Silenced, no.If you deem them as misinformation should their voices be silenced?
But also not subsidized. Contrary to what they say, nobody owes them a platform.
And they should be regularly criticized by decent people.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Silenced, no.If you deem them as misinformation should their voices be silenced?
What did you leave the government out for? They are neck deep in this crap.Crappy social media are still private. Freaking socialist commies don't support private businesses. MAGA commies.
Of course not. "Congress shall make no law ..." We don't state control of the media.If you deem them as misinformation should their voices be silenced?
The state and the media control you. Don't they?Of course not. "Congress shall make no law ..." We don't state control of the media.
The state does - via the police and the military. "The media" have no such power. They don't control me.The state and the media control you. Don't they?
They control what you think. That is worse than handcuffs.The state does - via the police and the military. "The media" have no such power. They don't control me.
Do they control you?
Speak for yourself.They control what you think. That is worse than handcuffs.
I disagree. As usual, the issue is swimming in equivocation, but those claiming that they've been "silenced" are evoking the specter of government censorship. They even cite the First Amendment when they are trying to bend the social media companies to their will. It's a deliberate attempt to conflate social media moderation practices with state censorship - and they're simply not the same thing. Once is back by violent force of law, one is not.The question was 'should they be silenced' and not should we pass a law to silence them.
Those are different things and it is telling that when the left hears 'silenced' it is automatically assumed that such can only be done through the force of law.
I think we just need to be clear whether we're referring to freedom of speech - the constitutional right that government has an obligation to protect, or a "culture of free speech", a social value that government has no business meddling with..The concept of free speech starts with a culture of free speech. The law only follows after and the presence of the second amendment will be immaterial to that reality. Continue to cultivate a culture of cancellation and destruction of free speech and suddenly the first will simply be reinterpreted, as it already has been several times, to be something entirely different.
If you deem them as misinformation should their voices be silenced?
I do not disagree with that statement and none of what I have stated disagrees with that statement.I disagree. As usual, the issue is swimming in equivocation, but those claiming that they've been "silenced" are evoking the specter of government censorship. They even cite the First Amendment when they are trying to bend the social media companies to their will. It's a deliberate attempt to conflate social media moderation practices with state censorship - and they're simply not the same thing. Once is back by violent force of law, one is not.
I thought I was clear. I do not really care what point the OP was making, those that want daddy government to intervene on their behalf have already proven to be about as useful to talk to as a rock. They have no morals, ideology or core values. It is a simple party thing for them. What I am saying is that the MORE important point is that we, as a people and as a culture, should be rejecting those forces that want to compartmentalize and silence voices they disagree with. And I posit that continuing on this trend will all but guarantee the law will, at some point, intervene as it follows the culture. We will have lost free speech long before the law gets involved.If these threads were simply saying that it's hypocritical and shitty of these websites to censor their (user's) content to fit their political agenda - I'd whole heartedly agree. But that's not the game they're playing.
I think we just need to be clear whether we're referring to freedom of speech - the constitutional right that government has an obligation to protect, or a "culture free speech", a social value that government has no business meddling with..
You would like to think the corporations who are providing the platform be it TV channel, Newspaper or Social Media would have standards on accuracy of the information being given....
Now the question should be, can platforms be allowed to undermine the public by spreading misinformation?
What would you have the government do to make sure you can tell dangerous lies to gullible people and never be called out for it?
No! Misinformation is meant for one thing. To inform with real information.
If you deem them as misinformation should their voices be silenced?
The government is explicitly forbidden from doing ANYTHING about it, dumbass.What would you have the government do to make sure you can tell dangerous lies to gullible people and never be called out for it?