Rafiq
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
  Hrolf The Ganger  28 Nov 21 4.46pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I am very glad to know you now support the right of Facebook, Twitter etc to ban the likes of Alex Jones and, of course, Donald Trump. Welcome to the club. The only people who I see attacking that principal are those who themselves have the right to go and support the likes of "Gab". My own view is that there is little point in participating in an echo chamber of similar views, unless your only purpose is to confirm your biases. That some do here is unfortunate, and I would urge them all to also post their views elsewhere. You won't change minds unless you engage with them. I abhor extreme right attitudes and don't want to see them ever gaining any traction in my country. I cannot impact that much, but if all I did was complain in an echo chamber, I wouldn't do anything at all. So I reject the concept, often expressed here, that people like me aren't welcome and should go somewhere else, like the BBS where, apparently, my views are commonplace. That feels like the antithesis of free speech. You cannot ban people from speaking and then claim to support free speech.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Stirlingsays 28 Nov 21 4.52pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
You cannot ban people from speaking and then claim to support free speech. They are American companies and really they should be applying the first amendment. Silicon valley has it coming....the Democrats and Republicans want to get at them for different reasons. They will unethically do all they can to harm the Republicans again come 2022 and 2024 but if the Republicans actually win I see real payback shutting down conservative voices for 2020....shutting down a sitting president was and is an abuse of power considering the first amendment....The Democrats are protecting them from that because it's their tribe. ....But I wouldn't want to be them if the Republicans win. Deciding to be political was the worst decision Silicon Valley ever made. Edited by Stirlingsays (28 Nov 2021 4.55pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 28 Nov 21 5.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
You cannot ban people from speaking and then claim to support free speech. No-one has the right to enter someone else's house. They have to be invited and whilst there abide by the rules or be asked to leave again. Trump wasn't banned from speaking. He was banned by private businesses from using their platforms for breaking their rules about spreading misinformation. He had plenty of official channels available to him, which were not to anyone else.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 28 Nov 21 5.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
When the Silicon valley companies were given public money and law changes to help them at the beginning....unlike most 'private companies'......the understanding was that they would operate within the first amendment. I'd imagine that if they had made that clear they wouldn't have been allowed the licenses. I think I'm right in saying that this point has been made in hearings by Republicans since their political choices....which weren't in operation from the start. I think as American companies they really should be implementing the first amendment rather than acting like Chinese operators. Edited by Stirlingsays (28 Nov 2021 6.33pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 28 Nov 21 5.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
No-one has the right to enter someone else's house. They have to be invited and whilst there abide by the rules or be asked to leave again. Trump wasn't banned from speaking. He was banned by private businesses from using their platforms for breaking their rules about spreading misinformation. He had plenty of official channels available to him, which were not to anyone else. This is not about what they have the right to do. It's about what they should do. We cannot have private enterprise affecting political opinion at that level. If this site were to ban misinformation by your definition, you would have been banned months ago.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
cryrst  The garden of England 28 Nov 21 5.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I have no idea, although a complete change, probably none. On a few matters, maybe some. We won't know because they are very unlikely to admit it. It's not the only reason for doing it. You need to feel comfortable with yourself. Not trying isn't an option for me. I disagree though about the posters here having malleable minds. Some might, but there are others whose minds haven't moved an inch in the last 50 years. Like yours over brexit you mean!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 28 Nov 21 9.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
They are American companies and really they should be applying the first amendment. Silicon valley has it coming....the Democrats and Republicans want to get at them for different reasons. They will unethically do all they can to harm the Republicans again come 2022 and 2024 but if the Republicans actually win I see real payback shutting down conservative voices for 2020....shutting down a sitting president was and is an abuse of power considering the first amendment....The Democrats are protecting them from that because it's their tribe. ....But I wouldn't want to be them if the Republicans win. Deciding to be political was the worst decision Silicon Valley ever made. Edited by Stirlingsays (28 Nov 2021 4.55pm) There seems to be a deal of confusion over this, not just in this post, but in the reported attitude of the Republicans. The first amendment says:- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" So far as I am aware, as Congress has not made any such law, there has been no transgression. The Silicon Valley companies are not Congress, and are not impacted by the amendment. They have no role in "applying the first amendment". The first amendment protects people from government actions. It does not apply restrictions on private companies. Indeed, if Congress tried to enact a law which restricted the social media businesses from freely expressing THEIR opinions, then they could be in breach of the amendment. The assertions made in this post are therefore, in my opinion, totally incorrect. A sitting President wasn't "shut down", let alone by a first amendment transgression. Trump had plenty of official channels available to him. Conservative voices have alternative avenues for theirs. All that happened was the private companies exercised their own rights. Nothing more.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 28 Nov 21 9.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
When the Silicon valley companies were given public money and law changes to help them at the beginning....unlike most 'private companies'......the understanding was that they would operate within the first amendment. I'd imagine that if they had made that clear they wouldn't have been allowed the licenses. I think I'm right in saying that this point has been made in hearings by Republicans since their political choices....which weren't in operation from the start. I think as American companies they really should be implementing the first amendment rather than acting like Chinese operators. Edited by Stirlingsays (28 Nov 2021 6.33pm) What understanding? The Silicon Valley companies have no role in the operation of the first amendment. See my previous post.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 28 Nov 21 9.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
This is not about what they have the right to do. It's about what they should do. We cannot have private enterprise affecting political opinion at that level. If this site were to ban misinformation by your definition, you would have been banned months ago. They absolutely did what they should do. Allowing a powerful person to spread misinformation (not just alternative opinion) needed to be curtailed, whoever they might be. Political opinion wasn't the issue. It was outright lies. Alternative facts don't exist. The companies were incredibly patient and gave several warnings. There is a world of difference between someone posting opinions you don't like, or share, as you seem to with mine, and someone repeatedly posting things they have been told are unacceptable. Notably, things which are demonstrably untrue.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 28 Nov 21 9.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
Like yours over brexit you mean! My mind did change over Brexit! At first, I thought it was unwise. Later I thought it was a con. Now I know it was a disaster.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Teddy Eagle  28 Nov 21 10.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
My mind did change over Brexit! At first, I thought it was unwise. Later I thought it was a con. Now I know it was a disaster. Time to own up. Just before the Brexit vote everyone in the country received a message from the Government telling us to vote Leave. In their words -
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 28 Nov 21 10.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Time to own up. Just before the Brexit vote everyone in the country received a message from the Government telling us to vote Leave. In their words - Thanks. That made me smile. Creative, even if pretty daft.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.