The bigger censorship offender- Private Sector or Government?

[Rigby5]

You want government to bully Facebook for you. That's really all this is about.

It is amazing to see all the assumptions that people are making about me on this thread. I have only asked who censors more between the government and private sector, and I have pointed out how much lefties fight to defend censorship. I did anticipate that lefties would be trying to evade and derail the thread, as seen in the opening post, but thats about all I have really said.

Alright. Then let's cut the bullshit. Do you think Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc... have a right to censor content on their platforms?

If we are going to deviate from the thread topic, I would rather start out by debating if it is right or wrong for them to do it. Not if they have the right to do it or if it is legal, but if it is right or wrong. Lefties will never get around to discussing this, so it has to be discussed first. Is it right or wrong for them to do it?

Right and wrong are subjective.

The facts are that no private entity can violate your first amendment rights nor can they stop you from saying or writing whatever you want.

You seem to want to think that any private sector entity has to provide you an audience for your speech.

There is only one moral standard. That's why it is called a standard. Lefties do not live by any standard besides what feels good to them in the moment. The notion that right and wrong are subjective is simply how lefties see them, since they do not follow THE standard. Lefties can only conflate right and wrong with legal vs illegal.

Morality is irrelevant since we are only referring to what is legal or not.
Morality has to do with what is offensive or not, and you can't censor based on your personal reaction, but only on actual harm, like slander, libel, inciting violence, yelling fire in a theater, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

You want government to bully Facebook for you. That's really all this is about.

It is amazing to see all the assumptions that people are making about me on this thread. I have only asked who censors more between the government and private sector, and I have pointed out how much lefties fight to defend censorship. I did anticipate that lefties would be trying to evade and derail the thread, as seen in the opening post, but thats about all I have really said.

Alright. Then let's cut the bullshit. Do you think Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc... have a right to censor content on their platforms?

If we are going to deviate from the thread topic, I would rather start out by debating if it is right or wrong for them to do it. Not if they have the right to do it or if it is legal, but if it is right or wrong. Lefties will never get around to discussing this, so it has to be discussed first. Is it right or wrong for them to do it?

Right and wrong are subjective.

The facts are that no private entity can violate your first amendment rights nor can they stop you from saying or writing whatever you want.

You seem to want to think that any private sector entity has to provide you an audience for your speech.

There is only one moral standard. That's why it is called a standard. Lefties do not live by any standard besides what feels good to them in the moment. The notion that right and wrong are subjective is simply how lefties see them, since they do not follow THE standard. Lefties can only conflate right and wrong with legal vs illegal.

I don't want to get in the way of you beating up on "lefties", but this makes no sense. Asking whether censorship is right or wrong is like asking if criticism is right or wrong.

Criticism can be good because it can explain, enlighten, change minds, etc. even if you disagree.
While censorship is almost always bad because it hides, promotes ignorance, is usually arbitrary, usually unjustified, etc.

 

[dblack]

The current status is that right now everyone does whatever they want.
And that has to change.
There has to be legal limits and recourse in courts.

There are already legal limits. SC Patriot can sue his or her sister for slander.

For example, banning Trump.
While that could be legally possible if one could prove he deliberately incited violence, that must be up to a court to decide, not Twitter or FaceBook.

(and now we get to the real reason for the discussion)
Why should this be up to a court to decide?? You seem to be presuming that FB is legally obligated to serve as a platform for Trump. They're not.

 

[Rigby5]

You want government to bully Facebook for you. That's really all this is about.

It is amazing to see all the assumptions that people are making about me on this thread. I have only asked who censors more between the government and private sector, and I have pointed out how much lefties fight to defend censorship. I did anticipate that lefties would be trying to evade and derail the thread, as seen in the opening post, but thats about all I have really said.

Alright. Then let's cut the bullshit. Do you think Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc... have a right to censor content on their platforms?

If we are going to deviate from the thread topic, I would rather start out by debating if it is right or wrong for them to do it. Not if they have the right to do it or if it is legal, but if it is right or wrong. Lefties will never get around to discussing this, so it has to be discussed first. Is it right or wrong for them to do it?

Right and wrong are subjective.

The facts are that no private entity can violate your first amendment rights nor can they stop you from saying or writing whatever you want.

You seem to want to think that any private sector entity has to provide you an audience for your speech.

There is only one moral standard. That's why it is called a standard. Lefties do not live by any standard besides what feels good to them in the moment. The notion that right and wrong are subjective is simply how lefties see them, since they do not follow THE standard. Lefties can only conflate right and wrong with legal vs illegal.

I don't want to get in the way of you beating up on "lefties", but this makes no sense. Asking whether censorship is right or wrong is like asking if criticism is right or wrong.

We are narrowed down to politically motivated coercive censorship now, right?

I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Let me repost my previous comment that you ignored:

No private censorship carries the force of law - nothing is being forced on anyone. Private censorship is simply one party refusing to accommodate another. When Facebook censors someone, they're not saying "you must be silent", they're just saying "we won't put that stuff on our webpage". That's profoundly different from government censorship.

I disagree.
Due to economy of scale, any forum like FaceBook is going to become like a monopoly eventually, and then it is just as harmful to have private arbitrary censorship as public arbitrary censorship.

Look at when government completely censored the truth, like Iraqi WMD.
Was it by government edict, that no one could tell the truth about Iraq not having WMD?
No, it was private enterprise that willingly censored the truth because it gained them more revenue that way.
The censorship was just as harmful as if the government had been in total control of the media.
So private censorship is likely far more of the problem than government censorship.
You get to vote or appeal in court when governments censor.
You have no recourse right now when there is private censorship that is much more harmful, pervasive, and personal.

 

[dblack]

You want government to bully Facebook for you. That's really all this is about.

It is amazing to see all the assumptions that people are making about me on this thread. I have only asked who censors more between the government and private sector, and I have pointed out how much lefties fight to defend censorship. I did anticipate that lefties would be trying to evade and derail the thread, as seen in the opening post, but thats about all I have really said.

Alright. Then let's cut the bullshit. Do you think Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc... have a right to censor content on their platforms?

If we are going to deviate from the thread topic, I would rather start out by debating if it is right or wrong for them to do it. Not if they have the right to do it or if it is legal, but if it is right or wrong. Lefties will never get around to discussing this, so it has to be discussed first. Is it right or wrong for them to do it?

Right and wrong are subjective.

The facts are that no private entity can violate your first amendment rights nor can they stop you from saying or writing whatever you want.

You seem to want to think that any private sector entity has to provide you an audience for your speech.

There is only one moral standard. That's why it is called a standard. Lefties do not live by any standard besides what feels good to them in the moment. The notion that right and wrong are subjective is simply how lefties see them, since they do not follow THE standard. Lefties can only conflate right and wrong with legal vs illegal.

I don't want to get in the way of you beating up on "lefties", but this makes no sense. Asking whether censorship is right or wrong is like asking if criticism is right or wrong.

We are narrowed down to politically motivated coercive censorship now, right?

I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Let me repost my previous comment that you ignored:

No private censorship carries the force of law - nothing is being forced on anyone. Private censorship is simply one party refusing to accommodate another. When Facebook censors someone, they're not saying "you must be silent", they're just saying "we won't put that stuff on our webpage". That's profoundly different from government censorship.

I disagree.
Due to economy of scale, any forum like FaceBook is going to become like a monopoly eventually, and then it is just as harmful to have private arbitrary censorship as public arbitrary censorship.

Yeah, yeah... the virtual monopoly argument. Pretty standard when someone wants government to take over.

So private censorship is likely far more of the problem than government censorship.
You get to vote or appeal in court when governments censor.

Riiiight. Just say "no" to socialism.

 

[Rigby5]

The current status is that right now everyone does whatever they want.
And that has to change.
There has to be legal limits and recourse in courts.

There are already legal limits. SC Patriot can sue his or her sister for slander.

For example, banning Trump.
While that could be legally possible if one could prove he deliberately incited violence, that must be up to a court to decide, not Twitter or FaceBook.

(and now we get to the real reason for the discussion)
Why should this be up to a court to decide?? You seem to be presuming that FB is legally obligated to serve as a platform for Trump. They're not.

Wrong.
He can not currently sue his sister for slander because she many not be in the same state, FaceBook is not in any single state, he would have the burden of proof that there was actual harm, she could use the defense that is was just an opinion and therefore protected. Almost no one has ever won any internet case because there are no standards or precedents yet.
My point is we need to establish them, and it should be standards regulations and courts that decide, not companies on their own.

And yes, if FaceBook acts as a platform for any political belief, then they must equally act as a platform for all political beliefs, including Trump's political beliefs.
This is the same principle as to why it is illegal for a lunch counter in AL to not serve Blacks.
Any form of discrimination when you are open to the public, is totally illegal.
More so on the internet, since it was established by the government, (DARPA), and is regulated by the FCC.

And to head off confusion, some people seem to incorrectly think that since race, religion, age, and gender are specifically listed as protected groups, that only discrimination against them is illegal.
That is not the case. All discrimination is illegal, but this listed groups were heavily discriminated against in the past, so required explicit protection. Other rights, like political speech, are so obvious that they should not need to be specifically listed. That does not mean you can violate those individual rights.

 

[Rigby5]

You want government to bully Facebook for you. That's really all this is about.

It is amazing to see all the assumptions that people are making about me on this thread. I have only asked who censors more between the government and private sector, and I have pointed out how much lefties fight to defend censorship. I did anticipate that lefties would be trying to evade and derail the thread, as seen in the opening post, but thats about all I have really said.

Alright. Then let's cut the bullshit. Do you think Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc... have a right to censor content on their platforms?

If we are going to deviate from the thread topic, I would rather start out by debating if it is right or wrong for them to do it. Not if they have the right to do it or if it is legal, but if it is right or wrong. Lefties will never get around to discussing this, so it has to be discussed first. Is it right or wrong for them to do it?

Right and wrong are subjective.

The facts are that no private entity can violate your first amendment rights nor can they stop you from saying or writing whatever you want.

You seem to want to think that any private sector entity has to provide you an audience for your speech.

There is only one moral standard. That's why it is called a standard. Lefties do not live by any standard besides what feels good to them in the moment. The notion that right and wrong are subjective is simply how lefties see them, since they do not follow THE standard. Lefties can only conflate right and wrong with legal vs illegal.

I don't want to get in the way of you beating up on "lefties", but this makes no sense. Asking whether censorship is right or wrong is like asking if criticism is right or wrong.

We are narrowed down to politically motivated coercive censorship now, right?

I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Let me repost my previous comment that you ignored:

No private censorship carries the force of law - nothing is being forced on anyone. Private censorship is simply one party refusing to accommodate another. When Facebook censors someone, they're not saying "you must be silent", they're just saying "we won't put that stuff on our webpage". That's profoundly different from government censorship.

I disagree.
Due to economy of scale, any forum like FaceBook is going to become like a monopoly eventually, and then it is just as harmful to have private arbitrary censorship as public arbitrary censorship.

Yeah, yeah... the virtual monopoly argument. Pretty standard when someone wants government to take over.

So private censorship is likely far more of the problem than government censorship.
You get to vote or appeal in court when governments censor.

Riiiight. Just say "no" to socialism.

That silly.
Socialism is not only central to a democratic republic, but to any primate species.
Hominid primates had no claws, fangs, armor, speed, etc., so when they came down from the trees, is was only collective support that allowed them (us), to survive.
We have to willingly support each other, or our species would never have survived.
Evolution selected for socialism.
When any member of a hunter/gatherer group has a successful hunt, everyone in the tribe shared in the success.

Government is where we all get a say and can vote, appeal, protest, etc.
Private is totally arbitrary and essentially a dictatorship.
The worst of all is when the private dictatorship then also takes over the government.

 

[dblack]

And to head off confusion, some people seem to incorrectly think that since race, religion, age, and gender are specifically listed as protected groups, that only discrimination against them is illegal.
That is not the case. All discrimination is illegal, but this listed groups were heavily discriminated against in the past, so required explicit protection. Other rights, like political speech, are so obvious that they should not need to be specifically listed. That does not mean you can violate those individual rights.

Yes. This is why I've always adamantly opposed the idea that discrimination should be illegal.

 

[dblack]

You want government to bully Facebook for you. That's really all this is about.

It is amazing to see all the assumptions that people are making about me on this thread. I have only asked who censors more between the government and private sector, and I have pointed out how much lefties fight to defend censorship. I did anticipate that lefties would be trying to evade and derail the thread, as seen in the opening post, but thats about all I have really said.

Alright. Then let's cut the bullshit. Do you think Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc... have a right to censor content on their platforms?

If we are going to deviate from the thread topic, I would rather start out by debating if it is right or wrong for them to do it. Not if they have the right to do it or if it is legal, but if it is right or wrong. Lefties will never get around to discussing this, so it has to be discussed first. Is it right or wrong for them to do it?

Right and wrong are subjective.

The facts are that no private entity can violate your first amendment rights nor can they stop you from saying or writing whatever you want.

You seem to want to think that any private sector entity has to provide you an audience for your speech.

There is only one moral standard. That's why it is called a standard. Lefties do not live by any standard besides what feels good to them in the moment. The notion that right and wrong are subjective is simply how lefties see them, since they do not follow THE standard. Lefties can only conflate right and wrong with legal vs illegal.

I don't want to get in the way of you beating up on "lefties", but this makes no sense. Asking whether censorship is right or wrong is like asking if criticism is right or wrong.

We are narrowed down to politically motivated coercive censorship now, right?

I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Let me repost my previous comment that you ignored:

No private censorship carries the force of law - nothing is being forced on anyone. Private censorship is simply one party refusing to accommodate another. When Facebook censors someone, they're not saying "you must be silent", they're just saying "we won't put that stuff on our webpage". That's profoundly different from government censorship.

I disagree.
Due to economy of scale, any forum like FaceBook is going to become like a monopoly eventually, and then it is just as harmful to have private arbitrary censorship as public arbitrary censorship.

Yeah, yeah... the virtual monopoly argument. Pretty standard when someone wants government to take over.

So private censorship is likely far more of the problem than government censorship.
You get to vote or appeal in court when governments censor.

Riiiight. Just say "no" to socialism.

That silly.
Socialism is not only central to a democratic republic, but to any primate species.
Hominid primates had no claws, fangs, armor, speed, etc., so when they came down from the trees, is was only collective support that allowed them (us), to survive.
We have to willingly support each other, or our species would never have survived.
Evolution selected for socialism.
When any member of a hunter/gatherer group has a successful hunt, everyone in the tribe shared in the success.

Government is where we all get a say and can vote, appeal, protest, etc.
Private is totally arbitrary and essentially a dictatorship.
The worst of all is when the private dictatorship then also takes over the government.

I'm glad to see you make this point, as it underlines exactly who and what Trumpsters are aligning with.

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

I think of all people Justice Thomas has figured this one out.

Facebook, Twitter and Youtube are so large they ....

Yes, yes... the "virtual" monopoly argument. Statists love that one.

Indeed, power is power, economic power is power just as political power is power.

Absolute power is dangerous.

Checks and balances.

Checks and balances.