CDZ Free Speech in the Social Media Era

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
90,725
Reaction score
22,885
Points
2,180
Location
in between
One of the things that is becoming a concern over the past decade, is free speech in the realm of social media and in an era when previously persecuted minorities are now empowered to push back on what they previously had to endure. In addition, social media has created and amplified echo chambers that we naturally tend to be drawn towards. What I am seeing seems to be an increasingly fractured society where we no longer even agree on a common set of facts.

Within this the right of free speech is increasingly coming into scrutiny and threat. I firmly believe that rights come with responsibilities, and when enough of us abdicate those responsibilities, then lawmakers are forced into making laws to create some restrictions.

Social media has grown exponentially, and has long been a relatively lawless frontier. It’s founders and owners held a philosophy of maximum free speech (along with data collection and marketing dollars), but pushback began with the growth and spread radical groups. ISIS differentiated itself from Al Queda in it’s sophisticated use of social media for propaganda, recruitment and radicalizing. Parents were shocked on finding out their children had been radicalized over social media. But ISIS was only the first.

I just read an article that identified one of the rioters who broke into the capital, as an Air Force veteran (the dude with the zip tie hand cuffs). Friends reported he had become increasingly radical and extreme and distanced themselves from him.

Leake said that he believed the same intense commitment that had made Brock an effective fighter pilot had led him to this week’s events in the Capitol. “Torch got all in on Trump,” Leake said. “He went all in on the alternative-news-source world. He actually believes liberals and Democrats are a threat to the country. You can see how the logical conclusion to that is, We’ve gotta take over.”

It isn’t just ISIS any more. What exactly should be done? The findings that terrorists like ISIS were recruiting through social media finally put pressure on social media to begin banning and removing them, reluctantly. This pressure has only increased in recent years with more and more bubbles and more radical movements using it to recruit or sway.

What is at the moment difficult to sort out is the responsibilities and possible limits of social media in relation to free speech. Social media platforms are all privately owned, and it seems to me they are at the line where they must start taking some responsibility or face legal action in the form of new laws or removal of protections.

What is the answer that would balance free speech and public safety?

1. Make laws against certain types of speech. Europe has this with Holocaust denial for example. But I am not a fan of this. For instance WHO gets to decide what constitutes prohibited speech? Also I’ve always felt that sunlight is the best cleanser. Let those voices be out in the open where public pushback can refute them, provide facts, and marginalize them. If they are prohibited, they just fester in the darknet and utilize this discrimination to justify their stances.

2. No restrictions other than the basic laws of libel, slander etc. Let the people sort it out and pushback on these fringe groups. But what happens when that doesn’t happen? Or when leadership joins the fringe and gives credibility by bringing it into the mainstream and violence, civil unrest, or terrorism occurs because enough people believe in something that has no factual basis?

How do you preserve free speech in this environment?
 

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
53,549
Reaction score
18,281
Points
2,290
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
Making laws against certain types of speech would be unconstitutional and render the First Amendment useless. Social media companies have every right to control the content on their platforms as the First Amendment does not apply to private organizations, however, if they pursue this attempt to deplatform other apps, such as Parler, like Google and Apple are currently attempting, they may run afoul of antitrust laws.

Ironically, Big Tech did everything it could to get Biden elected and the Democrats in the majority and the Democrats may be the ones who end up breaking them up.
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
160,498
Reaction score
23,263
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
Twitter and the rest are just tools they are not inherent to the issue of humans and free speech when confronting the government since they are a private capitalistic endeavor.
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
160,498
Reaction score
23,263
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
Freedom of the press is another issue that is abused and misused. The press has the freedom to publish words yet in turn they are not required to give you their private corporate activity to the public for use
 

BasicHumanUnit

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
16,698
Reaction score
11,095
Points
1,255
Location
Everywhere needed
Don't like being censored on a Social media platform? LEAVE.

i have no issue with Facebook and Twitter censoring speech they do not agree with on THEIR PLATFORM.

Create your own and stop bitching !!!

The Right needs it's own Cellular platform as well. YOU (CONSERVATIVES) sat on your Laurels while the Left was busy boxing you into a corner.
TOUGH !!

I got tired of begging you conservatives over the years to create your own sites.
Your dogged loyalty to those Left wing sites is your fault....not theirs.
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
160,498
Reaction score
23,263
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
Freedom of religion, this freedom gives people the right to discriminate via their dogma. Which is reflective of social media and the freedom of the press.. They can discriminate by the actions of individuals who interact with these tools.
 

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
53,549
Reaction score
18,281
Points
2,290
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
Freedom of the press is another issue that is abused and misused. The press has the freedom to publish words yet in turn they are not required to give you their private corporate activity to the public for use
Freedom of the press only works if we have an honest press and we clearly do not. The media largely is biased and they aren't even shy about that anymore, but when called out on it they play the victim and hide behind the First Amendment.
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
160,498
Reaction score
23,263
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
Freedom of the press is another issue that is abused and misused. The press has the freedom to publish words yet in turn they are not required to give you their private corporate activity to the public for use
Freedom of the press only works if we have an honest press and we clearly do not. The media largely is biased and they aren't even shy about that anymore, but when called out on it they play the victim and hide behind the First Amendment.
We have never had an honest press. If you ever have the time read what Thomas Jefferson said about the press and you will find it is no different today than it was in the time of Thomas Jefferson. No where in the Constitution does it say that freedom of the press also includes the one condition that only the truth is published..
 

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
53,549
Reaction score
18,281
Points
2,290
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
We have never had an honest press. If you ever have the time read what Thomas Jefferson said about the press and you will find it is no different today than it was in the time of Thomas Jefferson. No where in the Constitution does it say that freedom of the press also includes the one condition that only the truth is published..
I didn't say the Constitution said they had to. I said the reasoning behind freedom of the press only works if they do.
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
160,498
Reaction score
23,263
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
We have never had an honest press. If you ever have the time read what Thomas Jefferson said about the press and you will find it is no different today than it was in the time of Thomas Jefferson. No where in the Constitution does it say that freedom of the press also includes the one condition that only the truth is published..
I didn't say the Constitution said they had to. I said the reasoning behind freedom of the press only works if they do.
I understand but Rod Stieger and I both had the same conviction, that TV doesn't want the best, it doesn't want the truth it wants to make money and the truth is too boring and makes for small revenues. so you don't get the best, you don't get the smartest, or the great art you desire you get what they think they can sell. Which is why I enjoyed BBC. Capitalist only care about the money they can put into their pockets, they don't care about your needs, your desires will be controlled by them..
 
OP
Coyote

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
90,725
Reaction score
22,885
Points
2,180
Location
in between
Making laws against certain types of speech would be unconstitutional and render the First Amendment useless. Social media companies have every right to control the content on their platforms as the First Amendment does not apply to private organizations, however, if they pursue this attempt to deplatform other apps, such as Parler, like Google and Apple are currently attempting, they may run afoul of antitrust laws.

Ironically, Big Tech did everything it could to get Biden elected and the Democrats in the majority and the Democrats may be the ones who end up breaking them up.
I have yet to understand why there has been so little movement in regards to anti trust over the years with these companies. Follow the money.
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
160,498
Reaction score
23,263
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
Making laws against certain types of speech would be unconstitutional and render the First Amendment useless. Social media companies have every right to control the content on their platforms as the First Amendment does not apply to private organizations, however, if they pursue this attempt to deplatform other apps, such as Parler, like Google and Apple are currently attempting, they may run afoul of antitrust laws.

Ironically, Big Tech did everything it could to get Biden elected and the Democrats in the majority and the Democrats may be the ones who end up breaking them up.
I have yet to understand why there has been so little movement in regards to anti trust over the years with these companies. Follow the money.
I would like to know how much those who hate Twitter and Facebook now invested in it over the last twenty years.
 
OP
Coyote

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
90,725
Reaction score
22,885
Points
2,180
Location
in between
Don't like being censored on a Social media platform? LEAVE.

i have no issue with Facebook and Twitter censoring speech they do not agree with on THEIR PLATFORM.

Create your own and stop bitching !!!

The Right needs it's own Cellular platform as well. YOU (CONSERVATIVES) sat on your Laurels while the Left was busy boxing you into a corner.
TOUGH !!

I got tired of begging you conservatives over the years to create your own sites.
Your dogged loyalty to those Left wing sites is your fault....not theirs.
I agree with that but these giants effectively squash competition which is where I sympathize with conservatives.

There also remains the question of balancing free speech with public safety.
 
OP
Coyote

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
90,725
Reaction score
22,885
Points
2,180
Location
in between
Making laws against certain types of speech would be unconstitutional and render the First Amendment useless. Social media companies have every right to control the content on their platforms as the First Amendment does not apply to private organizations, however, if they pursue this attempt to deplatform other apps, such as Parler, like Google and Apple are currently attempting, they may run afoul of antitrust laws.

Ironically, Big Tech did everything it could to get Biden elected and the Democrats in the majority and the Democrats may be the ones who end up breaking them up.
I have yet to understand why there has been so little movement in regards to anti trust over the years with these companies. Follow the money.
I would like to know how much those who hate Twitter and Facebook now invested in it over the last twenty years.
Good question. I don’t know.
 

Bob Blaylock

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
15,418
Reaction score
7,371
Points
400
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
Freedom of the press only works if we have an honest press and we clearly do not. The media largely is biased and they aren't even shy about that anymore, but when called out on it they play the victim and hide behind the First Amendment.
It is a tragic irony that what has come to be the modern version of “The Press” has become the greatest perpetrator of exactly the sort of censorship, misinformation, and related abuses that the great men who wrote the First Amendment intended to prevent, by affirming “freedom of the press”.
 

bear513

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
64,556
Reaction score
12,317
Points
2,180
I posted this before today, with them banning Trump I feel like I am in the book 1984, it feels as though the establishment thinks they are bigger than the presidency.
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
160,498
Reaction score
23,263
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
Freedom of the press only works if we have an honest press and we clearly do not. The media largely is biased and they aren't even shy about that anymore, but when called out on it they play the victim and hide behind the First Amendment.
It is a tragic irony that what has come to be the modern version of “The Press” has become the greatest perpetrator of exactly the sort of censorship, misinformation, and related abuses that the great men who wrote the First Amendment intended to prevent, by affirming “freedom of the press”.
Right now you have more tools to express yourself than the Founders could have ever imagined...Yet, you claim you are being denied your ability to speak....You must not be able to see the forest because of the trees.
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
160,498
Reaction score
23,263
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
The more we elaborate our means of communication, the MORE we communicate, the wider the audience becomes, the farther our message is heard, and the greater the chance of reciprocation.” Sean Heritage
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
160,498
Reaction score
23,263
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
“The more elaborate our means of communication, the less we communicate.”

― J.B. Priestley
 

impuretrash

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
11,014
Reaction score
2,904
Points
290
It's not just political arguments between anonymous nobodies that is being censored from the internet. Music, art and books are also censored. It's been happening for years. Anything deemed even slightly "problematic" by the woke cancel culture mob will be outed and most businesses cave to the pressure to conform.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top