Wild West of Internet.

[Natural Citizen]

And I want to touch on this whole ''community standards'' nonsense, too, after we get beyond the liberty-responsibility discussion. If we do...

Just because we live in a technological world does not mean that the people who have positioned themselves into control over it get to redefine the primary foundation for moral code with which the principles of Individual liberty and freedom are naturally Indivisible and with which our Republic was founded.

 

[emilynghiem]

Responsible people do not spread dangerous lies, incite violence or run scams on others. Some people seem to think one should be able to say anything and their responsibility ends there. Not only that they think they should be protected from the consequences should their statements cause harm. Is this a startling concept to you? Does someone who belongs to the so-called "party of personal responsibility" not agree that your actions have consequences?

Dear occupied
We correct problems by redressing grievances directly with each other, as this forum allows

On other venues, it is onesided where liberals do not push any legal liability for vaccines, for denying lifesaving treatment and information about Hydrochloroquine while complaining about disinformation by anti-vaccine advocates, and censoring any references to doctors seeking to correct such misinformation about HCQ.

occupied if the liberal left/Democrats publicly acknowledged the escalation of hospitalizations and deaths, which doctors have prevented by using HCQ effectively with added supplements, then maybe the rightwing might layoff the anti vaccine lobbying.

This is a two way process.

At least this forum lets everyone talk in full, so we can discuss both sides.

The other venues got so bad, people were giving up and moving to Flote or mewe/parler. Trump set up winred for political campaigning, and chatdit was set up by Trump supporters for social and business platforms.

I still recommend USMB for political discussion since I find the Mods to be the best at this.

We all have our biases, but if we agree to let everyone express themselves, we can work out the best possible solutions given the fact we have different beliefs.

I credit danielpalos for great effort and help in this. And I am reaching out to more people to work past our biases and differences and find the best ways to accommodate each other and solve problems together.

Not onesided. In fact, instead of just left and right, there are probably more like 3 angles, which split into 4 to 6 different approaches from there.

If we keep framing these issues as all or nothing, either D or R, L or R, that is why the votes are only representing half of half the country's population.

 

[Man of Ethics]

Hate speech is not the only speech I’d be unwilling to facilitate and I’m pretty sure that’s true for everyone.

At the end of the day, you cannot expect someone to spread your speech for you.

Hopefully Free Speech Media will corner the market. Hopefully Progressive Totalitarians will lose out.

Free Speech supporters should be willing to use any forum/Social Media -- even the ones hosted by foreign powers. Telegram.org is a good Free Speech Social Media.

 

[Man of Ethics]

The owners, operators, mods and members here do not go sell out to liberal Democrats and use this media to get one party elected. As Facebook, Twitter, Meetup and others teamed up along party lines.

Hopefully Facebook, Twitter, etc. lose their market. If they lose it to Russian companies that would be great.

 

[occupied]

What does that mean, though?

To be clear, agree wit hthe principle.

But you havenlt explained the principle. You only invoked it.

So we have to question whether you actually understand wha tyu;r einvoking or merely twisting for your own ends without the responsibility of demonstrating a sound understanding.

It is, after all, a foundation of our Republican form of govrnment. Man's relationship to man and ultimately man's relationship to government.

The Founders were very specific in this.

My understanding is that for every such right there is a correlative, inseparable duty. For every aspect of freedom there is a corresponding responsibility; so that it is always Right-Duty and Freedom-Responsibility, or Liberty- Responsibility.

What I'm asking you is where does this responsibility, this moral duty to keep, secure and use soundly these gifts, lie?

Merely invoking it without explaining relevance is not useful. Respectufully speaking.

Thanks!

The responsibility lies with you alone until you use some technology to broadcast your thoughts beyond the range of your spoken voice. After that other people have responsibilities to ensure public safety and protect internet or broadcast mediums from liability.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The responsibility lies with you alone until you use some technology to broadcast your thoughts beyond the range of your spoken voice. After that other people have responsibilities to ensure public safety and protect internet or broadcast mediums from liability.

You said....

Some Americans seem to have forgotten that every right we have carries with it responsibility.


One last time I'm going to ask you, and I'm going to try to make it as country simple as a I possibly can.

To whom or to what is your duty to keep and secure your rights owed? Please explain the primary foundation for moral code with which you're referencing here when you relate liberty/freedom with responsibility. Otherwise, the term 'responsibility' is just an empty word.

Thanks!

 

[marvin martian]

Holocaust denial is banned on Facebook.

Facebook bans Holocaust denial, distortion posts

Facebook is banning posts that deny or distort the Holocaust and will start directing people to authoritative sources if they search for information about the Nazi genocide.

apnews.com

I guess that would mean you think that there was no Holocaust.

As long as Holocaust deniers like Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayana Pressley are on Facebook, Holocaust denial is not banned.

 

[occupied]

Dear occupied
We correct problems by redressing grievances directly with each other, as this forum allows

On other venues, it is onesided where liberals do not push any legal liability for vaccines, for denying lifesaving treatment and information about Hydrochloroquine while complaining about disinformation by anti-vaccine advocates, and censoring any references to doctors seeking to correct such misinformation about HCQ.

occupied if the liberal left/Democrats publicly acknowledged the escalation of hospitalizations and deaths, which doctors have prevented by using HCQ effectively with added supplements, then maybe the rightwing might layoff the anti vaccine lobbying.

This is a two way process.

At least this forum lets everyone talk in full, so we can discuss both sides.

The other venues got so bad, people were giving up and moving to Flote or mewe/parler. Trump set up winred for political campaigning, and chatdit was set up by Trump supporters for social and business platforms.

I still recommend USMB for political discussion since I find the Mods to be the best at this.

We all have our biases, but if we agree to let everyone express themselves, we can work out the best possible solutions given the fact we have different beliefs.

I credit danielpalos for great effort and help in this. And I am reaching out to more people to work past our biases and differences and find the best ways to accommodate each other and solve problems together.

Not onesided. In fact, instead of just left and right, there are probably more like 3 angles, which split into 4 to 6 different approaches from there.

If we keep framing these issues as all or nothing, either D or R, L or R, that is why the votes are only representing half of half the country's population.

Even this board has limits.

You said....

Some Americans seem to have forgotten that every right we have carries with it responsibility.


One last time I'm going to ask you, and I'm going to try to make it as country simple as a I possibly can.

Who or what is your duty to keep and secure your rights owed? Please explain the primary foundatio nfor moral code with which you're referencing here.

Free speech is considered a natural right, social responsibility overrules it. Inciting violence, scamming people, telling dangerous lies can never be allowed in a free society. It is unfortunate that these things decent people used to self-censor now needs gatekeepers who can never make everyone happy.

 

[Rigby5]

The responsibility lies with you alone until you use some technology to broadcast your thoughts beyond the range of your spoken voice. After that other people have responsibilities to ensure public safety and protect internet or broadcast mediums from liability.

Wrong.
No one has the responsibility or authority to censor.
That is called prior restraint, and is inherently illegal.
If there is slander or libel, then you sue AFTER the fact, and get compensation, you do not censor.
Censorship is inherently wrong, and assumes people are unable to figure out truth from lies, which itself is an obvious lie.

 

[Mac-7]

Is it just not possible to express right wing opinions without dangerous lies and threats anymore? That's what gets you banned from boards or your posts yanked.

Who gets to decide its a lie?

Libs who happen to be employed by the lib media?

no thank you

 

[Natural Citizen]

Free speech is considered a natural right, social responsibility overrules it.

Thanks!

In the future, please just say that you're just one more social justice warrior poppng off a bunch of words you don't understand when they're actually made applicable to the nature of our Republic.

It'll save us all a lot of wasted keystrokes.

Enjoy your evening...

 

[Rigby5]

It is wrong to censor anything.
If you censor even Holocaust deniers, then anything can and will be censored, including the truth, so then nothing can be believed.

 

[occupied]

Wrong.
No one has the responsibility or authority to censor.
That is called prior restraint, and is inherently illegal.
If there is slander or libel, then you sue AFTER the fact, and get compensation, you do not censor.
Censorship is inherently wrong, and assumes people are unable to figure out truth from lies, which itself is an obvious lie.

So it is your opinion that people have the right to incite violence, scam others and convince them to do stupid shit like drink bleach?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Thread cliff notes, for the benefit of the casual passer-by...

 

[Rigby5]

Even this board has limits.

Free speech is considered a natural right, social responsibility overrules it. Inciting violence, scamming people, telling dangerous lies can never be allowed in a free society. It is unfortunate that these things decent people used to self-censor now needs gatekeepers who can never make everyone happy.

Wrong.
It is always going to be inherently wrong and evil to censor anything, including inciting violence, scamming people, or telling dangerous lies.
The only way to deal with these problems is AFTER the fact.
You have to prove in court there was not only harm, but harmful intent.
No one has the authority to censor with prior restraint.
That is inherently illegal and proves the existence of a totalitarian dictatorship.

 

[gipper]

Freedom can cause some harm, like libel, slander, revenge porn, etc., but I agree with you that freedom is still the best we can do.

Freedom left the house long ago.

When the free speech of a potus can be silenced without a peep from anyone, no matter that the potus is a dumb ass, we know it’s over.

 

[occupied]

Thanks!

In the future, please just say that you're just one more social justice warrior poppng off a bunch of words you don't understand when they're actually made applicable to the nature of our Republic.

It'll save us all a lot of wasted keystrokes.

Enjoy your evening...

You seem to be the one who lacks understanding. Right wingers like to talk about personal responsibility but seem to have convenient moral escape hatches for everything that might blow back on them.

 

[Rigby5]

So it is your opinion that people have the right to incite violence, scam others and convince them to do stupid shit like drink bleach?

Absolutely.
If someone is causing harm, they you have to prove not only that the harm was caused by them, but they caused the harm deliberately, in court.
Prior restraint is totally and completely illegal.
No one gets to dictate what they think might be harmful and censor it ahead of time.
If anyone does that, then this no longer is a democratic republic.

 

[occupied]

Wrong.
It is always going to be inherently wrong and evil to censor anything, including inciting violence, scamming people, or telling dangerous lies.
The only way to deal with these problems is AFTER the fact.
You have to prove in court there was not only harm, but harmful intent.
No one has the authority to censor with prior restraint.
That is inherently illegal and proves the existence of a totalitarian dictatorship.

You need to get your money back on your internet law degree.

 

[Rogue AI]

Freedom is the Lesser Evil.

Freedom brings a lot of bad stuff.

Progressive Totalitarianism is worse.

Looks like you are trying to equate freedom with anarchy. That's simply illogical.