Renzatic on 4/4/2018 at 22:55
Everything's just so damn awkward these days.
heywood on 4/4/2018 at 23:21
Forget left and right. The real question is, are you a blue or a green? Something for the old sci-fi geeks:
[video=youtube;MyEPMIT4P90]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyEPMIT4P90[/video]
Starker on 5/4/2018 at 03:33
Quote Posted by Vae
So, all in all, this latest event favors the narrative on the Right...even with the caveat of her fighting against censorship, which is at this point in history, a position on the Right.
Never knew ACLU was a right wing organisation.
Tocky on 5/4/2018 at 04:41
Exposing lies and corruption is what the right calls censorship these days. Once Sinclair and groups like it gain all the media even the term lie will disappear from the lexicon.
Starker on 5/4/2018 at 05:31
Nah, but a lot of them do seem to think that refusing to give everyone a platform is censorship. When Reddit bans hate groups, that's censorship for them, even though Reddit is in no way obligated to host them. Also, a lot of them seem to think criticism is the same as censorship, because it "forces" artists to self-censor or some bullshit like that.
heywood on 5/4/2018 at 21:20
Suppressing certain views because they are politically unacceptable or offensive or potentially harmful fits the definition of censorship.
We normally allow private companies some leeway in censoring content based on their terms of service, but not to the point where their terms of service are discriminatory.
Social media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter were created as open and neutral platforms, and they have a practical monopoly control on certain expressions of speech. Censoring somebody on YouTube or excluding their site from Google searches is a much, much bigger deal than censoring somebody on TTLG. The former can ruin their business and their public reputation. So I am personally concerned about these platforms getting pressured by advertisers, protestors, or the PC police into discriminating against unpopular content.
Starker on 6/4/2018 at 05:08
If someone is banned for things like inciting violence and advocating rape, they can go to voat or gab or wherever. They are not entitled to be on the most popular platforms.
Also, as I see it, people don't have any obligation to tolerate someone who is, say, glamouring for a race war. They are completely in their right to protest and "PC police" them.
As for the companies, why should they allow all kinds of content? Why should they give space for someone advocating a race war? And what about the reputation of the companies? Should they be forced to condone something like this?
Pyrian on 6/4/2018 at 06:36
This is the sort of thing that happens when private companies become de facto infrastructure without even any corresponding regulation. Is Facebook an optional service, or a vital infrastructure? The truth is that their success largely hinges on acting more like the latter than the former; people quit all the time, and most eventually slink back because it's just where their friends' content is, like it or not. Personally I would still categorize Facebook as an optional service, but I can totally understand the argument that they're toeing that line. What if your ISP blocks you because of your speech? There are other ISP's that maybe - maybe - won't. Or maybe there aren't, depending on where you live. And if an ISP can't do that on account of being vital infrastructure, well then they shouldn't be messing around with net neutrality, either...
Starker on 6/4/2018 at 07:00
Maybe it's because I'm too old, but I don't see how Facebook is vital infrastructure. There are so many other ways of keeping in touch with friends.
Also, what people do in their circle of friends and private groups is one thing, but what do you do when you have a public group called /r/philosophyofrape (now banned) that espouses views like these:
Quote:
Rape served a very important function in mitigating female behavior and keeping it in check. Back in the time of prehistory, a woman couldn't behave as shamelessly slutty as she can today, because of the risk of catching the eye of the wrong male. But now, with "consent" laws barring nature back, and feminism and sexual-liberation perverting whole generations of hearts and minds, we find ourselves in a situation gone way, way, too far.
...
It's not only morally justifiable to rape such a woman, it's and brave [sic].
Is protesting such a group really nothing more than discrimination against unpopular content? And when does such a group stop being potentially harmful and become actively harmful? Isn't advocating rape harmful enough by itself? Does Reddit have to wait until there is an actual incident linked to the group?
nickie on 6/4/2018 at 19:10
I'm so gobsmacked by your post, Starker, that I'm going to pretend I didn't read it.
Quote Posted by Vae
The Second Amendment, like all other Amendments in the Bill of Rights, is
foundational and
absolute, due to
natural law..
I know I'm going back a bit but I've been busy. I'd rather like to ask what you or anyone else think/s constitutes a 'natural law'. I'm not aware of anything other than a 'theory/philosophy' etc.
