This is the modus operandi of the left. They can not argue effectively so they try to call you a racist or ban free speech. This is what ever oppressive regime has done since time. The Nazis, The Catholic church of the dark ages, Any Communist group. We see this in many places in the west. England who wants to ban hate speech. Free speech is not needed if all anyone talks about is tulips.
Should Difference of Opinion Be Squelched On Sites Such As FB or Twitter?
by minimus 55 Replies latest jw friends
-
mickbobcat
-
RULES & REGULATIONS
Simon Companies that have effectively become public utilities should not be able to kick people off. If they force individual business owners to bake cakes, then they should hold large corporates to the same account.
Simon : Two years ago on a thread you started, you seemed to disagree with individual business owners being forced to bake a cake. Did you change your mind on this matter?
What Are Your Rights?
by Simon 2 years ago 121 Replies latest 2 years ago
You also shouldn't have the right to demand the labor of others directly. This is where we get into ridiculous situations where someone demands that someone else bakes them a cake, a crazy offensive cake that they don't want to make. Again, the right should be that the government should not force you to provide your labor when you don't want to. But a false right is created and you have legal contradictions and endless court cases. The government ends up being used as a stick which is in direct contradiction of the only role government should play when it comes to rights - not to force their will on others.
Only when someone plays the role of "government" can you demand provision of service - someone in a government office shouldn't be able to deny you service because they don't like you or your views for instance.
Only when private enterprises reach "utility" status should they lose the right to deny service. Private companies and individuals can and should be able to discriminate for whatever reason they chose because that is the reality of human existence. -
Queequeg
So much irony here it's almost goldy.
-
Anony Mous
@rules: the rules for monopolies are different purely legally speaking. The government also has rules around Internet forums that gives FaceBook and Twitter protection for what their users do if they do not edit or censor the content.
I’m all for companies being able to decide for themselves but they should not be able to use their power to ban others from society. To give you the comparison with the baker, if one baker does not want certain customers, fine, but what if all bakers colluded on one day to not give bread to black people. That would be an illegal cartel.
It has been very clear that Silicon Valley has internal, politically oriented coordination as Twitter and FaceBook and Instagram and Apple and Google, companies that supposedly compete with each other, coordinated their bans to be within minutes of each other. That is the definition of an illegal cartel.
There is nothing ironic about that, everyone has free speech and enjoy the free exchange of labor, nobody has the right to censor other people or pressure others to stop their freedom of exchange.
If FaceBook wants to censor, then they should get their protections taken away and we should be able to sue them for what anyone posted on their site. To give you the analogy, the baker you mentioned promised to bake for everyone, regardless of their personal conviction, only if the baker could never be sued for the occasionally poisoned cake. The baker in this case now refuses to bake for gays and is still baking poisoned cakes and still expects legal protection.
Whether you’re on the left or the right, swap the parties in your stories and if you defend the actions then, you are a partisan hack. Either the protests this summer and the protest at the capitols across the country are the same, or they are all violent insurrections. There is a difference in nuance you can argue about (public vs private destruction during an insurrection)
-
mickbobcat
Charlie Brown you are putting apples and oranges together. Classic of the left and their ignorant followers. First off to tell someone who owns a business and provides a service that they must preform that service I.E a cake with something they disagree on is not the same as providing a public platform for communications and then telling people what they have a right to say and not say is not even in the same ball park, not even the same game.
If someone is a photographer and does not want to be part of a gay wedding, there should be freedom of that person to decline based on their beliefs. What you are saying is the same thing is like ATT saying we don't like this group so we will not let them use our telephone system.
This can cut both ways in that if someone does not like blacks they can say I don't like burn loot murder so they can not use my electric service to power their printing presses. There are degrees of separation. In one scenario you say that making someone participate directly in the thing they are against or is antithetical to their belief system is the same as someone using your product to produce a thing or spread an idea you do not agree with. not only this but your question cuts both ways. If you are saying people have the right to cut off anything they own for use to someone who they don't like or agree with, then you must say that any one can deny anyone anything if they so choose. So we are back to the Woolworth lunch counter.
The owners of Fuckbook and Twit provide a platform for others to set up their own space. Like leasing someone a space in a mall. Unless they are doing something illegal its not up to you to tell them what they can and can not do or how they can do it, just because you may or may not agree with the idea. A better analogy would be you make a product that decorates cakes. You will not sell to anyone who uses your decorator kit to make gay cakes or anything that is against your ideology. You are several degrees away from actually being involved in the end product. Unlike the person who makes the cakes or caters the event.
There is a huge difference in telling someone I will not put have a great rump ranger wedding night on a cake and selling a blank cake and the person who bought your plain cake puts that logo on it. The cake maker should have no control over what the thing is used for one its in the hands of the user. That is their responsibility.
We see this twisted logic used by the left and their useful idiots all the time. The left wants to make gun manufactures responsible for the misuse of their guns. this is like telling GM they are responsible for an accident because the Corvette involved was designed to go faster then the speed limit. But logic and Liberals are in fact antithetical.
-
millie210
I have a question. Do any of these social media platforms (twitter, facebook etc) get funding from the government?
-
road to nowhere
Social media is not funded, BUT they use public airwaves, rights of way for cabling, and provide a necessary service. Tax breaks and shelters I know not.
-
mynameislame
The one that concerns me is blocking apps from being installed on my device. Like Apple and Google blocking the Parler app.
-
Simon
Simon : Two years ago on a thread you started, you seemed to disagree with individual business owners being forced to bake a cake. Did you change your mind on this matter?
A sensible rational person would see that the two positions are completely compatible, because an individual baker not wanting to do something they find personally offensive and being harassed to do so and punished by the state for not doing so is very, very, vert different to having all services removed by utility-level companies and those companies conspiring with lots of others to remove your services as well. The equivalent, for those who can't grasp little things, would be for the baker to not just refuse to bake you a cake but also have your phone, bank and electricity cancelled and have you banned from every super-market.
Would anyone want that? Of course not.
Was that my position? Of course not.
Only a fruit-loop would imagine it was. Good try, but maybe you shouldn't try to jump in when the grown-ups are talking in future. That way you won't make a fool of yourself.
-
Simon
Maybe think about the broader principles rather than simply focusing on whether you agree or not with the positions of those involved.
If you think it's OK then one day it may be you in the cross-hairs of corporate and government collusion. What then? Will you still think it's OK when you have lost your job, ability to market yourself, means of communication and marketing and even ability to pay bills?
If you think it's OK you are crazy and short-sighted.
The other factor to this is the opportunism. Large corporations are using unfair business practices and their position to knee-cap their rapidly growing competition.
They are virtue-signalling that it's over content, but the corporations doing this knowingly use child and slave lobor to make their products, knowingly host child pornography, allow terrorist fundraising and a cess-pit of threats and abusive content.
Don't tell me they really "care" about what is posted so much that they want to use their monopolistic power to limit competition and at the same time suck up to the government and do their political bidding so as to avoid and consequences and retain their leading position.
The job of government should be to maintain a level competitive playing field, to be the referee, not to collaborate with one side to benefit them in return for political favours by silencing the opposition.
It's ironic that all we've heard from the left for the past 4 years is content chants of "nazis, nazis, nazis" and on day 1 of being confirmed, the new government launches the most authoritarian political control of platforms that the US has ever seen and are absolutely trying to silence the opposition completely and enact retribution for no reason other than they lost the previous election and people have rightfully questioned the legitimacy of this one. For those who see fascism everywhere, it's a shame they can't see it when it's so obvious.
When you are on the side of big corporations and government silencing it's political opposition and enacting retribution against individuals you are not on the side of freedom or liberty and you are not the "resistance", you are the empire building the death star and gleefully deciding who you'll point it at next.