Big Tech Assault on Free Speech

[OldBrownsFan]

 

[tiamat63]

It really must be hard to grasp what "free speech" vis a vis the 1st amendment really means, doesn't it? 

[Westside Steve]

2 hours ago, tiamat63 said:

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

[TexasAg1969]

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.

[tiamat63]

34 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

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. 

[OldBrownsFan]

1 hour ago, tiamat63 said:

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.

 

[Canton Dawg]

1 hour ago, tiamat63 said:

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.

[tiamat63]

22 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

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.  

[tiamat63]

3 minutes ago, Canton Dawg said:

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.

[OldBrownsFan]

Just now, tiamat63 said:

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.

[tiamat63]

2 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

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.  

[Canton Dawg]

3 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

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.

[tiamat63]

1 minute ago, Canton Dawg said:

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. 

[Canton Dawg]

Just now, tiamat63 said:

Their 1st amendment rights are not being violated here and it's that simple. 

It was a hypothetical premise.

[tiamat63]

Just now, Canton Dawg said:

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.

[OldBrownsFan]

 

6 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

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.

[tiamat63]

10 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

 

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.  

[LogicIsForSquares]

55 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

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. 

[DieHardBrownsFan]

[LogicIsForSquares]

I just hear whining and a lack of initiative. Gun owners got sick of YouTube's practices and started Full30.com. 

[Westside Steve]

1 hour ago, tiamat63 said:

I'm confused by your phrasing...?

 sorry. It wasn't very clear was it?

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.  

I'm guessing the admendment grew out of English soldiers busting rolls for having seditious Rallies. We tend to forget everything they wrote was through the prism of the Revolutionary War. In a way that makes me believe that the letter of the law and the intent are blurred and I agree with Canton dogs later point if it were one of the protected species there would be a shitstorm.

Ergo, Tucker's argument is inherently flawed but that won't stop him from generating a base stirring narrative. 

 

[Clevfan4life]

10 minutes ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

I just hear whining and a lack of initiative. Gun owners got sick of YouTube's practices and started Full30.com. 

and there you go. And can't nobody complain about what gets posted there. All of you that got ur kunts stretched out by the likes of fucking Zuckerberg and Dorsey (The twitter fag not our beloved buddy boy)...need to just stfu already. Start your own social media. Or just give up social media period....best answer. 

[Clevfan4life]

And steve….you of all people should not even be in this thread. You should be putting on a low brim hat and ducking your fat ass out the back door before anybody recognized you. 

[Westside Steve]

5 hours ago, Clevfan4life said:

And steve….you of all people should not even be in this thread. You should be putting on a low brim hat and ducking your fat ass out the back door before anybody recognized you. 

 let me say this as respectfully as I can Cleve, go fuck yourself. There are Community standards on this board believe it or not and they are enforced more stringently on TBB than they are here but that doesn't mean they don't exist. And that doesn't mean if some members decide to be as obnoxious, abusive, vulgar and anti-social as posidle that they won't have their shit removed.

 I think I was pretty fair in  asking everybody to try to keep it cool and as far as I can tell only one person has decided to ramp up his offensive behavior and that's you. Don't forget that one of the set reasons for warning points is simply being a douchebag. 

 if you think somebody else here has been worse than (or even in the same vicinity as)  you feel free to let me know.

 I have recently, just for the sake of fairness, deleted some posts from men who are far more intelligent and witty and much less universally despised than you.

WSS

[tiamat63]

52 minutes ago, Clevfan4life said:

And steve….you of all people should not even be in this thread. You should be putting on a low brim hat and ducking your fat ass out the back door before anybody recognized you. 

Technically that sounds like flirting to me.  

[OldBrownsFan]

Conservatives Ponder Options to Counter Social Media Censorship

https://www.theepochtimes.com/conservatives-ponder-options-to-counter-social-media-censorship_2922174.html

[OldBrownsFan]

1 hour ago, tiamat63 said:

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.  

The "more speech" was referencing opposing speech and Ghoulie got lots of that. 

As to censorship of conservatives it is going on with Big Tech and I don't think too many would even deny it and conservatives need to fight back. The question is how? The above article I posted  lists some possible remedies.

[LogicIsForSquares]

1 hour ago, OldBrownsFan said:

Conservatives Ponder Options to Counter Social Media Censorship

https://www.theepochtimes.com/conservatives-ponder-options-to-counter-social-media-censorship_2922174.html

Platform access as a civil right seems super hilarious from the folks who shit bricks about health care being a civil right because it is more or less stealing someone else's (a doctors) labor. This is no different. Conservatives just need to start their own social media outlets. Patrioteagletrumpbook is a good start.

[tiamat63]

25 minutes ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

Platform access as a civil right seems super hilarious from the folks who shit bricks about health care being a civil right because it is more or less stealing someone else's (a doctors) labor. This is no different. Conservatives just need to start their own social media outlets. Patrioteagletrumpbook is a good start.

Bingo.  

If you want to list access to social media as a right, well, then we're about to get a lot of laughs about the other side of things that really matter.

[MLD Woody]

Just add an open chat section to Farmers Only and Christian Mingle