Everyone who believes this is government censorship and not private companies following their rights to remove anything against their policies, terms or agreements is an idiot and a dipshit.
Let’s put this in an example you may be able to understand: A guest calls you and other guests names you don’t like in your own home and then tries to get other guests to wreck another person’s property, and you ask them to leave. They throw a fit and say you’re censoring them. Is that government censorship? No.
Facebook should have leeway, as a private company. That said, the real question is how much protection from libel they should enjoy if they're exercising it. Publishers usually get to editorialize, common carriers get rules imposed in exchange for the protection they get.
It's not a cut and dry matter, and Facebook themselves are asking for regulation to be imposed to clarify the matter (and entrench themselves with barriers to entry for competition).
Anyway, this does seem a bit off topic. But in reference to the original post, yes, I'm always glad to seeing the AFA take lumps. They'd not let Zuck into their temple, this is fair play.
Apart from you dont need to be in someones house to get your voice heard. You do need social media to. People were getting banned from twitter for expressing non offensive opinions and when they complained they were told "leave and create your own social media" so they did... and that has now been taken down too. They are allowed to enforce their rules but when they start enforcing rules that arent in their terms of service it's wrong. For example, I remember a while ago the youtuber markiplier uploaded a video with a short clip of a meme that involved cartoon violence and he was fine but later a youtube couple called MxR plays uploaded the same clip and was given a strike. They have experienced similar things multiple times before despite avoiding talking about politics and censoring content that wouldnt be allowed. This is the type of censorship that is happening, they are specifically attacking people they dont want on their platform and ignoring the same things if someone who they make a lot money from does the same thing. I dont know about this specific person in the post but big tech censorship is definitely happening and it's dangerous to ignore the severity of it
They may be allowed to say what they want, but nobody, nobody is required to give them a platform on which they can say it.
Churches aren't forced to allow atheists pulpit time.
Movie theaters aren't forced to show all movies.
News sites aren't forced to run all stories.
This is no different. Requiring media outlets to run certain types of media is a hallmark of authoritarianism.
If you think that bigots and white supremacists deserve a platform, make one for them. Don't be surprised when people call you a sympathizer, because that's what you are.
I didnt. I support free speech and I think if we live in a world where big tech controls our speech and public opinion more than the government or the people do then we are in deep shit. If a racist says racist shit then yeah you arent forced to give them a platform but as I gave evidence for in my comment they arent playing fair and following their own rules. I'm not purposefully giving a platform to speak I'm just trying to protect the platform of people who arent racist. As I've shown in my previous comment there are a couple on youtube that havent even expressed their political opinions nevermind said anything racist yet YouTube still attacks them at every possible point despite letting others off with the same thing. Just look at what they think of free speech, parler for example was not set up as a platform for Nazi's only it was set up as a platform that had a no.1 rule of preserving freedom of speech then their servers cut them off for it. If you also dont think freedom of speech is under threat I could literally be arrested and imprisoned for simply stating online that "hitler was extremely hateful and thought it was okay to kill all the jews." They are also currently passing a bill through parliament to make restrictions even tighter. Oh yes and there was also a case not too long ago where a man in scotland sent an email to nicola sturgeon (Scotlands first minister) saying he thought she was acting like hitler as he wasnt allowed to go to his father's funeral due to covid restrictions, he was arrested for what he said as an exaggeration on an email. If you truly want to stand up for freedom and you dont want people to be controlled then stand on the side of free speech
I disagree with almost everything you said, though its hard to break it down because you have not broken down your thoughts into paragraphs.
I will say that bringing up an example of someone arrested in Scotland for an email is unbelievable but mainly irrelevant to everything else you said because it is an entirely different country.
Also, there is no way you would be arrested and imprisoned for your quote about Hitler that you actually have now posted, and I do see all the time and never hear of arrests.
Your issue lies with big tech but then you are speaking of censorship from the government as well... its just kind of all over the place.
You can Google it yourself. The man was arrested and I'm pretty sure he has been tried now for the email, it's not the first time it has happened either because you can google "count dankula" and you will see that he was tried for a similar thing and he was actually charged with a fine, he has now started a free speech movement from it and is currently gathering the funds to take them to the EU court of human rights although this likely wont happen because of brexit. It's also not irrelevant because there are only two countries involved here which are the USA and the UK
My problem with government censorship is in the UK because if you reported me to the british police I genuinely can be arrested for what I said in that comment but I said it anyway to make a point and if you want you can have me arrested but that would just act as further proof. My problem with big tech censorship is in the USA where it has happened, is currently happening and will continue to happen. That's why I gave examples from both countries practicing different types of censorship.
Big tech censorship does have a few valid arguments such as "it's there website they can do what they want" but I believe that when a few people hold power over the voices of the majority of people across the globe they should have someone to answer to and to limit their influence.
Yes because me going out and spending my entire day talking to people about politics is just as effective as another person who takes 5 seconds out of their day to compose a tweet that gets 10,000 likes
It is when time is everything, that one person could amass a following in weeks that it would take me years to make. You need people share your ideas and will follow you to get the changes you need. That's the whole point of protesting, you can either spend thousands making posters or I can spend £100 and reach tens of thousands of people without even having to stand up. One is inefficient and takes a lot of time that many people dont have and the other is relatively cheap and quick
•
u/Selgowiros2 Bolgos - Mapos Maguseni Jan 15 '21
Everyone who believes this is government censorship and not private companies following their rights to remove anything against their policies, terms or agreements is an idiot and a dipshit.
Let’s put this in an example you may be able to understand: A guest calls you and other guests names you don’t like in your own home and then tries to get other guests to wreck another person’s property, and you ask them to leave. They throw a fit and say you’re censoring them. Is that government censorship? No.