There are many other things that businesses do that I think are worse.
Free speech is the bedrock of a democracy. Big Tech is trying to use their power to decide the outcomes of the midterm elections, by silencing those they disagree with. The future is now.
I agree. Should be another independent counsel. Really, Mueller should have been all over this, but he's been on a witch hunt for Trump..
We have a Republican WH and Congress. Seems this should be easy.
You'd think so, but Sessions recused himself, and there's an establishment that wants to take down Trump. We've already seen the naked bias against Trump, resulting in demotions or firings: Strzok, McCabe, and Ohr spring to mind. It's been nearly two years of deep state thrashing, with a complicit media in constant "Trump/Russia" mode.
Who did that Russian woman meet with before and after the Don Jr. meeting? Oh, that's right, it was Glenn Simpson, one of the co-founders from Fusion GPS, the law firm hired by the DNC and Clinton campaign. The law firm they used to hire an ex foreign agent to talk to Russian spies and come up with a smear dossier on the main opposition candidate. Huh, it's almost as if they were setting up the Trump campaign with bait. How's that for Russian collusion?
There is a scandal here. It's Watergate and McCarthyism mixed into one -- and it's the Democrats with black hands.
It may be a surprise that I don't find this a terribly bad thing.
Surprised? Hardly. People like you will cry holy murder if your "side" is censored, but will shrug your shoulders and make excuses when it happens to those you are against.
It may also be a surprise to you that my country has no free speech right, it's implied, apparently, but not part of any legislation.
So?
And yes, I was aware of the claims made, but from what I've read - before moving onto more interesting topics - it seemed that the 'censorship' was, largely, banning accounts that violated the rules they agreed to when signing up.
Oh, so now you were aware, despite earlier claiming ignorance from disuse of said platforms? But you don't care about free speech anyways, and besides, it's all valid under the terms of service? Except that it isn't, because the Republicans that were shadowbanned did not break the terms of service.
I'm not going to defend the violent antifa protesters, but I'm not going to see any moral equivalence with murderers and people who call for genocide.
Where have the Proud Boys called for murder and genocide? Oh, that's right, they haven't. What about Patriot Prayers, another favorite target of anti-First Amendment? Oh, that's right, they haven't either. What about Trump supporters having free speech rallies at Berkeley? Oh, they haven't either.
Twatter censorship of the right is political and hypocritical, and your pathetic excuses are tissue thin. You support the authoritarian left.
That's because you either haven't been paying attention or are willfully blind. They selectively enforce and interpret their standards against the right. Many of their decisions have no justification at all, even within the terms of service.
You know most of those "Antifa" accounts are fake, right?
You mean like the Berkeley Antifa account? The most violent Antifa that resulted in the trend of street battles at demonstrations? Why are any of their accounts allowed on Twatter, when Proud Boys were banned, which never called for violence, and only engaged in self-defense against anti-First Amendment Antifa?
Stop pretending you have any semblance of standards.
Phony excuse for censorship. Were all the Republican politicians on Twitter "inciting violence" when they were shadowbanned? Is "hate" speech inciting violence, like criticizing immigration policy? Why is Antifa still allowed on these platforms, when they explicitly practice violence, shutting down the free speech of others?
Keep lying to yourself that the censorship going on is happening for anything other than political reasons.
One could say that Twitter is a distributor. They have every right to decide what they want to distribute. An analogy here would be a film distributor.
A film distributor would be responsible for what they distribute. Twatter and the other Big Tech oligarchies want to curate their content but not be responsible for what they publish.
Your Comcast analogy is highly flawed. But then, you knew that.
Is it? Is there another "Facebook" that you can practice free speech on if Facebook decides it doesn't like your politics? What happens when Facebook, Google/YouTube, and Twitter all decide it doesn't like your politics, and censors you? Right before the midterm elections?
You have free speech, go talk in the dark alleyway! Build your own social media network, become part of the oligarchy, and then you will have the free speech you desire!
"Generally speaking and simply put, Democrats got clobbered in the digital space. [..] And the right colonized Facebook, which has established a virtual monopoly on information distribution."
"Internet and social media platforms, like Google and Facebook, will no longer uncritically and without consequence host and enrich fake news sites and propagandists."
"Toxic alt-right social media-fueled harassment campaigns that silence dissent and poison our national discourse will be punished and halted."
There's a handful of companies that control the online public square, by virtue of the network effect and natural monopolies. They're all based out of far-left leaning California. What does it mean to have free speech when your speech is censored by a politically biased oligarchy that controls >90% of the public square?
Would you accept the top-3 mobile companies banning you from their services because they didn't like what you were saying? Right before the midterm elections?
This is what I was saying about electric cars back in 2008
Except there was already a proof-of-concept with the EV1. Electric cars are at least feasible, even if they are still too expensive or impractical, with the vast majority of people still driving on gasoline engines.
and about the idea of reusable rockets back in 2010
I'm more confused than ever. I would classify all of those things as "cool!" and then follow it up with "make it happen!". Why in the world would any of those things make you hate him?
Because they're ridiculously expensive and impractical. I'm not going to hate his guts for it, but I'm pretty sick of his fanboys.
That they cherry pick for their foregone conclusions? You realize Climategate's "hide the decline" was about truncating decades worth of tree data that diverged from real temperatures, right?
well-verified models that have been vetted and analyzed
The models have consistently over-predicted temperatures.
Slashdot Mirror
There are many other things that businesses do that I think are worse.
Free speech is the bedrock of a democracy. Big Tech is trying to use their power to decide the outcomes of the midterm elections, by silencing those they disagree with. The future is now.
So....investigate the DNC and Clinton campaign!
I agree. Should be another independent counsel. Really, Mueller should have been all over this, but he's been on a witch hunt for Trump..
We have a Republican WH and Congress. Seems this should be easy.
You'd think so, but Sessions recused himself, and there's an establishment that wants to take down Trump. We've already seen the naked bias against Trump, resulting in demotions or firings: Strzok, McCabe, and Ohr spring to mind. It's been nearly two years of deep state thrashing, with a complicit media in constant "Trump/Russia" mode.
met with this Russian woman at Trump Tower
Who did that Russian woman meet with before and after the Don Jr. meeting? Oh, that's right, it was Glenn Simpson, one of the co-founders from Fusion GPS, the law firm hired by the DNC and Clinton campaign. The law firm they used to hire an ex foreign agent to talk to Russian spies and come up with a smear dossier on the main opposition candidate. Huh, it's almost as if they were setting up the Trump campaign with bait. How's that for Russian collusion?
There is a scandal here. It's Watergate and McCarthyism mixed into one -- and it's the Democrats with black hands.
It may be a surprise that I don't find this a terribly bad thing.
Surprised? Hardly. People like you will cry holy murder if your "side" is censored, but will shrug your shoulders and make excuses when it happens to those you are against.
It may also be a surprise to you that my country has no free speech right, it's implied, apparently, but not part of any legislation.
So?
And yes, I was aware of the claims made, but from what I've read - before moving onto more interesting topics - it seemed that the 'censorship' was, largely, banning accounts that violated the rules they agreed to when signing up.
Oh, so now you were aware, despite earlier claiming ignorance from disuse of said platforms? But you don't care about free speech anyways, and besides, it's all valid under the terms of service? Except that it isn't, because the Republicans that were shadowbanned did not break the terms of service.
FAR left
o Open borders
o Welfare state
o Anti-First Amendment (Antifa)
o Transgender "rights" for the 0.1% over the rights of the 99.9%.
You may not use those platforms, but coverage of their censorship of the right has gained plenty of coverage, both on Slashdot and elsewhere.
I have a third option: the 1st Amendment applies to the oligarchy of companies controlling the online public square.
Twitter moderates their content. They lose common carrier and also gain responsibility for that content.
No they don't. They want to eat their cake and have it too.
The antifas are attacking Nazis.
No.
I'm not going to defend the violent antifa protesters, but I'm not going to see any moral equivalence with murderers and people who call for genocide.
Where have the Proud Boys called for murder and genocide? Oh, that's right, they haven't. What about Patriot Prayers, another favorite target of anti-First Amendment? Oh, that's right, they haven't either. What about Trump supporters having free speech rallies at Berkeley? Oh, they haven't either.
Twatter censorship of the right is political and hypocritical, and your pathetic excuses are tissue thin. You support the authoritarian left.
The question arises how much political censorship by an oligarchy are you willing to tolerate because once upon a time Myspace used to be a thing?
Quite a different thing, from where I'm sitting.
That's because you either haven't been paying attention or are willfully blind. They selectively enforce and interpret their standards against the right. Many of their decisions have no justification at all, even within the terms of service.
You know most of those "Antifa" accounts are fake, right?
You mean like the Berkeley Antifa account? The most violent Antifa that resulted in the trend of street battles at demonstrations? Why are any of their accounts allowed on Twatter, when Proud Boys were banned, which never called for violence, and only engaged in self-defense against anti-First Amendment Antifa?
Stop pretending you have any semblance of standards.
You mean the woman who was sarcastically replying to vitriol that was thrown at her?
Nope. The racist hire was not replying to anybody. She was just "virtue" signaling her hatred of white people, unprompted.
You're not really that dumb to see the whole picture here right?
You're so dumb you bought the excuse given by the New York Times?
No, but I also don't try to incite violence.
Phony excuse for censorship. Were all the Republican politicians on Twitter "inciting violence" when they were shadowbanned? Is "hate" speech inciting violence, like criticizing immigration policy? Why is Antifa still allowed on these platforms, when they explicitly practice violence, shutting down the free speech of others?
Keep lying to yourself that the censorship going on is happening for anything other than political reasons.
One could say that Twitter is a distributor. They have every right to decide what they want to distribute. An analogy here would be a film distributor.
A film distributor would be responsible for what they distribute. Twatter and the other Big Tech oligarchies want to curate their content but not be responsible for what they publish.
Technical Twitter seems OK still
What's the fucking point?
Your Comcast analogy is highly flawed. But then, you knew that.
Is it? Is there another "Facebook" that you can practice free speech on if Facebook decides it doesn't like your politics? What happens when Facebook, Google/YouTube, and Twitter all decide it doesn't like your politics, and censors you? Right before the midterm elections?
You have free speech, go talk in the dark alleyway! Build your own social media network, become part of the oligarchy, and then you will have the free speech you desire!
"Democracy Matters: Strategic Plan for Action":
"Generally speaking and simply put, Democrats got clobbered in the digital space. [..] And the right colonized Facebook, which has established a virtual monopoly on information distribution."
"Internet and social media platforms, like Google and Facebook, will no longer uncritically and without consequence host and enrich fake news sites and propagandists."
"Toxic alt-right social media-fueled harassment campaigns that silence dissent and poison our national discourse will be punished and halted."
There's a handful of companies that control the online public square, by virtue of the network effect and natural monopolies. They're all based out of far-left leaning California. What does it mean to have free speech when your speech is censored by a politically biased oligarchy that controls >90% of the public square?
Would you accept the top-3 mobile companies banning you from their services because they didn't like what you were saying? Right before the midterm elections?
This is what I was saying about electric cars back in 2008
Except there was already a proof-of-concept with the EV1. Electric cars are at least feasible, even if they are still too expensive or impractical, with the vast majority of people still driving on gasoline engines.
and about the idea of reusable rockets back in 2010
That also has a history before Musk.
I underestimated him twice; unlike people like you, I learn from my mistakes
No, you've just become a fanboy unable to think critically.
"Safety and Trust" is right up there with "Ministry of Truth".
I'm more confused than ever. I would classify all of those things as "cool!" and then follow it up with "make it happen!". Why in the world would any of those things make you hate him?
Because they're ridiculously expensive and impractical. I'm not going to hate his guts for it, but I'm pretty sick of his fanboys.
That's right, there is a huge multinational conspiracy
Climategate really happened. Political bias in science happens. It's happened before, it happened in climate science, and it will happen again.
Also, know how I know you watch fox news? Climategate.
This is what politicized denialism looks like. I give you facts on Climategate, you talk about Fox News.
Another major factor is that in the western US the climate is heating up and drying up. This negatively impacts the health of the forests
And yet climate scientists think it's valid to use increased tree ring growth as a proxy for rising temperatures.
massive amounts of data
That they cherry pick for their foregone conclusions? You realize Climategate's "hide the decline" was about truncating decades worth of tree data that diverged from real temperatures, right?
well-verified models that have been vetted and analyzed
The models have consistently over-predicted temperatures.