Let's talk first amendment, and social media

[Deleted User]

Fox is no longer right-wing.

BAH

That's a stupid claim

 

[Deleted User]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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 ---------------------------

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 inventively 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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.