The bigger censorship offender- Private Sector or Government?

[SC Patriot]

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.

True. But allowing criticism but censoring those being criticized is dangerous.

I recall my posting something on Facebook before I cancelled my account. My sister posted something about what the "Best investigative reporter, Rachel Maddow, found out about Trump". I responded to her by saying calling Rachel Maddow an investigative reporter is like calling Sean Hannity and investigative reporter". They are both opinionists.

She promptly deleted my post and then posted on her page how her brother (me) thinks Sean Hannity is much more informative, reasonable and knowledgeable reporter than Rachel Maddow.

She outright lied about what I posted...the post she deleted for no one to see. ..... and the result? Hateful comments on my page about my upbringing, my shame and my immaturity.

That was the last day I went on Facebook and the last day I spoke to my sister.

Criticism and censorship do not work well together

 

[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.

True. But allowing criticism but censoring those being criticized is dangerous.

I recall my posting something on Facebook before I cancelled my account. My sister posted something about what the "Best investigative reporter, Rachel Maddow, found out about Trump". I responded to her by saying calling Rachel Maddow an investigative reporter is like calling Sean Hannity and investigative reporter". They are both opinionists.

She promptly deleted my post and then posted on her page how her brother (me) thinks Sean Hannity is much more informative, reasonable and knowledgeable reporter than Rachel Maddow.

She outright lied about what I posted...the post she deleted for no one to see. ..... and the result? Hateful comments on my page about my upbringing, my shame and my immaturity.

That was the last day I went on Facebook and the last day I spoke to my sister.

Criticism and censorship do not work well together

Sorry to hear about your falling out with your sister. I'm not really sure what your point is here. Lying about someone in public, in a way that harms their reputation, is slander. It has nothing to do with criticism or censorship.

 

[EvMetro]

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? Look below and see if you can differentiate right from wrong:

• To pressure, intimidate, or force (someone) into doing something. synonym: force.
• transitive verb
  To bring about or gain by pressure, threat, or force.
• 
  To restrain or constrain by force, as by the force of law or authority

 

[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.

 

[EvMetro]

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.

Remember post 90?

"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?"

Lefties will never get around to the right or wrong part if we start with the legal part of it. Remember that lefties can not differentiate legal and illegal from right and wrong.

 

[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.

Remember post 90?

"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?"

Lefties will never get around to the right or wrong part if we start with the legal part of it. Remember that lefties can not differentiate legal and illegal from right and wrong.

Your evasion sure grows tiresome. Yes, I do remember post #90. Do you remember post #91, my response?

"I'm not a lefty, but here's my view: There's nothing innately right or wrong about censorship. As long as it's not coercive compelled by law, it's a legitimate way for society to self-moderate. Whether you think a given act of censorship is good or bad is entirely subjective. It depends on whether you share the values and sensibilities of those doing the censoring, or not."

Now, back to my comment - the one you're afraid to address:

"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 simply saying "we won't put that stuff on our webpage". That's profoundly different from government censorship."

Do you really not understand the difference? Or is it just that acknowledging it undermines your goal here?

 

[EvMetro]

Let's also establish that censorship is simply the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. We should also establish that this has nothing to do with laws or rights.

 

[EvMetro]

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.

Remember post 90?

"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?"

Lefties will never get around to the right or wrong part if we start with the legal part of it. Remember that lefties can not differentiate legal and illegal from right and wrong.

Your evasion sure grows tiresome. Yes, I do remember post #90. Do you remember post #91, my response?

"I'm not a lefty, but here's my view: There's nothing innately right or wrong about censorship. As long as it's not coercive compelled by law, it's a legitimate way for society to self-moderate. Whether you think a given act of censorship is good or bad is entirely subjective. It depends on whether you share the values and sensibilities of those doing the censoring, or not."

Now, back to my comment - the one you're afraid to address:

"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."

Do you really not understand the difference? Or is it just that acknowledging it undermines your goal here?

Why did you cross out "coercive"?

 

[EvMetro]

Whether you think a given act of censorship is good or bad is entirely subjective. It depends on whether you share the values and sensibilities of those doing the censoring, or not."

It is not all that subjective if we are using the same standard to measure it with.

 

[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.

Remember post 90?

"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?"

Lefties will never get around to the right or wrong part if we start with the legal part of it. Remember that lefties can not differentiate legal and illegal from right and wrong.

Your evasion sure grows tiresome. Yes, I do remember post #90. Do you remember post #91, my response?

"I'm not a lefty, but here's my view: There's nothing innately right or wrong about censorship. As long as it's not coercive compelled by law, it's a legitimate way for society to self-moderate. Whether you think a given act of censorship is good or bad is entirely subjective. It depends on whether you share the values and sensibilities of those doing the censoring, or not."

Now, back to my comment - the one you're afraid to address:

"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."

Do you really not understand the difference? Or is it just that acknowledging it undermines your goal here?

Why did you cross out "coercive"?

Because, I don't want to get mired in equivocation on terminology. I tried to avoid that with my earlier clarification, but you insisted on doing it anyway. So, I'm retracting my usage of the word and instead replaced it with "compelled by law".

Now, why are you so afraid to engage in honest debate? Why do you keep ignoring my comments?

 

[postman]

Let's also establish that censorship is simply the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. We should also establish that this has nothing to do with laws or rights.

Let's also establish that a person who refuses to repeat or to retweet a rumor, is not censoring that rumor.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It isn't one or the other.


It is the two working together in order to eliminate competing ideas such as individual rights, national sovereignty or personal control over ones life.

 

[postman]

The idea of "private" censorship is very difficult. As a private entity has no power to actually "censor". All they can do is choose not to repeat or not to amplify or participate. They in no way prevent every other person or every other outlet from spreading the news.

At best you can argue if the most cost effective means of spreading information, such as free platforms, refuses to let somebody use that venue, that they effectively make the person turn to sites where they have to pay.

So it's "free" speech, vs speech you have to pay for.

 

[postman]

And now you enter into the question of "taking". If a private platform can be forced to accept people who have violated their terms of service.

 

[BlindBoo]

For those who will be derailing this thread, here is the question again: who censors more speech- the government or the private sector? This is what the thread is about.

So if I post something that is off topic and is an obvious attempt to derail the thread, and the powers that be on here deleted that post, would you consider that some kind of censorship?

 

[postman]

For those who will be derailing this thread, here is the question again: who censors more speech- the government or the private sector? This is what the thread is about.

So if I post something that is off topic and is an obvious attempt to derail the thread, and the powers that be on here deleted that post, would you consider that some kind of censorship?

It looks like the question of who censors more is based on the definition of censorship?

If editing is censorship, then the private sector does far more of it.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

There are no absolute moral standards.

 

[EvMetro]

There are no absolute moral standards.

There is only one moral standard. That's why we call it the standard, and that's why lefties hate it so much.

 

[Blues Man]

There are no absolute moral standards.

There is only one moral standard. That's why we call it the standard, and that's why lefties hate it so much.

There isn't.

Morals are not absolute and never were.

But now who is off topic?

 

[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.

True. But allowing criticism but censoring those being criticized is dangerous.

I recall my posting something on Facebook before I cancelled my account. My sister posted something about what the "Best investigative reporter, Rachel Maddow, found out about Trump". I responded to her by saying calling Rachel Maddow an investigative reporter is like calling Sean Hannity and investigative reporter". They are both opinionists.

She promptly deleted my post and then posted on her page how her brother (me) thinks Sean Hannity is much more informative, reasonable and knowledgeable reporter than Rachel Maddow.

She outright lied about what I posted...the post she deleted for no one to see. ..... and the result? Hateful comments on my page about my upbringing, my shame and my immaturity.

That was the last day I went on Facebook and the last day I spoke to my sister.

Criticism and censorship do not work well together

Sorry to hear about your falling out with your sister. I'm not really sure what your point is here. Lying about someone in public, in a way that harms their reputation, is slander. It has nothing to do with criticism or censorship.

Yes censorship is involved because the sister would not have been able to lie if not for her ability to delete the post in question, and FaceBook not having a good policy for resolving slander issues.
The censorship has to sides, too much as when political views deleted arbitrarily, and not enough when someone slanders someone else. And FaceBook, and actually all internet providers, are guilty on both sides of the issue.
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.
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.