Wild West of Internet.

[Rigby5]

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.

The left wing position should also be no prior restraint.
The left should have been up in arms when Trump's Twitter account was closed.
This has nothing to do with partisanship, but basic principles.
The wealthy elite do not get to decide.
Any censorship is pure evil.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

Anonymity on the internet permits some discussing behavior. There are plenty of minimally moderated platforms where basically anything goes. You are welcome to use them. I don’t care.

I won’t because I would prefer not to immerse myself in the kind of human filth that these platforms attract.

 

[Rigby5]

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

Knowing real law and having a government approved version of law are 2 different things.
If governments were consistent with real law, then rebellions would never be necessary, we would not have to repeal laws, there never would have been Prohibition, the War on Drugs, the lies about WMD in Iraq, 3 strikes laws, asset forfeiture, etc.
Government is always corrupt, and we have to constantly work to improve it.
We had to fight a war to end slavery, but we still have a long way to go.

 

[occupied]

Knowing real law and having a government approved version of law are 2 different things.
If governments were consistent with real law, then rebellions would never be necessary, we would not have to repeal laws, there never would have been Prohibition, the War on Drugs, the lies about WMD in Iraq, 3 strikes laws, asset forfeiture, etc.
Government is always corrupt, and we have to constantly work to improve it.
We had to fight a war to end slavery, but we still have a long way to go.

You don't get to invent your own version of the law and then argue it as if it's real.

 

[Rigby5]

You don't get to invent your own version of the law and then argue it as if it's real.

Sure I do.
It is what all honorable people have done from day one.
Was Patrick Henry wrong?
Were Abolitionists wrong?
According to you, we should have been satisfied with feudalism.
There is a real law that is vastly different than the corruption our politicians try to push on us.
We will likely never get there, but that does not mean it does not exist, that any person can't understand it, and we should not try to get towards it.

 

[occupied]

Sure I do.
It is what all honorable people have done from day one.
Was Patrick Henry wrong?
Were Abolitionists wrong?
According to you, we should have been satisfied with feudalism.
There is a real law that is vastly different than the corruption our politicians try to push on us.
We will likely never get there, but that does not mean it does not exist, that any person can't understand it, and we should not try to get towards it.

What are you even talking about? Your fantasies of libertarian utopias have practically nothing to do with the topic. The world is full of crappy, selfish, dishonest people who would run wild if not for the law. I can see the idealistic attraction of thinking some philosophy has the answer but we have to live by the laws meant to keep stupid bastards in line and alive. I don't necessarily like the law as it is interpreted in many cases but the law is the law.

 

[sear]

What are you even talking about? Your fantasies of libertarian utopias have practically nothing to do with the topic. The world is full of crappy, selfish, dishonest people who would run wild if not for the law. I can see the idealistic attraction of thinking some philosophy has the answer but we have to live by the laws meant to keep stupid bastards in line and alive. I don't necessarily like the law as it is interpreted in many cases but the law is the law.

Connect the dots. The topic is: Wild West of Internet.

On the World Wide Web the United States Constitution is barely a local ordinance. There's a difference between the way the law is written, and the way the law is applied.

 

[occupied]

Connect the dots. The topic is: Wild West of Internet.

On the World Wide Web the United States Constitution is barely a local ordinance. There's a difference between the way the law is written, and the way the law is applied.

The law was applied to make the internet an over-policed place of business rather than a public space. It was certainly not how the originators thought it should be but they had to squeeze a profit out of it somehow. Making the content providers liable for their content was seen as preferable to unprofitable anarchy or the heavy government involvement necessary to make it the same as the public square.

 

[Rigby5]

What are you even talking about? Your fantasies of libertarian utopias have practically nothing to do with the topic. The world is full of crappy, selfish, dishonest people who would run wild if not for the law. I can see the idealistic attraction of thinking some philosophy has the answer but we have to live by the laws meant to keep stupid bastards in line and alive. I don't necessarily like the law as it is interpreted in many cases but the law is the law.

Wrong.
Legislation laws started when agriculture provided enough extra production to be able to hire mercenaries to enforce the will of a tyrant.
We only start reverting those corrupt legislation laws when firearms allowed us to start ending monarch dictators.
We slowly ended corrupt legislation like slavery.
Only now that we have a democratic republic, are we starting to approach real law, by getting rid of the corrupt legislation of the dictators.
But we still have more to do.
We have to get back to real human law and justice, by ending the remaining corruptions in the legislation, like the War on Drugs, 3 strikes, mandated sentencing, asset forfeiture, etc.
Real law is an ideal abstraction, and we have to fix the deliberate corruptions put into legislation, in order to return us to the real law.

Internet censorship should be the last thing we should want, as we have to uncover the last of the corruptions that allowed our enslavement for thousands of years. At least with laws we have some ability to vote, but with private censorship like Twitter, FaceBook, LinkedIn, etc., there is absolutely nothing we can do about their arbitrary edicts.