Jump to content


Photo

Free Speech .

speech rights english enlightenment

  • Please log in to reply
754 replies to this topic

#61 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,546 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369°/-84.2675°
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 11 August 2018 - 0101 AM

Ryan, I would find that argument more compelling if ISPs were not already making veey good money providing high speed, high bandwidth internet under net neutrality and if I thought the SJWs running them wouldnt decide to use their powers for justice as YouTube et al do.


Depends on the ISPs. When you look at smaller companies, they're at a major disadvantage. Big companies can make deals with a given city/county/state gov't to keep out competition.
  • 0

#62 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,955 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 11 August 2018 - 0404 AM

First of all, congrats to Ryan on putting up a really thought provoking thread. A lot of stuff here I confess I hadn't previously given much thought to. I have a question though.

If a bakery run by people with a faith is allowed to refuse to bake a gay couple a wedding cake, why should a privately owned ISP or online news agency be forced to display the content of right wing extremists?
  • 0

#63 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,449 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 11 August 2018 - 0444 AM

Relevant to topic


  • 0

#64 Jeff

Jeff

    Drum beating laughing boy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,806 posts

Posted 11 August 2018 - 0844 AM

First of all, congrats to Ryan on putting up a really thought provoking thread. A lot of stuff here I confess I hadn't previously given much thought to. I have a question though.

If a bakery run by people with a faith is allowed to refuse to bake a gay couple a wedding cake, why should a privately owned ISP or online news agency be forced to display the content of right wing extremists?

I think there are a couple of levels of debate going on. First, should private companies be compelled to provide equal service to everyone, regardless. Second, is it a healthy thing for a few large companies to coordinate (conspire?) to actively target a particular group when they effectively control the overwhelming majority of discourse in the public sphere. If there was a Google of cake baking, might there be a greater case to compel them to bake a particular cake? A person or group can be "deplatformed" out of having their voice and opinion heard. Even larger more powerful groups like the NRA can be effectively strangled if their voice is silenced on social media, no ISP chooses to sell them access to the internet or host their web entities, if no bank will do business with them for sales and dues, etc. 


  • 0

#65 EchoFiveMike

EchoFiveMike

    I offer safe passage through the wasteland

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,743 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FOB Chitcago
  • Interests:Killing, killing is the solution!

Posted 11 August 2018 - 0915 AM

All of the FAAG's basically argue that they're just providers, and are not responsible for content, while at the same time deplatforming anyone whom they decide contradicts the narrative.  The are mutually exclusive positions, which doesn't stop the amoral sociopaths from making them.

 

Comparing the shitlibs going after Ma and Pa bakery to a multinational globo corp which exists almost solely due to government sanction is frankly preposterous.  It's a form of dishonesty.  All these civil rights laws, which are being used to strangle anything which contradicts the narrative, should apply only to government, because you have no alternative.  Now, you could honestly and reasonably make the case that corporations are a construct that exist only due to government recognition, but that's never discussed.  It's all or nothing.  

 

There is only winning; the only thing that matters.  S/F....Ken M  


  • 0

#66 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,955 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 11 August 2018 - 1118 AM

Comparing the shitlibs going after Ma and Pa bakery to a multinational globo corp which exists almost solely due to government sanction is frankly preposterous.  It's a form of dishonesty.  

 

I certainly did not intend it to be dishonest and I think you've known me long enough to know I wouldn't lie to you. The thing is, both the bakery (and, whilst I probably fit most criteria of a shitlib, for the record I absolutely do not think they should have been forced to bake the cake) and Google, Youtube, Facebook, whatever are privately owned entities. You can argue that they are different, but there is a continuum between them with no clear demarcation line anywhere that I can see.


  • 0

#67 EchoFiveMike

EchoFiveMike

    I offer safe passage through the wasteland

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,743 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FOB Chitcago
  • Interests:Killing, killing is the solution!

Posted 11 August 2018 - 1205 PM

Google is publicly traded mega corp with a horde of lawyers and bought and paid for politicians, Ma and Pa bakery is doubtless a sole proprietorship, perhaps an LLC at best.  There's your clear line.  There has always been business, there has only recently (historically) been liability protected legal creations, full of unaccountable  bureaucrats, who constantly work to increase their authority while avoiding accountability, as is their very nature.  S/F....Ken M 


Edited by EchoFiveMike, 11 August 2018 - 1210 PM.

  • 0

#68 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,546 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369°/-84.2675°
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 11 August 2018 - 1208 PM

If a bakery run by people with a faith is allowed to refuse to bake a gay couple a wedding cake, why should a privately owned ISP or online news agency be forced to display the content of right wing extremists?




1. It's a question of customized service specific to the special party. In the above cited case the baker offered to bake a more generic cake for them. He just wasn't going to put the homosexual references on it. Thus an ISP dropping services to a specific group which are no different than other groups is specifically discriminatory.

2. There's the aspect of the size of the company. In the case of the baker, the person running the business was also the person owning the business and was very much the primary owner as I understand it. That's different than a major corporation with share holders and a board. Easy for the person who owns a small company to have a given view that they represent in their mode of operation. This was borne out by a supreme court decision relating to Hobby Lobby. The Supreme court has a very specific aversion (rightly so) to parsing religious doctrine.

3. Youtube and the other internet companies are not online news agencies. They're providers of a service. If you want to get a video hosted, Youtube is the go to place. After that its someplace else. Youtube, as in the case of forgotten weapons specifically targeted certain groups. Twitter makes itself out to being advancing free speech but shadow bans folks on the right and allows the same speech (or worse) from those on the left. They want to be treated like a common carrier but don't behave as one.
 


Edited by rmgill, 11 August 2018 - 1216 PM.

  • 0

#69 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,546 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369°/-84.2675°
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 11 August 2018 - 1218 PM

The thing is, both the bakery (and, whilst I probably fit most criteria of a shitlib, for the record I absolutely do not think they should have been forced to bake the cake) and Google, Youtube, Facebook, whatever are privately owned entities. You can argue that they are different, but there is a continuum between them with no clear demarcation line anywhere that I can see.



The key demarkation between a the bakers and Youtube are is one a "closely held corporation"? Closely held corporation are where one or a small group of folks owns the company not hundreds if not thousands (tens of thousands +) of people. The distinction was underscored in Burwell v Hobby Lobby. Hobby Lobby isa closely held corporation. There's a small board of all the stock holders. It's there company in name and in fact.
  • 0

#70 glappkaeft

glappkaeft

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Linköping, Sweden

Posted 11 August 2018 - 1445 PM

keep in mind that TankNet itself has been under regular attack by Google and others and has been listed as a malicious site for quite some time even though hundreds if not thousands of notifications have been sent in by regular posters here

You do know that trying to access this site from a new computer sometimes redirects you to some sort of porn site? I have seen that a couple of time including twice at work fortunately we don't have a HR department that tracks logs (a least for that kind of thing). I'm pretty sure this is the cause of the "malicious site" warning.

Edited by glappkaeft, 11 August 2018 - 1447 PM.

  • 0

#71 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,432 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 12 August 2018 - 0841 AM

First of all, congrats to Ryan on putting up a really thought provoking thread. A lot of stuff here I confess I hadn't previously given much thought to. I have a question though.

If a bakery run by people with a faith is allowed to refuse to bake a gay couple a wedding cake, why should a privately owned ISP or online news agency be forced to display the content of right wing extremists?

And by extension, why should a privately owned power company, of which there are multitudes in the US, be forced to provide electricity to LW extremist home owners and businesses?


  • 0

#72 Jeff

Jeff

    Drum beating laughing boy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,806 posts

Posted 12 August 2018 - 0940 AM

Interesting, woke up this morning and checked out the local paper online. I don't subscribe because it went from a balanced paper in the 80s to a liberal rag. They just announced they're changing the commenter policy to take away the ability to post anonymously. I don't post there because you have to be a subscriber to do so and I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire let alone pay them. Reading the commenters, many are conservatives taking issue with the paper's bent, they are almost all cancelling their subscriptions and leaving because they fear retribution in their personal lives and at their jobs. The Left has proudly proclaimed that Trump supporting conservatives should be hounded at their places of business, at restaurants and that their children should be harassed at school. There has been next to no blowback from other liberals on this. Now the media is saying that for the purpose of "transparency" they are removing the anonymous comment option for paying subscribers. I'm careful about what I do on social media, I have zero bumper stickers on my vehicle, I post here anonymously because the Left has made it clear they will take action against conservatives for their political beliefs. We've already had a local "activist" come into my office and threaten us with Black Lives Matter protests because he doesn't like a sticker on my assistant's vehicle. We've actually had to call the police twice and they have told him that if he steps foot again in our office he will be arrested for trespassing. Look for this "common sense transparency" push to become widespread in media. This is another attempt to force the right out of the public sphere. You'd think members of the press would understand the history in the US of anonymous political commentary, Silence Dogood and Publius but a couple of examples. They don't care, it's for the Greater Good.


  • 0

#73 CT96

CT96

    Deputy Assistant Secretary to the Dragon Slayer Apprentice

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,624 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern Virginia
  • Interests:Miltary History, Geopolitics, Computers

Posted 12 August 2018 - 0957 AM

Always in the name of the Greater Good

 

 

We all know where this is leading. I don't see any way to change course. 

 

Silencing all other views, all other positions is not one of the first, but rather one of the last steps to violence.

 

 

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable"

 

People on both sides think they're going to come out winners in the violent revolution. 

 

No. 

 

There won't be winners. Only losers, corpses, and rubble.


  • 0

#74 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,546 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369°/-84.2675°
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 12 August 2018 - 1159 AM

I suspect the violence is only going to ratchet up....


  • 0

#75 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,955 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 12 August 2018 - 1301 PM

Yes, the demarkation point is publically traded.

I was watching a Tom Tanks film last night called "The Circle" which reminded me just how sinister the likes of Google, YouTube and Facebook are. I have been ignoring FB for over a year but I'm going to close the account now.
  • 0

#76 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,986 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor, History, Fishing and Beer

Posted 12 August 2018 - 1540 PM

Delete it don't close it. They won't 'erase your data if you just cancel the account.
  • 0

#77 CT96

CT96

    Deputy Assistant Secretary to the Dragon Slayer Apprentice

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,624 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern Virginia
  • Interests:Miltary History, Geopolitics, Computers

Posted 12 August 2018 - 1556 PM

Even then, they still will have your data on backups, etc. if not still keeping it for tracking purposes. They are simply a phenomenal repository of personal data for the data miners. Raise your hand if you believe they'll actually give up all that data simply because a user asks them to. 


  • 0

#78 TTK Ciar

TTK Ciar

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,986 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sebastopol, CA, USA
  • Interests:material engineering, composite armor, GPC, battletank technology

Posted 12 August 2018 - 1607 PM

I can attest from professional experience that most companies prefer to keep data and simply mark it as "dark" or "archived", which makes it disappear from public view without actually deleting it.

  • 0

#79 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,955 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 12 August 2018 - 1626 PM

Delete it don't close it. They won't 'erase your data if you just cancel the account.

 

I will, but I have no faith in them deleting anything. I never espoused any radical beliefs or any criminal act on FB and I think my sexuality is pretty much an open book since I came out as a raving straight white male. :)


  • 0

#80 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,449 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 12 August 2018 - 1641 PM

Under a GDPR if you ask them to delete all your info they are legally required to.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users