CDZ Free Speech in the Social Media Era

[donttread]

Some media outlets have decided to not allow Trump's inciting of violence and that's their right.
Other media outlets have decided to allow Trump to incite violence and that's also their right, until the break existing laws on inciting violence being illegal activity. It's as simple as that.

Trump's problem with the sites that allow his illegal activities are still regarded as fringe extreme right sites that don't receive enough traffic to interest Trump. He wants to be heard by the masses.

The obvious solution to Trump's problem is to make those extreme right sites popular and noticed by the majority.

Breitbart, Stormfront, Oann, Newsmax, and other extremist sites are open to any criminal behaviour Trump wants to throw at the American people.

Are there any questions on free speech that doesn't answer?

If that solution can't be accepted then Nazi Germany demonstrated the only other solution to what was perceived to be unfair censoring of free speech. The use of force on the media with summary execution being the remedy for the disobedient media.

"Incite to violence".

The fact that you keep repeating this mantra ad nauseum does not make it an established fact.

Show a Trump quote where Trump encouraged violence. Maxine Waters and other Democrat leaders have certainly done so to encourage BLM and Antifa violence, so show where Trump has said something that rises to their level (and which obviously did not receive the same censorship).

Yes, I have not seen an actual example but there must be one because they are impeaching him, right?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Yes, I have not seen an actual example but there must be one because they are impeaching him, right?

"Incite to violence" has simply replaced "Russia collusion" as the latest buzz phrase being sold to the faithful who believe without questioning.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Then basically the left (which is the current side of choice) wins, because they then get to dictate the "right" viewpoints seen by the masses, and without counterpoint the masses will inevitably follow the prevailing viewpoints allowed by those running the most popular platforms. They will control the narrative, and thus control the discourse and viewpoints like mine will die on the vine.

Deplatforming is just the next step from selective moderation.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Deplatforming is just the next step from selective moderation.

Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past..


It boggles the mind, sometimes. Big brother tells us this is a "peaceful protest"

and the faithful BELIEVE it unquestioningly.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

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?

Has Social Media censored the Antifa bigots or the BLM racist?
Did they censor any of the Left Wingers who declared "not my president"
BLM is responsible for the murder of 5 Dallas Policemen.
Antifa is responsible for $billions$ in riot destruction and many murders.

 

[Coyote]

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?

Has Social Media censored the Antifa bigots or the BLM racist?
Did they censor any of the Left Wingers who declared "not my president"
BLM is responsible for the murder of 5 Dallas Policemen.
Antifa is responsible for $billions$ in riot destruction and many murders.

Yes, they have. They've banned a number of Antifa folks/sites.

I would disagree about BLM being responsible as a group.

 

[Donald H]

Trump is only responsible for escalating all the problems America has had for decades. It's the perfect environment for Trump because he understood how the working people were being cheated out of a piece of the American pie. Then he lied and said he was going to bring the pie and the cakes and cookies.
It looks like there won't be any deescalation after Trump is turfed out.

 

[Donald H]

I have not seen any speech from trump related to the storming that is even on par with hundreds of post inciting violence this summer.

Really?? All the social media outlets, the MSM, and law enforcement have seen lots of it coming from Trump's cakehole! And I can tell you that the rest of the world is appalled with what has been perped by the Trump regime.
We'll all have to have a closer look so we make sure we aren't being fooled by the black people.

 

[hadit]

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.

I disagree with this. Media has seldom been honest, the term yellow journalism was coinedaround 1900. I think what makes it work is having many different sources to utilize.

And another difference that has emerged. Previously print media tended to have a variety of views (mainstream views were much less narrowly defined) and even if there was a bias in some there might be a different bias in other articles. It forced the reader to at least encounter different perspectives. Now we migrate into our bubbles of one view only, on the internet. Our news feeds “choose” what they “think” we like...and human likes that.

This is true, and Google, for just one example, will present you with different search results than it will present someone living in a different part of the country, based on estimated ad revenue. If you search for President Donald Trump from rural Alabama, you will get a different set of links than if you do the same search from Manhattan, because the goal is to keep your eye on the page as long as possible, and you're more likely to stay longer if presented with links that buttress what you already believe. That's not necessarily bias, it's an AI driven drive for dollars, and feeds the echo chamber mentality. You might not WANT to participate in an echo chamber, but if you rely on dollar fed search engines (aren't they all?), you're probably in one.

This is why a person living in Manhattan will think a person living in rural Alabama is literally insane, and vice versa, because both are presented with different "news" and can't figure out why the other sees things so differently. I believe this will become even more stark with regards to the present scandal. People will see different stories from their search engines and will think somebody else cannot possibly believe what they do, and don't understand that they are getting a different viewpoint thrust on them based on where they live.

Again, that's not bias, that's an AI picking links to present based on whatever is likely to keep you on the page. Remember the NBA player who said he believed the earth was flat? He googled something related to the subject and the AI presented him a set of links that had generated interest in the past and he went down the rabbit trail. Only later did he realize none of it was true. The AI doesn't care if it's true, it only cares if it keeps eyes on the page. Keep that in mind when you do searches and remember that somebody else may literally see something completely different before thinking they are insane or deliberately avoiding the truth. And don't believe that the list of links presented to you represent the entire truth, or truth at all for that matter. Best to find pundits known to be from opposite ends of the political spectrum and read all of them. You'd be amazed at the entirely different picture you will get of the same event, and will read things from one that are not reported by another, and vice versa. That way, you're most likely to obtain the actual truth or at least a nuanced view that encompasses portions of both sides of the argument. Drudge was good for this, including links to pundits from all over the spectrum.

 

[Donald H]

If all the social media outlets are censoring free speech in America, and they're to blame, then why aren't they censoring free speech in Canada?
I think it has something to do with Trump after all?
I'll have to check to see if our Justin is inciting any violencey stuff too.

 

[donttread]

I have not seen any speech from trump related to the storming that is even on par with hundreds of post inciting violence this summer.

Really?? All the social media outlets, the MSM, and law enforcement have seen lots of it coming from Trump's cakehole! And I can tell you that the rest of the world is appalled with what has been perped by the Trump regime.
We'll all have to have a closer look so we make sure we aren't being fooled by the black people.

Well I am just an old, dumb, straight, white, rural male. Or what ultra libs call the enemy. I'm too dumb to find his instigating speech. But you, an enlightened being, should be able to find some and post them, right?

 

[donttread]

Yes, I have not seen an actual example but there must be one because they are impeaching him, right?

"Incite to violence" has simply replaced "Russia collusion" as the latest buzz phrase being sold to the faithful who believe without questioning.

Yup, Wizzard's Rules definetly in play. The DNC are masters in deception through perception. The mainstream repubs while not quite as good are decent in this regard too! But "Here in the real world" Trump said nothing to incite violence but many libs did and it took Biden 4 months to condemn it! So please , whichever side you are on ( Hopefully the side of America) which to some extent is a 3rd side, whenever anyone, media, friernd, poster talks about Trump inciting the storming : Ask for specific examples. It's your civic duty.

 

[Donald H]

Well I am just an old, dumb, straight, white, rural male. Or what ultra libs call the enemy. I'm too dumb to find his instigating speech. But you, an enlightened being, should be able to find some and post them, right?

Sorry old guy, I know how you feel because I'm old too. But I don't consider it a useful way to spend my time trying to explain how Trump incited violence and revolution to those who still haven't figured it out.
So I'll just say that I think Trump has lots of support and he'll be around for a long time, causing trouble for the Dems. Providing the FBI doesn't interfere to get rid of their problem.
All the best from Canada.

 

[d0gbreath]

What you write on websites is protected by the freedom of the press. It deals with libel.

If I can't hear you, you're not speaking. Tweets are press, not speech.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Well I am just an old, dumb, straight, white, rural male. Or what ultra libs call the enemy. I'm too dumb to find his instigating speech. But you, an enlightened being, should be able to find some and post them, right?

Sorry old guy, I know how you feel because I'm old too. But I don't consider it a useful way to spend my time trying to explain how Trump incited violence and revolution to those who still haven't figured it out.
So I'll just say that I think Trump has lots of support and he'll be around for a long time, causing trouble for the Dems. Providing the FBI doesn't interfere to get rid of their problem.
All the best from Canada.

Yes, you cannot prove it.

Have you ever considered being honest about your inability to prove it instead of just making unsupported accusations and vague references?

 

[Donald H]

What you write on websites is protected by the freedom of the press. It deals with libel.

If I can't hear you, you're not speaking. Tweets are press, not speech.

Social media needs to be given some credit for making the right choices on what is allowable and what is vulgar hate rhetoric of the kind that was coming from Trump.

America definitely needs to do what's good for their country and move on from the ugly experience that was Trump.

The right to free speech wasn't lost, it was just put on hold for the duration of the regime, with the intent of squelching his attempts at installing a fascist dictatorship. Nobody needs to look any further than the way Trump ordered Barr to twist the facts of the Mueller report! Make no mistake, some people are still so angry and bent out of shape that they can never accept facts and proof!

Best to just leave the Trump tragedy behind and start concentrating on healing America's wounds.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

What you write on websites is protected by the freedom of the press. It deals with libel.

If I can't hear you, you're not speaking. Tweets are press, not speech.

Social media needs to be given some credit for making the right choices on what is allowable and what is vulgar hate rhetoric of the kind that was coming from Trump.

America definitely needs to do what's good for their country and move on from the ugly experience that was Trump.

The right to free speech wasn't lost, it was just put on hold for the duration of the regime, with the intent of squelching his attempts at installing a fascist dictatorship. Nobody needs to look any further than the way Trump ordered Barr to twist the facts of the Mueller report! Make no mistake, some people are still so angry and bent out of shape that they can never accept facts and proof!

Best to just leave the Trump tragedy behind and start concentrating on healing America's wounds.

Yes, you support censorship as long as it isn't your opinions being censored.

This is always how it starts when fee republics slip back into authoritarian states.