Jump to content


Photo

Free Speech .

speech rights english enlightenment

  • Please log in to reply
748 replies to this topic

#21 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 09 August 2018 - 1647 PM

We've gone from "bake the damn cake!" to "expunge anyone not approved by the proper people" pretty damn fast.


Funny how that works eh?
  • 0

#22 Mr King

Mr King

    Fat Body

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,856 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muppetville

Posted 09 August 2018 - 1657 PM

Alex Jones is not a protected class off citizenry, he is a white male untermensch 


  • 0

#23 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 09 August 2018 - 1958 PM

Let's see... in the last week...

 

 

Alex Jones, deplatformed from FAGS, but not Twitter.

 

Ron Paul had accounts terminated (I didn't catch exactly which).

 

Bill Whittle reportedly lost his Youtube Channel 

 

Anarchy Ball's twitter axed.

 

Gab was given a 48-hr "remove this offensive* post or your hosting will be terminated"

 

*to somebody.

 

Several GOP candidates had their accounts suspended/terminated because their campaign videos were "offensive"

 

Conservative reporters detailing Sen. Feinstein's ties to the Chinese Spy were silenced by Twitter today.

 

 

 

 

you know... you put this all together it's a list. It's a trend. It's a warning. 


  • 0

#24 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,860 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 10 August 2018 - 0232 AM

Its the rise of the corporations. There are many laws to ensure the state enshrines free speech, but there is little to say content providers or global multinationals have to be held to account to the same rules.

 

Ultimately we are all the enablers of this kind of thing. Dont like it, dont use Youtube (or Facebook, or Twitter or whatthehellever)


  • 0

#25 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,342 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 10 August 2018 - 0505 AM

Thing never to forget - Google, Twitter, Facebook etc are not "social media". They are world largest marketing agencies, with access any other marketing agency can only dream about.

Advertizer is a king, and anything advertizer does not like will be removed.

Once you get that (and who their advertisers are) you will get the rest.

 

 

PS. Sooner they burn and crash the better, but I doubt it will happen anytime soon.


Edited by bojan, 10 August 2018 - 0507 AM.

  • 0

#26 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,305 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 10 August 2018 - 0535 AM

 

you know... you put this all together it's a list. It's a trend. It's a warning. 

Could be worse, the US Leftists wants their version of censorship codified in law by the Net Neutrality Act.


  • 0

#27 Der Zeitgeist

Der Zeitgeist

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,165 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Captive to Russia

Posted 10 August 2018 - 0539 AM

 

 

you know... you put this all together it's a list. It's a trend. It's a warning. 

Could be worse, the US Leftists wants their version of censorship codified in law by the Net Neutrality Act.

 

 

How is net neutrality censorship?


  • 0

#28 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,466 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 10 August 2018 - 0550 AM

If anything, giving big tech companies the power to slow or restrict access is more likely to lead to censorship than mandating equal access.
  • 0

#29 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,305 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 10 August 2018 - 0605 AM

If anything, giving big tech companies the power to slow or restrict access is more likely to lead to censorship than mandating equal access.

Depends on who is in power.  


  • 0

#30 Jeff

Jeff

    Drum beating laughing boy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,694 posts

Posted 10 August 2018 - 0625 AM

Let's see... in the last week...

 

 

Alex Jones, deplatformed from FAGS, but not Twitter.

 

Ron Paul had accounts terminated (I didn't catch exactly which).

 

Bill Whittle reportedly lost his Youtube Channel 

 

Anarchy Ball's twitter axed.

 

Gab was given a 48-hr "remove this offensive* post or your hosting will be terminated"

 

*to somebody.

 

Several GOP candidates had their accounts suspended/terminated because their campaign videos were "offensive"

 

Conservative reporters detailing Sen. Feinstein's ties to the Chinese Spy were silenced by Twitter today.

 

 

 

 

you know... you put this all together it's a list. It's a trend. It's a warning. 

 

Just an innocent algorithm snafu that ONLY hits one side of the political debate. Nothing to see here, move along you conspiracy nut.


  • 0

#31 Jeff

Jeff

    Drum beating laughing boy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,694 posts

Posted 10 August 2018 - 0625 AM

Its the rise of the corporations. There are many laws to ensure the state enshrines free speech, but there is little to say content providers or global multinationals have to be held to account to the same rules.

 

Ultimately we are all the enablers of this kind of thing. Dont like it, dont use Youtube (or Facebook, or Twitter or whatthehellever)

 

I'm certainly a "let the market work it out" person but I think there needs to be a serious debate about that when you have these mega corporations that have an unparalleled scope and reach to control the flow of information. They are now showing a very troubling tendency to coordinate with each other to cover wide areas of discourse. At some point you do run out of realistic options. The recent move of major corporations to not only tip their hat to "social causes" but to put the full weight of their power into supporting one side and "deplatforming" (that's an Orwellian term) the other side is scary, no matter which side they were going after.


  • 0

#32 Der Zeitgeist

Der Zeitgeist

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,165 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Captive to Russia

Posted 10 August 2018 - 0632 AM

 

If anything, giving big tech companies the power to slow or restrict access is more likely to lead to censorship than mandating equal access.

Depends on who is in power.  

 

 

So you don't really know what net neutrality is. Thought so.


  • 0

#33 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 10 August 2018 - 0638 AM

 

 

If anything, giving big tech companies the power to slow or restrict access is more likely to lead to censorship than mandating equal access.

Depends on who is in power.  

 

 

So you don't really know what net neutrality is. Thought so.

 

 

Neither do you, by that attitude. 


  • 0

#34 Mr King

Mr King

    Fat Body

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,856 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muppetville

Posted 10 August 2018 - 0643 AM

Bake the cake. 

 

Uber Says Its Drivers Can Kick Out White Supremacists

 

Drivers with the transportation company Uber will have the chance to refuse passengers who attend the upcoming Unite the Right 2 white supremacist rally in DC on August 12. The refusal is contingent on a driver’s feelings of comfort and safety in accordance with the app’s community guidelines.
 
According to the terms agreed upon when signing up for the service, both drivers and passengers are “are expected to exercise good judgment and behave decently towards other people in the car when riding with Uber.” That list of bad behavior includes breaking the local law, damaging property, and use of inappropriate and abusive language or gestures. Uber tells Washingtonian that if a driver deems actions by a passenger discriminatory—which could include ideology, signage, and remarks associated with racial supremacy and neo-nazism—a driver is within his or her right to terminate the ride. It’s possible, too, that the user could be banned from using the app entirely, though Uber maintains that it investigates each complaint on a case to case basis.Yet the app exercised its right to remove a white supremacist user last year when it banned James Allsup after a African-American driver kicked Allsup and alt-right personality Baked Alaska (Tim Gionet) out of her car, BuzzFeed News reported. After reviewing a now-deleted video posted to Gionet’s now-suspended Twitter account, Uber booted Allsup from its services completely. The incident occurred just one day before the deadly riots in Charlottesville.
 
“Drivers always have the right to refuse service to riders who are disrespectful or make them feel unsafe, as the driver in this case rightly did,” Uber said in a statement sent to BuzzFeed News at the time.
 
It’s common for the ride-share service to circulate language to their drivers before buzzed-about events, such as this weekend’s rally, reminding them of state laws and their rights as employees. Other sharing economy companies, such as Airbnb, echo Uber’s language regarding temporarily or permanently banning racists.
 

 

 


  • 0

#35 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,860 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 10 August 2018 - 0719 AM

 

Its the rise of the corporations. There are many laws to ensure the state enshrines free speech, but there is little to say content providers or global multinationals have to be held to account to the same rules.

 

Ultimately we are all the enablers of this kind of thing. Dont like it, dont use Youtube (or Facebook, or Twitter or whatthehellever)

 

I'm certainly a "let the market work it out" person but I think there needs to be a serious debate about that when you have these mega corporations that have an unparalleled scope and reach to control the flow of information. They are now showing a very troubling tendency to coordinate with each other to cover wide areas of discourse. At some point you do run out of realistic options. The recent move of major corporations to not only tip their hat to "social causes" but to put the full weight of their power into supporting one side and "deplatforming" (that's an Orwellian term) the other side is scary, no matter which side they were going after.

 

 

There have been troubling signs of the malign effect of some of these corporations for a number of years. Its been known for several that Google Earth, as they travel around various countries, have been picking up wifi data and compiling it. Quite what that data was, nobody is quite sure, but they were supposedly picking up home wifi data, perhaps even traces of what you were watching at that particular moment if you dont have your home network locked down.

 

I respect the American's enshrining their civil rights, and their right to privacy, but Ive long despaired of the fact they dont seem to understand that corporations have become so powerful, they may turn out to be more powerful than a nation state at doing such things. We saw this recently with Facebook, happily sharing anyones data and ignoring privacy because in the end, they are the ones writing the rules. Similarly censorship. You may still have enshrined the right to say what you want in the street, or print what you want. But if you cant write it online, and if we are moving into a post print media, the dangers are possible to see.

 

Im not sure what the answers are. Im just saying the dangers of this have always been there. We are belatedly waking up to it. When a corporation becomes so dominant and powerful in the marketplace, it may be little different from a malign Government. We have safeguards against those, maligh corporations, well we just keep throwing our money at them dont we?

 

You are right, there needs to be a serious debate about it. But with our politicians being bankrolled by such corporations, I wouldnt count on it happening anytime soon.


  • 0

#36 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,466 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 10 August 2018 - 0730 AM


If anything, giving big tech companies the power to slow or restrict access is more likely to lead to censorship than mandating equal access.

Depends on who is in power.  

Well, I am pretty sure that those companies are not run by conservatives
  • 0

#37 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,466 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 10 August 2018 - 0739 AM


 


 


If anything, giving big tech companies the power to slow or restrict access is more likely to lead to censorship than mandating equal access.

Depends on who is in power.  
 
 
So you don't really know what net neutrality is. Thought so.
 
 
Neither do you, by that attitude. 

Are you confusing net neutrality, the idea that an ISP must treat all sites equally and not, say, give a lower price and higher speed to Amazon while charging Netflix more for slower service with the old neutrality policy for TV and radio?
  • 0

#38 EchoFiveMike

EchoFiveMike

    I offer safe passage through the wasteland

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,731 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FOB Chitcago
  • Interests:Killing, killing is the solution!

Posted 10 August 2018 - 0754 AM

 

 

 

you know... you put this all together it's a list. It's a trend. It's a warning. 

Could be worse, the US Leftists wants their version of censorship codified in law by the Net Neutrality Act.

 

 

How is net neutrality censorship?

 

 

Because the words they use are never held to account.  Words don't mean things to them, it's ALL arbitrary and capricious..  Here in US they always call the worst shit the most placid of terms.  S/F....Ken M

 


  • 0

#39 EchoFiveMike

EchoFiveMike

    I offer safe passage through the wasteland

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,731 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FOB Chitcago
  • Interests:Killing, killing is the solution!

Posted 10 August 2018 - 0758 AM

But those Uber drivers had DAMN SURE better go down to MLK and warzone to pick up that credit card paid ticket from "Buffy Chadsworth."  That's totally legit and any fear of going to an "underserved" food desert is completely racist racism!

S/F...Ken M

 

 

Bake the cake. 

 

Uber Says Its Drivers Can Kick Out White Supremacists

 

Drivers with the transportation company Uber will have the chance to refuse passengers who attend the upcoming Unite the Right 2 white supremacist rally in DC on August 12. The refusal is contingent on a driver’s feelings of comfort and safety in accordance with the app’s community guidelines.
 
According to the terms agreed upon when signing up for the service, both drivers and passengers are “are expected to exercise good judgment and behave decently towards other people in the car when riding with Uber.” That list of bad behavior includes breaking the local law, damaging property, and use of inappropriate and abusive language or gestures. Uber tells Washingtonian that if a driver deems actions by a passenger discriminatory—which could include ideology, signage, and remarks associated with racial supremacy and neo-nazism—a driver is within his or her right to terminate the ride. It’s possible, too, that the user could be banned from using the app entirely, though Uber maintains that it investigates each complaint on a case to case basis.Yet the app exercised its right to remove a white supremacist user last year when it banned James Allsup after a African-American driver kicked Allsup and alt-right personality Baked Alaska (Tim Gionet) out of her car, BuzzFeed News reported. After reviewing a now-deleted video posted to Gionet’s now-suspended Twitter account, Uber booted Allsup from its services completely. The incident occurred just one day before the deadly riots in Charlottesville.
 
“Drivers always have the right to refuse service to riders who are disrespectful or make them feel unsafe, as the driver in this case rightly did,” Uber said in a statement sent to BuzzFeed News at the time.
 
It’s common for the ride-share service to circulate language to their drivers before buzzed-about events, such as this weekend’s rally, reminding them of state laws and their rights as employees. Other sharing economy companies, such as Airbnb, echo Uber’s language regarding temporarily or permanently banning racists.
 

 

 

 


  • 0

#40 Der Zeitgeist

Der Zeitgeist

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,165 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Captive to Russia

Posted 10 August 2018 - 0803 AM

 

 

 

 

you know... you put this all together it's a list. It's a trend. It's a warning. 

Could be worse, the US Leftists wants their version of censorship codified in law by the Net Neutrality Act.

 

 

How is net neutrality censorship?

 

 

Because the words they use are never held to account.  Words don't mean things to them, it's ALL arbitrary and capricious..  Here in US they always call the worst shit the most placid of terms.  S/F....Ken M

 

 

 

And here's another one who doesn't know what net neutrality means.

 

I always thought that it was just the usual "RAH RAH, Obama, leftist, socialist, evil" argument, but it seems R011 is right and they really just don't know and think it's something about "neutrality" in the sense of "impartiality of viewpoints". 


  • 0




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users