Big Tech Assault on Free Speech
-
-
It really must be hard to grasp what "free speech" vis a vis the 1st amendment really means, doesn't it?
-
It really must be hard to grasp what "free speech" vis a vis the 1st amendment really means, doesn't it?
It really must be hard to grasp what "free speech" vis a vis the 1st amendment really means, doesn't it?
Not trying to give you crap but what does it look like to you, free speech, not the article oh, and the First Amendment?
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Interesting that his co-partner in starting Facebook is also now for breaking them up through use of the old trustbusting laws that T. Roosevelt used on monopolies. And there is where Fox and CNN actually converge in defending free press and placing some oversight onto facebook and it's associated acquisitions.
-
Not trying to give you crap but what does it look like to you, free speech, not the article oh, and the First Amendment?
WSS
I'm confused by your phrasing...?
That said, this isn't free speech bottom line and there is seemingly this giant misconception as to what that is. Facebook, like any entity, including this forum for that matter - reserves the right to remove whatever they wish. Because the "speech" being listed is placed upon a private host that has certain conditions to what you may list on their medium. A large corporation, to be sure. Facebook, Twitter, IG, etc etc. Far reaching and echoing. But at the end of the day - a private entity not bound to "free speech". Again, this forum is no different. I can't say whatever I'd like because we have limits here and rightfully so.
Free speech applies to government censorship and barring the ability to assemble as you wish.
Ergo, Tucker's argument is inherently flawed but that won't stop him from generating a base stirring narrative.
-
Not trying to give you crap but what does it look like to you, free speech, not the article oh, and the First Amendment?
WSS
I'm confused by your phrasing...?
That said, this isn't free speech bottom line and there is seemingly this giant misconception as to what that is. Facebook, like any entity, including this forum for that matter - reserves the right to remove whatever they wish. Because the "speech" being listed is placed upon a private host that has certain conditions to what you may list on their medium. A large corporation, to be sure. Facebook, Twitter, IG, etc etc. Far reaching and echoing. But at the end of the day - a private entity not bound to "free speech". Again, this forum is no different. I can't say whatever I'd like because we have limits here and rightfully so.
Free speech applies to government censorship and barring the ability to assemble as you wish.
Ergo, Tucker's argument is inherently flawed but that won't stop him from generating a base stirring narrative.
I'm confused by your phrasing...?
That said, this isn't free speech bottom line and there is seemingly this giant misconception as to what that is. Facebook, like any entity, including this forum for that matter - reserves the right to remove whatever they wish. Because the "speech" being listed is placed upon a private host that has certain conditions to what you may list on their medium. A large corporation, to be sure. Facebook, Twitter, IG, etc etc. Far reaching and echoing. But at the end of the day - a private entity not bound to "free speech". Again, this forum is no different. I can't say whatever I'd like because we have limits here and rightfully so.
Free speech applies to government censorship and barring the ability to assemble as you wish.
Ergo, Tucker's argument is inherently flawed but that won't stop him from generating a base stirring narrative.
Tuckers argument is not inherently flawed (Carlson pointing out that conservative speech is being censored) but you are mincing words. Your definition of free speech is correct but whether you call it what it really is censorship (which does seem like an assault on free speech) or not Conservatives don't need to be stirred up by Carlson over the censorship of conservative speech by FB, Google and Twitter. It is there and it is real. I'm hoping their censorship will stir congress to act to break up their monopolies.
-
Not trying to give you crap but what does it look like to you, free speech, not the article oh, and the First Amendment?
WSS
I'm confused by your phrasing...?
That said, this isn't free speech bottom line and there is seemingly this giant misconception as to what that is. Facebook, like any entity, including this forum for that matter - reserves the right to remove whatever they wish. Because the "speech" being listed is placed upon a private host that has certain conditions to what you may list on their medium. A large corporation, to be sure. Facebook, Twitter, IG, etc etc. Far reaching and echoing. But at the end of the day - a private entity not bound to "free speech". Again, this forum is no different. I can't say whatever I'd like because we have limits here and rightfully so.
Free speech applies to government censorship and barring the ability to assemble as you wish.
Ergo, Tucker's argument is inherently flawed but that won't stop him from generating a base stirring narrative.
I'm confused by your phrasing...?
That said, this isn't free speech bottom line and there is seemingly this giant misconception as to what that is. Facebook, like any entity, including this forum for that matter - reserves the right to remove whatever they wish. Because the "speech" being listed is placed upon a private host that has certain conditions to what you may list on their medium. A large corporation, to be sure. Facebook, Twitter, IG, etc etc. Far reaching and echoing. But at the end of the day - a private entity not bound to "free speech". Again, this forum is no different. I can't say whatever I'd like because we have limits here and rightfully so.
Free speech applies to government censorship and barring the ability to assemble as you wish.
Ergo, Tucker's argument is inherently flawed but that won't stop him from generating a base stirring narrative.
I would be willing to wager if FB, Twitter, Instagram, etc would start censoring gays, lesbians, or tranny’s there would be a complete 180 of that thought process.
Two things that will define you: Your determination when you have nothing. Your attitude when you have everything. - Mike McCartney -
I'm confused by your phrasing...?
That said, this isn't free speech bottom line and there is seemingly this giant misconception as to what that is. Facebook, like any entity, including this forum for that matter - reserves the right to remove whatever they wish. Because the "speech" being listed is placed upon a private host that has certain conditions to what you may list on their medium. A large corporation, to be sure. Facebook, Twitter, IG, etc etc. Far reaching and echoing. But at the end of the day - a private entity not bound to "free speech". Again, this forum is no different. I can't say whatever I'd like because we have limits here and rightfully so.
Free speech applies to government censorship and barring the ability to assemble as you wish.
Ergo, Tucker's argument is inherently flawed but that won't stop him from generating a base stirring narrative.
Tuckers argument is not inherently flawed (Carlson pointing out that conservative speech is being censored) but you are mincing words. Your definition of free speech is correct but whether you call it what it really is censorship (which does seem like an assault on free speech) or not Conservatives don't need to be stirred up by Carlson over the censorship of conservative speech by FB, Google and Twitter. It is there and it is real. I'm hoping their censorship will stir congress to act to break up their monopolies.
Tuckers argument is not inherently flawed (Carlson pointing out that conservative speech is being censored) but you are mincing words. Your definition of free speech is correct but whether you call it what it really is censorship (which does seem like an assault on free speech) or not Conservatives don't need to be stirred up by Carlson over the censorship of conservative speech by FB, Google and Twitter. It is there and it is real. I'm hoping their censorship will stir congress to act to break up their monopolies.
Let us not pretend as if you truly believe there is a monopoly here. You simply disagree with whom they've "censored". Nevermind that Farrakan and many antifa groups have also been eliminated. Now you wish to weaponize congress... which will fail in this case. You can "break up" these companies, but their ToS won't change and don't have too.
-
I'm confused by your phrasing...?
That said, this isn't free speech bottom line and there is seemingly this giant misconception as to what that is. Facebook, like any entity, including this forum for that matter - reserves the right to remove whatever they wish. Because the "speech" being listed is placed upon a private host that has certain conditions to what you may list on their medium. A large corporation, to be sure. Facebook, Twitter, IG, etc etc. Far reaching and echoing. But at the end of the day - a private entity not bound to "free speech". Again, this forum is no different. I can't say whatever I'd like because we have limits here and rightfully so.
Free speech applies to government censorship and barring the ability to assemble as you wish.
Ergo, Tucker's argument is inherently flawed but that won't stop him from generating a base stirring narrative.
I would be willing to wager if FB, Twitter, Instagram, etc would start censoring gays, lesbians, or tranny’s there would be a complete 180 of that thought process.
I would be willing to wager if FB, Twitter, Instagram, etc would start censoring gays, lesbians, or tranny’s there would be a complete 180 of that thought process.
Well I'm not gay, lesbian or tranny... so I couldn't give a shit less what they have to say. If they're banned then they're banned. I'd personally like to see some toxic feminist pages taken offline. Funny enough, a couple have been.
-
Tuckers argument is not inherently flawed (Carlson pointing out that conservative speech is being censored) but you are mincing words. Your definition of free speech is correct but whether you call it what it really is censorship (which does seem like an assault on free speech) or not Conservatives don't need to be stirred up by Carlson over the censorship of conservative speech by FB, Google and Twitter. It is there and it is real. I'm hoping their censorship will stir congress to act to break up their monopolies.
Let us not pretend as if you truly believe there is a monopoly here. You simply disagree with whom they've "censored". Nevermind that Farrakan and many antifa groups have also been eliminated. Now you wish to weaponize congress... which will fail in this case. You can "break up" these companies, but their ToS won't change and don't have too.
Let us not pretend as if you truly believe there is a monopoly here. You simply disagree with whom they've "censored". Nevermind that Farrakan and many antifa groups have also been eliminated. Now you wish to weaponize congress... which will fail in this case. You can "break up" these companies, but their ToS won't change and don't have too.
Because of a few censored like Farrakahn that hardly makes up for huge disparity in conservative speech being censored over liberal speech. BTW - it is not only conservatives calling for a break up of these big tech companies for being monopolies.
-
Let us not pretend as if you truly believe there is a monopoly here. You simply disagree with whom they've "censored". Nevermind that Farrakan and many antifa groups have also been eliminated. Now you wish to weaponize congress... which will fail in this case. You can "break up" these companies, but their ToS won't change and don't have too.
Because of a few censored like Farrakahn that hardly makes up for huge disparity in conservative speech being censored over liberal speech. BTW - it is not only conservatives calling for a break up of these big tech companies for being monopolies.
Because of a few censored like Farrakahn that hardly makes up for huge disparity in conservative speech being censored over liberal speech. BTW - it is not only conservatives calling for a break up of these big tech companies for being monopolies.
First off - those aren't conservatives. As I've pointed out, that word has been perverted into something far beyond what it was meant to be.
Second, don't care what the other voices are... they can shut it to. Especially if it's the dems.
-
I would be willing to wager if FB, Twitter, Instagram, etc would start censoring gays, lesbians, or tranny’s there would be a complete 180 of that thought process.
Well I'm not gay, lesbian or tranny... so I couldn't give a shit less what they have to say. If they're banned then they're banned. I'd personally like to see some toxic feminist pages taken offline. Funny enough, a couple have been.
Well I'm not gay, lesbian or tranny... so I could give a shit less what they have to say. If they're banned then they're banned. I'd personally like to see some toxic feminist pages taken offline. Funny enough, a couple have been.
Nah...if there was widespread censoring amongst any type of group, there would be massive protests and multiple billion dollar lawsuits. All in the name of the first Amendment.
-
Well I'm not gay, lesbian or tranny... so I could give a shit less what they have to say. If they're banned then they're banned. I'd personally like to see some toxic feminist pages taken offline. Funny enough, a couple have been.
Nah...if there was widespread censoring amongst any type of group, there would be massive protests and multiple billion dollar lawsuits. All in the name of the first Amendment.
Nah...if there was widespread censoring amongst any type of group, there would be massive protests and multiple billion dollar lawsuits. All in the name of the first Amendment.
And again, those lawsuits would be a waste of time and money which will ultimately fail. People can invoke the 1st all they damn well please. Their 1st amendment rights are not being violated here and it's that simple.
-
Nah...if there was widespread censoring amongst any type of group, there would be massive protests and multiple billion dollar lawsuits. All in the name of the first Amendment.
And again, those lawsuits would be a waste of time and money which will ultimately fail. People can invoke the 1st all they damn well please. Their 1st amendment rights are not being violated here and it's that simple.
Their 1st amendment rights are not being violated here and it's that simple.
It was a hypothetical premise.
-
It was a hypothetical premise.
That's fair. It's a premise I would enjoy seeing at least one of these groups dare. If only to burn their financial resources trying.
-
Because of a few censored like Farrakahn that hardly makes up for huge disparity in conservative speech being censored over liberal speech. BTW - it is not only conservatives calling for a break up of these big tech companies for being monopolies.
First off - those aren't conservatives. As I've pointed out, that word has been perverted into something far beyond what it was meant to be.
Second, don't care what the other voices are... they can shut it to. Especially if it's the dems.
First off - those aren't conservatives. As I've pointed out, that word has been perverted into something far beyond what it was meant to be.
Second, don't care what the other voices are... they can shut to. Especially if it's the dems.
The answer to speech you do not like or agree with is not censorship but more speech.
-
First off - those aren't conservatives. As I've pointed out, that word has been perverted into something far beyond what it was meant to be.
Second, don't care what the other voices are... they can shut to. Especially if it's the dems.
The answer to speech you do not like or agree with is not censorship but more speech.
The answer to speech you do not like or agree with is not censorship but more speech.
And that's great, but if I go off on a tangent on this board that is Ghoolie-ish over a length period of time - what do you suppose is to happen? Am I going to get a time out or will I just be allowed "more speech"...? Exactly.
If these companies don't like what someone posts to their* medium... then they may do as they please. Regardless if I agree with it or not.
-
I'm confused by your phrasing...?
That said, this isn't free speech bottom line and there is seemingly this giant misconception as to what that is. Facebook, like any entity, including this forum for that matter - reserves the right to remove whatever they wish. Because the "speech" being listed is placed upon a private host that has certain conditions to what you may list on their medium. A large corporation, to be sure. Facebook, Twitter, IG, etc etc. Far reaching and echoing. But at the end of the day - a private entity not bound to "free speech". Again, this forum is no different. I can't say whatever I'd like because we have limits here and rightfully so.
Free speech applies to government censorship and barring the ability to assemble as you wish.
Ergo, Tucker's argument is inherently flawed but that won't stop him from generating a base stirring narrative.
Tuckers argument is not inherently flawed (Carlson pointing out that conservative speech is being censored) but you are mincing words. Your definition of free speech is correct but whether you call it what it really is censorship (which does seem like an assault on free speech) or not Conservatives don't need to be stirred up by Carlson over the censorship of conservative speech by FB, Google and Twitter. It is there and it is real. I'm hoping their censorship will stir congress to act to break up their monopolies.
Tuckers argument is not inherently flawed (Carlson pointing out that conservative speech is being censored) but you are mincing words. Your definition of free speech is correct but whether you call it what it really is censorship (which does seem like an assault on free speech) or not Conservatives don't need to be stirred up by Carlson over the censorship of conservative speech by FB, Google and Twitter. It is there and it is real. I'm hoping their censorship will stir congress to act to break up their monopolies.
We are playing dangerously if we start breaking up social media companies because of their rules for their service (not a utility). Conservatives are free to start their own social media firm.
-
-
I just hear whining and a lack of initiative. Gun owners got sick of YouTube's practices and started Full30.com.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login