of politics, amount to "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" _*should be such a comically low bar that a President should be able to abide by it without question.*_ Trump can't seem to open his mouth without inciting hatred in some way (before backpedaling and throwing around shoddy, retroactive excuses for how he "didn't do it"), so he should've been forced to NOT open his mouth online from the beginning unless he could behave better than a petulant child mid-tantrum.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Jan 12, 2021)

notimp said:


> TOS didnt apply to him for his entire presidency, until it did.



That's not accurate. His posts have been flagged in the past.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 12, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> It really should've from the start, to be honest. A set of terms of service that, for the purpose of politics, amount to "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" _*should be such a comically low bar that a President should be able to abide by it without question.*_ Trump can't seem to open his mouth without inciting hatred in some way (before backpedaling and throwing around shoddy, retroactive excuses for how he "didn't do it"), so he should've been forced to NOT open his mouth online from the beginning unless he could behave better than a petulant child mid-tantrum.





D34DL1N3R said:


> That's not accurate. His posts have been flagged in the past.





notimp said:


> TOS didnt apply to him for his entire presidency, until it did.


https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/public-interest
"
As a result, in rare instances, we may choose to leave up a Tweet from an elected or government official that would otherwise be taken down. Instead we will place it behind a notice providing context about the rule violation that allows people to click through to see the Tweet. Placing a Tweet behind this notice also limits the ability to engage with the Tweet through likes, Retweets, or sharing on Twitter, and makes sure the Tweet isn't algorithmically recommended by Twitter. These actions are meant to limit the Tweet’s reach while maintaining the public’s ability to view and discuss it. Learn more about this notice and other enforcement actions. 
"
Sorry for quoting all of you at once but I felt it's needed to note this


----------



## Pedro250 (Jan 12, 2021)

I agree that their hate and violence speches needs to be moderated but where is the line between that and pure censorship of and opposing group?

As of now it seem that Republicans dont have any place online in social media, and i doubt that every single republican is like trump so baning trump and his minios is more than fare, it was a must be done thing, but baning anyone that just mentions Republicans or their politics seems a strech (i seen that happen in reddit, no hate or violence, just some guy asking the same i ask here in r/politics and bam, post deleted).

And no, i am not republican, nor democrat, i am not even american but this things tend to expand to other countries, as america most times leads the way in this cases.


----------



## notimp (Jan 12, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> That's not accurate. His posts have been flagged in the past.


But not censored.

Also this entire instrument of providing context to some of his posts - before that was considered 'not enough' and some of them where taken down - was invented specifically for him, and as a political instrument.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 12, 2021)

Pedro250 said:


> I agree that their hate and violence speches needs to be moderated


Why would hate speech as it is termed need to be moderated?


----------



## Pedro250 (Jan 12, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Why would hate speech as it is termed need to be moderated?



First we must define what is hate speech rigth?


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 12, 2021)

I'm somewhere in the middle of this one.

People are allowed their opinions. Removing someone because they stated a controversial opinion is not ok and is authoritarian. Making an edgy joke one time also doesn't justify ruining a person's life.

But when it comes to being the leader of the most powerful country in the world, if you act like a toddler and shit stir for your whole term, and then when you don't get re-elected you willfully spread misinformation and stir the pot, and indirectly cause acts of real-life violence and terrorism, you are now a dangerous individual and are borderline breaking the law, and I think social media is justified in removing Trump for what he's been doing for the last 4, nearly 5 years on those platforms.

If someone is invading a conversation, which happens here a lot, and starts harassing people with racial, homophobic or whatever else abuse, that isn't acceptable, but if they are purely making a statement about their personal beliefs, so what? It doesn't matter how disgusting you think that is, they have not caused harm to anyone. The innate problem with something like 'hate speech' is that it's subjective; anyone can say any speech they don't like is hate speech. Thus it isn't a good concept to go by when dealing with this sort of thing. Grow a thicker skin and move on; it's only worthy of reporting to either social media or the police if it's genuine harassment and abuse, such as what was seen in the Parlor screenshots: That is actual threat, racial abuse and incitement of hatred, and is objectively not protected under free speech. However, saying 'To be honest I think x group are ruining the country' or 'On the real I don't approve of x', that's not hatred and it's not abuse, and it's certainly not harassment of any one person. There's a difference. Too many people see things in black-and-white, good-versus-evil these days. No, I think both sides of the argument have points and also both have problems with their stance.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 12, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> you willfully spread misinformation and stir the pot, and *indirectly *cause acts of real-life violence


Not indirectly.
Think of it this way. Trump reheotric to his base was "the election was stolen"
When he mentioned essentially marching to the capital, he *directly* incited it.
An example, me saying there is a fire in a theater when there isn't one, and  someone call 911. And the come to a fire that doesn't exist.
My words caused action, I directly brought out the events.
If I didn't call out "fire" none of it would of happened.

Same for Trump. Trump was the one calling fire, this caused those around him to act.


----------



## Cryoraptor (Jan 12, 2021)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Not indirectly.
> Think of it this way. Trump reheotric to his base was "the election was stolen"
> When he mentioned essentially marching to the capital, he *directly* incited it.
> An example, me saying there is a fire in a theater when there isn't one, and  someone call 911. And the come to a fire that doesn't exist.
> ...


Fair enough. I meant it in the sense that he didn't literally tell people to come and storm the Capitol, but ok. We agree in principal.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 12, 2021)

Cryoraptor said:


> I meant it in the sense that he didn't literally tell people to come and storm the Capitol, but ok. We agree in principal.


he did. It's just not verbatim.
He riled up his base. he told his followers he would walk them to capital hill.
He didn't tell them to storm the into capital. But when you got an angry mob that believes an election was stolen?
What else do you think is going to happen?



I would even go further on the record to say that he knew it was going to happen, or to some extent.
When he was telling his followers to go home.
"We love you, your very special"
You don't tell that to essentially terrorists. Unless of course, you still want them to follow you for some other action.
And the police there, didn't arrest on the spot, but escorted them out of the building. Under any other circumstance, there would be a fuck ton of charges right on the spot and arrests.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Jan 12, 2021)

notimp said:


> But not censored.
> 
> Also this entire instrument of providing context to some of his posts - before that was considered 'not enough' and some of them where taken down - was invented specifically for him, and as a political instrument.



Nope. He was never censored. End of story. He said exactly what he wanted to, 100% free of censorship, and he faced the consequences.


----------



## notimp (Jan 12, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Nope. He was never censored. End of story. He said exactly what he wanted to, 100% free of censorship, and he faced the consequences.


Which werent outlined for a political person of his standing beforehand, and changed in action for no communicated reason.

Several times.

Reason given for the ban (which I do count as censorship) was "immanent danger", which is a reason to rectify everything without having to resort to proof.


edit: Also - the way I hear, that this happened internally at twitter, was that a group of 300 people mounted a protest to deplatform. And within a day - even a shopping platform for merchandise material joined.

This is a great way to project "we are strong" in signaled values, but unfit to run a democracy by.

After that a purge of 70.000 QAnon related accounts was issued - which is the only action this scene had discussed as a potential way to curb the disinformation problem two years prior. There literally is no other action that would have been discussed for the past two years in those cycles. To which my response is and always will be - you cant be serious. This cant be the way you try to enact your social responsibility.

Wait until a hashtag is hated by everyone - then ban the 70.000 people associated with it.

To which the response currently probably still is "but immanent danger".


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 12, 2021)

Pedro250 said:


> First we must define what is hate speech rigth?


That can be a stumbling block. The main question though would be is it something that should be deleted under the force of law? Why would you not be allowed to post saying "all purpled eyed people are bastards"?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jan 12, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Nope. He was never censored. End of story. He said exactly what he wanted to, 100% free of censorship, and he faced the consequences.


It doesn't matter if something goes against the rules, censorship is censorship.


----------



## osm70 (Jan 13, 2021)

Did the banning of Trump break Free Speech as defined by the first ammendment? No since it doesn't apply to private companies. They don't have to follow the first ammendment, they don't even have to follow their own rules. If they decide to ban you for absolutely no reason... or if they decide to not ban you even after you constantly break the rules over and over again... they can do that. It is their legal right.

If you want to make sure no private company censors you, go ahead and make your own platform. Now you might argue about Parler being denied their Amazon hosting... but again, Amazon doesn't have a legal obligation to host for anyone. So, you better have your own hosting. Buy a few servers, set it all up on your own and you are safe from being shut down and/or censored by anyone.

Now for the other issue: Did the banning of Trump break the philosophical idea of Free Speech? Technically... yes. Yes it did. In order for speech to be trully free, it must be absolutely unrestricted and unmoderated. Which means the platform in question cannot have any rules. It also cannot ban ANYONE or remove ANY POST.

Is it possible to have a platform with trully free speech? No, not really. The moment you don't have any rules, all sort of interesting things start popping up on your platform. You know, things like child porn. And the moment child porn appears on your site and you do nothing to remove it, the government is sure to step it.

OK, so maybe child porn will not be allowed but anything else will. In that case, it isn't technically a TRULLY free speech, but maybe that's enough for you. But the thing is, you decided to ban a certain thing from your website. And now you have to ask yourself what else you should ban. Violence? Doxxing? etc,etc... and eventually, you might or might not fall back to removing things simply because you don't like them. The point is, where do you draw the line?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 13, 2021)

There's a lot of misconceptions and misinformation in regards to 230, one has to look at these things in context. When the law was originally written, there were genuine liability concerns in regards to user-generated content. The often-touted example is a phone call - if person A calls person B over a landline (medium) using the AT&T service (platform) and they discuss an illegal activity, is AT&T liable, or an accomplice, for making that call happen? Well, no - of course not. AT&T provides an open platform and it's the users who have engaged in an illegal activity. The same thought process has been applied to the early Internet in an effort to enable its growth without too many worries in regards to liability. No website is treated as a publisher of content generated by a third party, which makes them immune to most civil liability.

The situation today is quite different - online platforms do deploy heavy moderation and selectively choose what is and is not acceptable on their platforms, and this selection goes beyond what is and isn't legal. By definition, they have now chosen to publish some content and not other content, in a manner that goes beyond the Good Samaritan element of the law. By choosing what they are unwilling to publish on the platform, they are unwittingly also outlining what they're happy publishing, which should prompt a revisit of the Communications Decency Act as a whole.

We can parrot "it's a private company, they can do what they want" all day, but they're a private company that can't be sued like any other private company in any other sector of industry. Moreover, there's a fair bit of shady anti-trust practices going on in regards to new, alternative platforms, which is highly suspect. The Parler situation should frighten people, it shouldn't be celebrated, regardless of the alleged content in question.

First you're removed from online storefronts (simultaneously, mind you), then you're denied web hosting (with AWS owning the majority of this space, then Microsoft in second place, then Google) and your domain is stricken from the registrar, the last step is payment processing denial, which may have already happened. Once Visa and Mastercard decide that you're high risk and you end up on the MATCH list, you effectively cease to exist - I fail how that system of dominoes doesn't encourage monopolistic practices. We keep hearing "build your own platforms", but it's looking like people are expected to build their own Internet infrastructure and banking system also. This is a dangerous precedent.

At some point the government will have to step in, or something's got to give in the hosting and credit card processing space. Section 230 has to return to its original intent - providing a shield against civil liability in return for creating open platforms as long as the content posted is legal. Anything short of that will only lead to more purges, more resentment and more division. This is not the way the Internet was supposed to work.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Jan 13, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> It doesn't matter if something goes against the rules, censorship is censorship.



Except it cant be censorship unless he was censored.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 13, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Except it cant be censorship unless he was censored.


There's actually a case to be made that he was, and it has nothing to do with the election, or even his term as a whole. Trump was a very prolific user of Twitter, often cited online both by individuals and by publications. Suspending his account is one thing, removing access to all of his content made over the years is another. It's one of the largest cases of "link rot" in recent history:

https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/9/22222371/trump-ban-twitter-link-rot-embedded-dead-posts

Long story short, whoever quoted Trump's tweets, in whatever context, even in the distant past before his presidential run, is now linking to a void instead of often necessary context.

It's not a very good policy by Twitter, not even the stringent GDPR regulations require this level of a purge - normally when an account is deleted, only personally identifiable information is removed. Twitter restricts access to all data, presumably to further distance itself from the accusation of being a publisher. It was never seen as a big deal as it's rare to see accounts with such huge followings and so many tweets suspended. In a way, it disrupts the Internet's archival capabilities.


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 13, 2021)

YouTube has suspended Trump.


----------



## notimp (Jan 13, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> YouTube has suspended Trump.


For a week (currently).

(Important Imho.)


Everyone still in the mood of ganging up against a fashist movement within your own state, not only by shunning and ostracizing them - but also by silencing their views from the public sphere, we know how this ends:

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/533919-fringe-social-networks-boosted-after-mob-attack

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...-the-easy-spontaneity-of-intergroup-conflict/


So this:

US military leaders blast 'insurrection' at Capitol


> Top ranking members of the US armed forces have decried the far-right violence from Donald Trump's supporters and confirmed that Joe Biden will be inaugurated on January 20.



https://www.dw.com/en/us-military-leaders-blast-insurrection-at-capitol/a-56208092

Has little value, other than reminding people that they arent winning.

So now you are putting people in positions where you are trying to grind down the insurrection. And if your move to try to interrupt their power to organize ant attract doesnt work... Attrition will?


Biden the "Fire and brimstone" candidate?

Here, get riled up a bit more:


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jan 13, 2021)

Did anyone see what's happening in Uganda? Seems like Twitter is getting a taste of their own medicine.


----------



## notimp (Jan 13, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Did anyone see what's happening in Uganda? Seems like Twitter is getting a taste of their own medicine.


Uh yeah, the coveted ugandan anti social media, free speech crowd...


> Beginning in 1894, the area was ruled as a protectorate by the UK, which established administrative law across the territory. Uganda gained independence from the UK on 9 October 1962. The period since then has been marked by violent conflicts, including an eight-year-long military dictatorship led by Idi Amin.
> [...]
> Uganda's current president is Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, who took power in January 1986 after a protracted six-year guerrilla war. Following constitutional amendments that removed term limits for the president, he was able to stand and was elected president of Uganda in the 2011 and in the 2016 general elections.[13]


src: wiki

They will serve as a glowing example of how free elections are hold. *cough*

We know Trump to a certain extent had those 'ruler for life' ambitions. Doesnt mean, that they are good for a country, or bad for Twitter, if the ugandan government blocks all social media - prior to elections.


----------



## Blaze163 (Jan 13, 2021)

I'm English so I can't really comment on the US Constitution. It was mostly written to spite us Brits, to be honest. But in my humble opinion this is a time where rules need to be flexible for the greater good in the moment. Amendments and whatnot were designed to protect decent people from horrible things. The first amendment has been abused here. It was clearly never designed to allow a blatantly tyrannical despot to say whatever he wants in an attempt to position himself as Emperor Of America. Didn't you guys declare independence to get away from crap like this?

There are exceptions to every rule and Trump is one of them. He may be constitutionally sound with what he says on Twitter but at no point was it true (how many posts get flagged for misinformation?) or in the public's best interests. His lies and delusions cause chaos, the events on Capitol Hill stand as testament to that. So if banning him helps keep people safe but is technically breaking the rules, then those rules need to be rewritten to allow for such scenarios. Updating rules as time goes by is how a nation evolves and grows. Sticking to rules written hundreds of years ago that couldn't have conceived of the issues of modern times means you're playing with half a deck, you're not at full strength. There's respecting traditions and being blinded by them.


----------



## osm70 (Jan 13, 2021)

Blaze163 said:


> I'm English so I can't really comment on the US Constitution. It was mostly written to spite us Brits, to be honest. But in my humble opinion this is a time where rules need to be flexible for the greater good in the moment. Amendments and whatnot were designed to protect decent people from horrible things. The first amendment has been abused here. It was clearly never designed to allow a blatantly tyrannical despot to say whatever he wants in an attempt to position himself as Emperor Of America. Didn't you guys declare independence to get away from crap like this?
> 
> There are exceptions to every rule and Trump is one of them. He may be constitutionally sound with what he says on Twitter but at no point was it true (how many posts get flagged for misinformation?) or in the public's best interests. His lies and delusions cause chaos, the events on Capitol Hill stand as testament to that. So if banning him helps keep people safe but is technically breaking the rules, then those rules need to be rewritten to allow for such scenarios. Updating rules as time goes by is how a nation evolves and grows. Sticking to rules written hundreds of years ago that couldn't have conceived of the issues of modern times means you're playing with half a deck, you're not at full strength. There's respecting traditions and being blinded by them.



Updating and changing the rules... yeah, that isn't going to happen. The moment you try touching the first amendmend you get an angry mob because you are "trying to take their rights away" and "suppressing free speech".


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jan 13, 2021)

osm70 said:


> Updating and changing the rules... yeah, that isn't going to happen. The moment you try touching the first amendmend you get an angry mob because you are "trying to take their rights away" and "suppressing free speech".


It's almost like absolute freedom of speech is the most important freedom one can have. Have you read 1984?


----------



## osm70 (Jan 13, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> It's almost like absolute freedom of speech is the most important freedom one can have. Have you read 1984?


I agree that freedom of speech is important. But I don't think it should be 100% absolute. To give you an example... would you be OK with someone randomly telling all your friends and family that you are a rapist and a pedophile? Surely you would want to press legal charges, wouldn't you?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jan 14, 2021)

osm70 said:


> I agree that freedom of speech is important. But I don't think it should be 100% absolute. To give you an example... would you be OK with someone randomly telling all your friends and family that you are a rapist and a pedophile? Surely you would want to press legal charges, wouldn't you?


That's an odd point to come up with when that's exactly what you've been doing with Trump.


----------



## osm70 (Jan 14, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> That's an odd point to come up with when that's exactly what you've been doing with Trump.


Well, I have never called Trump either a rapist or a pedophile. I have no idea whether he is one or not and I am not someone who would just say random crap about others. Now, assuming Trump is neither a rapist nor a pedophile, telling everyone he is of course isn't something I would approve of.

Also, you haven't answered my question. Would you respect their free speech or would you want to press charges?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jan 14, 2021)

osm70 said:


> Well, I have never called Trump either a rapist or a pedophile. I have no idea whether he is one or not and I am not someone who would just say random crap about others. Now, assuming Trump is neither a rapist nor a pedophile, telling everyone he is of course isn't something I would approve of.
> 
> Also, you haven't answered my question. Would you respect their free speech or would you want to press charges?


I'd respect their free speech. Remember ProJared and RelaxAlax? They were under fire for a bit, and then the truth revealed itself. It always does, one way or another. I'd show my evidence, but I wouldn't sue.


----------



## osm70 (Jan 14, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I'd respect their free speech. Remember ProJared and RelaxAlax? They were under fire for a bit, and then the truth revealed itself. It always does, one way or another. I'd show my evidence, but I wouldn't sue.


If that's true then you are way "less fragile" (for lack of a better term) than most people. I am pretty sure almost everyone would flip out and sue them as hard as possible. At least where I'm from.


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 14, 2021)

Even permanently banned from Snapchat.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 14, 2021)

Seems a mere association (not conviction in court of law, though even that would be dubious) can get you pinged from Airbnb


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a...ks-inauguration-week-reservations/ar-BB1cIZQl

Well that is a thing.

I hope the movers and shakers in silly cunt valley understand their actions -- even with California mag size restrictions it takes but one shot and that kind of prodding looks like it is going to wind someone up that is not a little girl that fucked in the head before too long.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 14, 2021)

notimp said:


> Everyone still in the mood of ganging up against a fashist movement within your own state, not only by shunning and ostracizing them - but also by silencing their views from the public sphere, we know how this ends:


Well, you really can't just leave the rhetoric either. Especially considering that this group of people was out to kill. and was actually a lot more organized than at first glance. it's now being realized the main thing was to lead out the police for other groups to place bombs. And something fucky was going on, since police officers that knew something was going to happen, was told to go home early, and then when the riots started happening they were asking what the fuck why their phones weren't going off.
Free speech is not absolute. It has limits.
There is also a paradox of tolerance really. Maga, proud boys and so on, are openly intolerant to groups of people. May it be leftists/liberals(they aren't the same but in their eyes it is), or (ethic group here)
They want them dead. Tolerating that essentially get's that group killed.
So really you shouldn't be tolerating the intolerable if you actually want to defend tolerance. Since really, if you bend with the intolerant group, or become tolerant with that group. Your not being tolerant anymore, your acting/supporting intolerance.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 15, 2021)

Do the maga set or proud boys, nebulous classifications though they may be, have any history of disliking I presume that is supposed to be ethnic there (anybody can dislike anybody else for the ethics they have, part of the whole free speech thing)?

As far as bombs then one making radical claims need to provide evidence.

" Free speech is not absolute. It has limits."
For some, myself included. The question is ever what those limits are. I kind of like the informal US model (libel/slander, direct incitement) and with that in mind I am not sure any limits were broached.

So really you shouldn't be tolerating the intolerable if you actually want to defend tolerance

"I may not like what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"


----------



## djpannda (Jan 15, 2021)

UltraSUPRA said:


> It's almost like absolute freedom of speech is the most important freedom one can have. Have you read 1984?


aww you just read in school I take it... don't forget the freedom of not getting shot because of the color of your skin


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 15, 2021)

djpannda said:


> don't forget the freedom of not getting shot because of the color of your skin


Is that a thing that commonly happens these days in places people care to live?


----------



## BlazeMasterBM (Jan 16, 2021)

It is scary that big tech is able to silence anything that goes against the narrative given to them by society.  Basically, social media is becoming more and more of an echo chamber and becoming less and less civil and open-minded. I don't trust big tech as far as I can throw them.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 27, 2021)

Debated a new thread for this one but seems like we are having a good time here.

So it seems various movers and shakers in book publishers are against free speech (though I imagine they will want to tell me it is "providing a platform"), and the case has been building for a while (see the Jordan Peterson thing the other month). Scary times when publishers and authors seek to play censor.
For those not up to date on publishers
https://blog.reedsy.com/largest-book-publishers/
The "big 5" being
Penguin Random House, Hachette Livre, HarperCollins, Macmillan Publishers, and Simon & Schuster. All with fairly high power roles well represented if that list is correct.


"THIS IS A LETTER OF INTENT FROM PUBLISHING PROFESSIONALS OF THE UNITED STATES."
"and we will do whatever is in our power to stop it."
Strong words there. From where I sit free speech is scary, not having free speech is scarier still.

Publishing is a hard game this last few decades as well, cutting off a money supply is a brave move in such scenarios.


https://docs.google.com/document/d/...oiDOUIFEEx3MuvXubKQJi6BGpTlsyJpqLgk-pyhiE/pub

```
THIS IS A LETTER OF INTENT FROM PUBLISHING PROFESSIONALS OF THE UNITED STATES.

We all love book publishing, but we have to be honest — our country is where it is in part because publishing has chased the money and notoriety of some pretty sketchy people, and has granted those same people both the imprimatur of respectability and a lot of money through sweetheart book deals.

As members of the writing and publishing community of the United States, we affirm that participation in the administration of Donald Trump must be considered a uniquely mitigating criterion for publishing houses when considering book deals.

Consequently, we believe: No participant in an administration that caged children, performed involuntary surgeries on captive women, and scoffed at science as millions were infected with a deadly virus should be enriched by the almost rote largesse of a big book deal. And no one who incited, suborned, instigated, or otherwise supported the January 6, 2021 coup attempt should have their philosophies remunerated and disseminated through our beloved publishing houses.

“Son of Sam” laws exist to prevent criminals from benefiting financially from writing about their crimes. In that spirit, those who enabled, promulgated, and covered up crimes against the American people should not be enriched through the coffers of publishing.

We are writers, editors, journalists, agents, and professionals in multiple forms of publishing. We believe in the power of words and we are tired of the industry we love enriching the monsters among us, and we will do whatever is in our power to stop it.

[Authors, editors, agents, and all other publishing professionals in the US may sign the letter here.]

[Count as of 1/25/21: 586]

Signed:

Barry Lyga (Author)

Chris Abouzeid (Co-owner, Belmont Books)

Alex Acks (Author)

Kaylan Adair (Executive Editor, Candlewick Press)

Vikas Adam (Audiobook Narrator (PRH, Macmillan, Audible, Simon & Schuster))

Alyssa Adamovich (Brilliance Publishing)

Mari Adkins (writer / editor)

Dahlia Adler (Author )

Wajahat Ali (Writer)

Jenny Allen (Author)

Adi Alsaid (Writer)

Suzie Althens (Audiobook narrator)

Elissa Alves (Literary and Operations Associate, Folio Literary Management)

Charlie Jane Anders (author, Victories Greater Than Death)

Kathleen Anderson (President, ANDERSON LITERARY MANAGEMENT LLC)

Sarah M. Anderson (Author)

Jill Anderson (Author Love Song Graphics)

Nicole Aronis (Author)

Holly Atkinson (Editor)

Tanya Avakian (Author)

Pauline avendano (Author)

J. Averre (Author)

Jessica Awad (Media Assistant Editor, W. W. Norton & Company)

Kim Baccellia-Rapier (Author)

Morgan Baden (Author)

Elizabeth Baldwin (ERB Publishing, w/a Elizabeth Essex)

Dr. Martha Baldwin (Scholar and Author)

Tracey Baptiste (Author)

Frank Bardessono (Author)

Kelly Barnhill (Author)

Rachel Kempster Barry (Author/Consultant)

Phoebe Barton (Writer)

Sophie Bartow (Author)

Hallie Bateman (Author)

Emi Battaglia (President Emi Battaglia Public Relations)

Jessica LeTourneur Bax (Freelance university press & trade copyeditor)

Melinda Beatty (Author, PRH)

Mark Richard Beaulieu (Author)

Rebecca Bednarz (Editor)

Hayley Behal (Production editor, The History Press)

Jolanta Benal (freelance copyeditor)

Karen E. Bender (Author)

Daphne Benedis-Grab (author, Scholastic)

Andrew Benge (Author)

Kat Bennett (Senior Cartographer, Hachette Book Group)

Kendall Berdinsky (Editorial Assistant)

Kathi Inman Berens (Associate Professor of Book Publishing, Portland State University)

Lauren Beukes (Author)

Bob Bianchini (Senior Designer - Penguin Random House, Author/Illustrator)

Diana Biller (Writer)

Jeanne Birdsall (Author)

Lauren Bittrich (Editorial Assistant, Flatiron Books)

Jason Black (Developmental Editor)

Holly Black (Author)

Stephen Blackmoore (Author)

Rachel Blaifeder (Editor, Cambridge University Press)

Alison Block (Marketing Coordinator, Oxford University Press)

Lesiie Bockol (Author and Editor)

Sheena Boekweg (Author)

Gwenda Bond (Author)

Karyn Bosnak (Author)

Joanna Bourne (Author)

Lisa Brackmann (Author)

Robin Brande (Author)

Gayle Brandeis (Author)

Loryn Brantz (Author)

Scott Brick (Audiobook narrator)

Daniel Brigman (Author)

Suzanne Brockmann (Author)

Megan Broderick (Assistant Editor, Harlequin)

Sam Brody (Editorial Assistant at Hachette Book Group)

Aimee Brown (Author)

Barron Brown (Author)

Joseph Bruchac (Professional writer and editor)

Polly Bruno (Author)

Geri Buckley (Writer)

Alafair Burke (Author)

Penelope Burns (Associate Literary Agent, Gelfman Schneider/ICM Partners)

Aimee Burpee (Associate Registrar, Special Projects)

Michelle Cacho-Negrete (Author)

Chelsea M. Cameron (Author)

Emma Mieko Candon (Editor, Seven Seas; Author)

Janet Cannon (Author)

Juliette Capra (Editorial Assistant, Chronicle Books)

Courtney Carbone (Author/Editor)

Dee Carney (Author)

Megan Carr (Senior Sales Support Associate, HarperCollins Publishers)

Natalie J Case (Author)

Sona Charaipotra (Author)

Maxine Charles (editorial assistant, Flatiron Books)

Mike Chen (Author)

Alison Cherry (Author, editor)

Amanda R Cherry (Author)

Preeti Chhibber (Author)

Danielle Chiotti (Agent, Upstart Crow Literary)

Henna Cho (Digital Sales Associate (SImon & Schuster))

Angelica Chong (Editorial Assistant, Macmillan)

Cassandra Clare (Writer)

William Clark (Wm Clark Associates)

Peter Clines (author)

Adriana Cloud (Editor)

Erin Clyburn (The Jennifer De Chiara Literary Agency)

Elizabeth Coale (Bookseller)

Matthew Cody (Author)

SueLynn Cole (Author)

Manda Collins (Author)

Melanie Conklin (author)

J Patrick Conlon (Oddity Prodigy Productions)

D. Robert Cooley (Associate Professor)

M Cooper (None)

David Cooper (Writer and book critic)

Melinda R. Cordell (Author, Rosefiend Publishing.)

Tom Corson-Knowles (CEO of TCK Publishing)

Tricia Crawford Coscia (Author)

David Hyde Costello (Author/illustrator )

Mia Council (Assistant editor, Penguin Random House)

Jessica Craig (Founder, Craig Literary LLC)

Sylvan Creekmore (Associate Editor, St. Martin's Publishing Group)

David Crews Ph.D. (Author)

Lily Cronig (Editorial Assistant, St. Martin's Press)

Jesse Vilinsky Crowley (CEO - Jesse Vilinsky VO)

Alison A Curtin (Baker & Taylor)

Melissa Cynova (Author)

Sara Danver (Associate National Account Manager, PRH)

Kelly Danver (HarperCollins )

Erica Davis Secor (Editor)

Anna Daviscourt (Illustrator)

Stephen Dedman (Author)

Anya Johanna DeNiro (Writer)

Shira Dentz (Author)

Navdeep Singh Dhillon (author)

Lucienne Diver (Agent, The Knight Agency)

Trish Doller  (author)

Michella Domenici (Springer Nature)

K.A. Doore (Author)

Lauren S Dopkin (Sales mgr)

Wendy Dopkin  (Copy editor )

Jen J. Danna/Sara Driscoll (Author)

Ann Vanderlaan writing as Sara Driscoll (Author)

Imogene Drummond (Artist and Filmmaker)

Denise J. Dubé (Journalist/writer/Member of ASJA, SPJ.)

Kaylee Duff (Writer, grad student, aspiring editor)

Turney Duff (Author)

Rachel Dugan (Publicity Assistant, Penguin Random House)

C.J. Dugas (Writer)

Claudia Dunn (DunnDeal VO)

Doranna Durgin (Author)

Geoffrey Dutton (author)

Peter Echevers (Author)

Jen Edwards (Author)

Kimberly Ehart (Editor, Hachette Book Group)

Daniel Ehrenhaft  (Author, editor )

Patricia Eimer (Author)

Michael Elias (Author)

Robin Eller (Audiobook Narrator)

Courtney Ellis (Marketing Assistant)

Zabé Ellor (Associate Literary Agent, JDLA)

Patricia Elzie-Tuttle (Book Riot)

M. K. England (Author (HarperTeen & PRH))

Carl Engle-Laird (Editor, Macmillan)

Karina Evans (Author)

Micaiah Evans (Author and Editor)

Kimberly Farr (Audiobook narrator)

Mary Cronk Farrell (Author)

Brian Farrey-Latz (Editor)

Rachel Feinberg (Content Writer)

Kait Feldmann (Editor)

Jenny Ferguson (Writer)

Clay S. Fernald (VP content - LeaguePodcast)

Joan Fernandez (Writer)

Nettie Finn (Assistant Editor)

Tessa Fisher (Writer)

David Fitzgerald (Author)

AJ Fitzwater (Author)

Rose Fox (former senior reviews editor, Publishers Weekly)

Hester Fox (Author (Harlequin))

Graylin Fox (Author / Self Published)

Dana Fredsti (Author with Titan Books)

Deborah Freedman (Author & Illustrator)

Rebecca Friedman (Rebecca Friedman Literary)

Esther Friesner (Author)

Adriana Funke (Rights Manager, Scholastic Inc.)

Arthur G Insana (InsanaMedia.com)

Ed Gaffney (Author)

Jason T. Gaffney (Author)

Sarah Gailey (Author)

Tanya Gandolfo (Author / Ingram Spark)

Mary Ganster (Content developer and editor (freelance))

Zack Geoffroy (Author)

Allyn Gibson (Head Writer, Diamond Comic Distributors)

Erin Gibson (Book reviewer)

Tara Gilbert (The Jennifer De Chiara Literary Agency)

Lamar Giles (Author)

Thomas Gilmore (Sales Manager, Macmillan)

Amy Giuffrida (Associate Literary Agent at The Jennifer De Chiara Literary Agency)

Joy Givens (Author)

Sue Godbee (Book buyer)

Bryant Golden (Editor-in-Chief, The Cavern Press)

Emily Goldman (editorial assistant, Macmillan)

Nikki Goldstein (Author)

Leah Gordon (Senior editor, Avalon Travel, an imprint of Hachette Book Group)

Benjamin Gorman (Co-Publisher, Not a Pipe Publishing)

Rob Gorski (Author)

Jasmine Gower (Author)

Jimmy Gownley (Cartoonist )

James Graham (Author)

Gavin Grant (Publisher, Small Beer Press)

Libbie Grant (Author)

Scott Fitzgerald Gray (Insane Angel Studios)

John Patrick Green (Writer/Illustrator)

Bryn Greenwood (Writer)

Kayla Griffin (Production Edition, Brill Academic Publishing)

Sarah Grill (Associate Editor, Macmillan)

Michael A. Grimm (Retired Educator)

Andrew Grondin (Owner, S-15 Studios)

Stephanie Guerdan (Assistant Editor, HarperCollins)

Cassie Gutman (Production Editor)

Cassie Gutman (Production Editor)

Jane G Haigh (Searching for Fannie Quigley, author)

Shannon Hale (writer)

Michelle Halket (Central Avenue Publishing)

Karen Hall (Author)

Karen Lee Hallam (Author)

Sadie Haller (Author)

Alwyn Hamilton (Author)

Jordan Hanley (Marketing Manager, Tor Nightfire)

Jonette D. Hardy (Engineer)

Leigh Harlen (Author)

Leigh Harlen (Author)

Jess Harold (Assistant Editor (Scholastic))

Mark Harrison (Publisher, Argyll Productions)

Hilary Harwell (KT Literary, LLC)

Morgan Hawk (Editor)

Libbie Hawker (Author)

Patrick Nielsen Hayden (VP, Editor in Chief, Tor Books)

Tyler Hayes (Author)

Tyler Hayes (Author)

Lindsey Heale (Media Editorial Assistant, W.W. Norton & Co.)

Erica Heller (Author)

Joe Hempel (Narrator)

Chelsea Hensley  (Associate Agent)

Ashley Herring Blake (Agent with Rees Literary Agency; author with Little Brown BYFR and Berkley Romance)

Mickey Hess (author)

Danuta Hinc (Author)

Sarah Hollowell (Author)

Tim Holm (Poet / Dialoguiste)

Kathryn Holmes (Author)

Sarah Homer (Assistant Editor, HarperCollins Publishers)

Amanda Hosch (Author)

Lauren Hough (Author)

Madeline Houpt (Editorial Assistant, Macmillan)

Katey Howes (Author (Sterling, Lerner, Chronicle, The Innovation Press))

Lisa Huang (Trade Sales Assistant, Macmillan Publishers)

Crystal M. Huff (Author/Editor)

Hope Hughes (Ethereal Visions Publishing, LLC)

S. A. Hunt (Author)

Daniele Hunter (Children's Department Assistant, McIntosh & Otis Literary Agency)

Jennifer Iacopelli (Author)

Eric Jacobsen (creator, http://bookcoverarchive.com)

Zareen Jaffery (Executive Editor, Penguin Random House)

Angélique Jamail (author)

Zakiya Jamal (Scholastic)

Tania James (Writer and Professor, George Mason University)

Bettye Jensen (Individual)

Sydney Jeon (Editorial Assistant (Flatiron Books))

Maureen Johnson (author)

Lynn B. Johnson (Author)

Varian Johnson (Author)

Stephanie Jones (Marketing Assistant)

Judy Jones (Author)

Katina Z. Jones (Author)

Tanara L Jones (Author (Bantam, Samhain, micro and indi presses))

Siva Jonnada (Author)

James Journalist (Novelist)

Chet JSmith (Writer)

Richard Kadrey (writer)

Rachel Kambury (Assistant Editor, Twelve Books)

Rachel Kapelke-Dale (Writer)

Jonathan Karmel (Author)

Keffy Kehrli (Writer & Editor (GlitterShip magazine))

Kenneth D. Keith (Author)

Mikki Kendall (Writer)

Fiona Kenshole (Transatlantic Agency)

Erum Khan (Editor (Callisto Media, Inc.))

Cassandra Khaw (Senior Scriptwriter)

Megan Kiddoo (associate managing editor, Macmillan)

Andrew King (Tom Doherty Associates)

Tyler King (Author)

Robert Kingett (Author)

Benjamin Kissell (Author)

Cheryl Klein (Editorial director, Lee & Low Books)

Deidre Knight (President, The Knight Agency)

Katriena Knights (Writer/Freelance Editor)

Zoe Kopp-Weber (MIT Press)

Sarah Kozloff (author)

Jamie Krakover (Author)

Daniel Kraus (writer)

Maris Kreizman (Author)

Jordan Kurella (Author)

Karol Lagodzki (Author)

Vicki Lame (Senior Editor, St. Martin's Press)

Jen Lancaster (Author)

Kara LaReau (Author)

Keith Law (Author)

Tricia Lawrence (Senior Agent, Erin Murphy Literary)

Whitney Leader-Picone (Art Director, HMH Books and Media)

Alexander Lee (Associate Media Editor)

Victoria Lee (Author)

Stina Leicht (Author)

Melissa Lenhardt (Writer)

Matthias Leue (Author)

Paul Levitz (Former President & Publisher, DC Comics)

Dan Levy (President, Levity Media, Inc.)

Mark Stephen Levy (Author)

Tonya Liburd (Author)

Aida Lilly (Associate Literary Agent at KT Literary)

Su-Yee Lin (Scholastic)

Amy Lin (freelance editor)

Nancy Linari (Audiobook Narrator)

Kim Lindman (Associate Agent, Stonesong)

Colleen Lindsay (Publicity & Marketing Freelancer)

Alvina Ling (VP, Editor-in-Chief)

Jaime Livingood (Photographer & Photo Editor)

Malinda Lo (Author)

Sarah E Loch (Author)

Katherine Locke (author)

Kimberly Lombardini (Agent, Philip G. Spitzer Literary Agency)

Priscilla Long (Author)

Heidi Love (Author; Ethos Marketing; VontWeb)

Alice Lowe (Author)

Stephanie V.W. Lucianovic (Author)

Christopher John Luna (Printed Matter Vancouver)

Jonathan Maberry (President, Jonathan Maberry Productions, Inc)

M Evan MacGriogair (Author)

Carolyn Mackler (author)

P. Rebecca Maines (Copy editor)

Lexi Malakhoff (Assistant Media Editor, W.W. Norton)

Lisa Manifold (Author)

Kate Manning (Author,)

Lisa Mantchev (Author, S&S)

Vanessa Estrada Marin (Author)

Maya Marlette (Associate Editor, Scholastic)

Melissa Marr (Writer of novels & picturebooks )

Linda E. Marshall  (Author)

Domingo Martinez (Author)

Shari Maurer (The Stringer Literary Agency)

Marty Mayberry (Author)

Kathe Mazur (Publisher)

Tash McAdam (YA author )

Matt McConnell (Freelance writer)

David B. McCoy (Spare Change Press®)

Jeanne McCulloch (Author)

Caitlin McDonald (Donald Maass Literary Agency)

Bryn A. McDonald  (Managing Editor, Hachette Book Group )

Catherine McGuire (Author)

Amy McKenna (Author)

Lisa McMann (author)

Margaret McMullan (Author)

Lily Meade (Author)

Amanda Meadows (Senior Editor, Oni-Lion Forge Publishing Group)

Sara Megibow (KT Literary, literary agent)

Christie Megill (Writer )

Ishta Mercurio (Author)

Laura Merz (Author)

Gail Messmer (Author)

Michelle Milner (W. W. Norton )

Ashley Marie Mireles (Director of Sales & Marketing; Familius )

Saundra Mitchell (Author)

Michael Moccio (Editor, NBC Universal)

Tim Mohr (Author)

Rachel Molland (Associate Publicist, Penguin Random House)

Sarah Mollo-Christensen (Audiobook Narrator (freelance))

Andrea Monagle (Copy Editor)

Andrea Monagle (Copy Editor)

Devon Monk (Odd House Press)

Clayton Moore (Reviewer)

Fernando Morales (Simon & Schuster,  Josh Hawley book)

Dan Moren (Author)

Rhea Morgan (Editor)

Christyne Morrell (Author)

Laurie Morrison (Author)

Elizabeth Morrow (Thornrose Publishing)

Norma M Mousseau (Educator)

Erin Murphy (President, Erin Murphy Literary Agency)

Nneka Myers (Illustrator)

Rebecca Naimon (Publishing Operations Assistant (Macmillan))

Celeste Ng (Author)

Lena Nowak-Laird (Assistant Editor)

Carrie O'Brien (Accounts Payable Coordinator, Hachette)

George W O'Connor (author, illustaror)

Hannah O'Grady (Associate Editor, St. Martin's Press)

Susan Kramer O'Neill (Don't Mean Nothing: Short stories of Viet Nam (current: Serving House Books))

Ellen Oh (Writer)

Shannon Okey (Publisher, Cooperative Press)

Dawn-Marie Oliver (Author)

Michael M. Jones (Author/ Reviewer (Publishers Weekly))

Cary G. Osborne (Author)

Margaret Owen  (Author)

Kimi Owens (Consumer Marketing Director (Avalon Travel, Hachette Book Group))

Tom Paine ("Scar Vegas", Harcourt, author)

Kirsten Palladino (Equally Wed)

Veronica Park (Agent, Fuse Literary )

Elana Roth Parker (Literary Agent, Laura Dail Literary Agency)

Madison M Parrotta (Senior Volunteer Editor, Includas Publishing)

Catherine Paul (Author)

Rebecca Pausley (Librarian in charge of purchasing)

John Pavlovitz (Author)

Amy Phillips Penn (Elaine’s. Skyhorse)

Dr. Gary Percesepe (Author)

Marlene Perez (Author)

Joseph Perry (President, Perry Literary, Inc. )

Jas Perry (Associate Agent, KT Literary, LLC.)

Vicki Pettersson (author)

Kiel Phegley (Author, Penguin Random House & Scholastic)

beth phelan (literary agent at gallt & zacker)

James Phelan (Author)

Matthew Phillion (Author)

Katelyn Phillips (Associate Marketing Manager, OUP)

Stuart Phillips (Editor in Chief, Causeway Lit.)

Sandra Phillips (Author)

Deesha Philyaw (Author)

Leslie Pietrzyk (Author)

Sarah Pinsker (Author)

James Piper (Author)

Jonas J. Ploeger (owner of Zagava Books)

Jessica Plummer (Penguin Random House)

William Plunkett (Sales Coordinator, Simon & Schuster)

Daniela Plunkett (Edelweiss Manager, Macmillan)

Chelsea Polk (Novelist)

Karen Polyak (Author)

Daniel Price (Author, Penguin Random House)

Margi Prideaux (Publisher, Stormbird Press)

Donna Prinzmetal (Author)

Nathan Pyritz (Senior Designer, Typesetting Manager, Candlewick Press)

Sabrina Pyun (Editorial Assistant, Simon and Schuster)

Mariam Quraishi (Designer, illustrator)

Molly Rabbitt (Translator (Seven Seas, Denpa, Kodansha))

Cat Rambo (Author)

Catherine Ramos (Author)

Abby Ranger (Abby Ranger Editorial, LLC)

Deanna Raybourn (Author)

Thomas C Raymond (Author)

Amy Rechner (Author)

S.G. Redling (Author)

MK Reed (writer)

Ruthanne Reid (Author)

Alex Richards (author )

Julie A. Richman (Author)

Jace Ridley (Writer)

Ronnie Riley (Writer, Creator of #LGBTNPit)

Julia Rios (Editor, Mermaids Monthly)

Olivia Ritchie (Managing Editorial Assistant - Simon & Schuster)

Susan H Robbins (Author- Poet)

Andrea Robertson  (Author)

Janet R. Robinson (Receiving Inventory Specialist)

Paula Robinson (Author)

Marsheila Rockwell (author)

Matt Roeser (Associate Art Director, Candlewick Press)

Nathalie M.L. Römer (Emerentsia Publications)

Shelly Romero (Assistant Editor)

R.M. Romero  (Writer)

April Rondeau (Owner, Ipsum Editorial)

Christina Rooney (Audiobook Director)

Lev Rosen (author)

Bev Katz Rosenbaum (Author)

Charlotte Roth (Sales Associate, Candlewick Press)

Pratiti Roy (Writer)

Lauren M. Roy (author and former Hachette Book Group sales rep)

Elizabeth Rubio (writer and editor)

Adi Rule (Author)

Ravina S (Production Designer, Hachette Book Group)

Stephen Salhany (Serials and Cataloging Librarian)

Victoria M. Sanchez  (Writer )

Melanie Sanders (Production Editor, Macmillan)

Shawn Aveningo Sanders (Publisher, The Poetry Box)

Karen R. Sanderson (Author, “No Boundaries,” Shark Bite Publishing)

Kathy Sandler (Senior Manager, Penguin Random House)

Jason Sanford (Author)

Jerry Sawyer (Author)

Derek Sayer (Author for Princeton University Press)

Katie Schenkel (Author)

Melissa Schirmer (Production Editor)

Mary Schlesinger (Principal/Owner, Schlesinger Design)

Tiffany Schmidt (Author)

Ella Schwartz (Author)

Richard Schweitzer (Author, tindog music & stuff)

Allison Winn Scotch (Author)

Brian Scott (Publisher, ExtraCurricular Press)

Lila Selle (Graphic Designer at Hachette)

Edward Sellner (Author and university professor)

Stephanie Sendaula (Library Journal)

Anna Sequoia (Author)

Andrea Shane (President-Books on Call NYC)

Jenny Shank (writer, editor, book critic, Mile High MFA faculty)

Rob Shapiro (President, Chez Piro Productions; Narrator)

Viveca Shearin (Not a Pipe Publishing )

Jackie Shepherd (Candlewick Press)

Michael Sherer (Author)

Fiona Sherlock (Author)

Amy Sherman (Managing Editor, University of Pittsburgh Press)

Monica Shields (Author)

Marshall Scott Shields (Author)

Anna Sikorska (Senior Designer, HarperCollins)

Mick Silva (Sr. Acquisitions Editor, Zondervan/HarperCollins)

Annie Silvestro (Author)

Sasha Simic (Central Books Ltd - London UK)

Mira Singer (Senior Editor of Miniver Press)

Amy Siskind (Author)

Jon Skovron (Author)

Katie Slivensky (Children's Author)

Jane Sloven (Author)

Carly Smith (Freelance Editor)

Patricia A Smith (THE YEAR OF NEEDY GIRLS (Kaylie Jones Books))

David Solomon (Ph.D.)

Mary Sprouse (Author)

Lindsey Stangl (Marketing Assistant at Oxford University Press)

Brina Starler (Author)

Michael Stearns (Founder, Upstart Crow Literary)

Mato J. Steger (Author)

Anna Stein (literary agent)

Josephine Stewart (Freelancer, 15 years)

Angela Stockman (Creating Inclusive Writing Cultures in the K-12 Classroom)

Rene Stofflett (Author and editor)

Laura Stolk (Author)

Julie M. Stone (Author)

Cassie Stossel (Publicity Manager )

Jared Stossel (Publicist)

Lisa Stringfellow (Author and Educator)

Linda Sue Park (Author )

Rachel Sussman (agent and co-founder, Chalberg & Sussman)

James Sutter (Author)

Karah Sutton (Author, Penguin Random House)

Claudia Suzanne (Founder, Wambtac Ghostwriters)

Bryan Tann (Random Evolved Media)

August Tarrier (Director)

Kate Schafer Testerman (Literary Agent and Founder, KT Literary, LLC)

R J Theodore (Author)

Andrea Todd (Author)

Mark Turetsky (Audiobook narrator (S&S, PRH, Harper, Scholastic))

Jill Twiss (Author)

John Underwood (Author)

Diana Urban (Author)

Nicole Valentine (Author )

Michele van allen (Michele Van Allen assemblies)

Greg van Eekhout (Author)

Heather Van Syckle (Author)

K.B. Wagers (Author)

Robert Wakefield (Author The Year Zero Bellissima Publishing)

Suzanne Walker (Writer/Editor)

Jonathan Walker (Author)

Judy Walters (Author)

Jane Ward (Author)

Janine G. Webb (Director, Specialty & Gift Sales at Highlights for Children)

Elizabeth Crowley Webber (Editorial, Design, and Production Manager)

Christy Webster (Children's Book Writer and Editor)

Catherine Weening (Production Editor, Scholastic)

Amy Weingartner (AMDA College of Performing Arts)

Sarah Weinman (writer)

Samantha Wekstein (Literary Agent)

Martha Wells (Author)

Rebecca Kim Wells (Author)

Katherine Welsh (Royalties Data Manager, KT Literary, LLC.)

Chuck Wendig (Author with PRH, S&S, etc)

Chloe Wertz (University of Pittsburgh Press)

Jacqueline West (Author)

Casey Whalen (Director of Sales & Marketing, Anthology Editions)

Alana Whitman (Author Marketing Manager, Book Highlight)

Flannery Wiest (Freelance Editor)

Kimberly Willardson (Vincent Brothers Publishing)

Lily Williams (Author, Illustrator, books with Macmillan and Bloomsbury)

Kerigan Williams (writer)

Daniel Williamson

Cat Winters (Author)

John Wiswell (Author)

Lori Witt (Author)

Merc Fenn Wolfmoor (Author)

Jack Womack (Writer)

Leah Wood (Marketing)

Katie Wurtzel (Publishing Assistant)

Stan Yan (Graphic Novelist )

Lisa Yee (Author)

Andi Zeisler (Cofounder, Bitch Media)

Michael Zierler (Editor and Owner, RedOx Scientific Editing)

Eva Zimmerman ((Publicist, Chronicle Books))

Samantha Zukergood (Assistant Marketing Manager, Flatiron Books)

Mary Kay Zuravleff (Author)
```


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Jan 27, 2021)

djpannda said:


> aww you just read in school I take it... don't forget the freedom of not getting shot because of the color of your skin


I doubt he’s even read it

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



BlazeMasterBM said:


> It is scary that big tech is able to silence anything that goes against the narrative given to them by society.  Basically, social media is becoming more and more of an echo chamber and becoming less and less civil and open-minded. I don't trust big tech as far as I can throw them.


He broke their rules, he got banned, I don’t see what’s the big deal


----------



## BlazeMasterBM (Jan 27, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> I doubt he’s even read it
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


If "he" refers to president Trump, I'm not just talking about that. It's not really about just that at all


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Jan 27, 2021)

BlazeMasterBM said:


> If "he" refers to president Trump, I'm not just talking about that. It's not really about just that at all


"that" is literally what this thread is about tho


----------



## BlazeMasterBM (Jan 27, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> "that" is literally what this thread is about tho


The problem goes deeper than that tho, and has long before


----------

