motonoggin Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 I really don't see how you can make a first amendment freedom of speech argument at all unless you are trying to say Big Tech is a defacto government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted January 11, 2021 Author Share Posted January 11, 2021 35 minutes ago, motonoggin said: I really don't see how you can make a first amendment freedom of speech argument at all unless you are trying to say Big Tech is a defacto government. I think there are some existential questions that need to be asked concerning the collusion of these companies in restricting free speech. When you consider apple , google , amazon , twitter and Facebook have now shown themselves to be acting in unison with the same objectives it’s clear the danger to free speech is something that we haven’t seen before 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 5 minutes ago, f7ben said: I think there are some existential questions that need to be asked concerning the collusion of these companies in restricting free speech. When you consider apple , google , amazon , twitter and Facebook have now shown themselves to be acting in unison with the same objectives it’s clear the danger to free speech is something that we haven’t seen before We've absolutely seen it before. Talk radio is dominated by right wing politics and views. Regardless, big tech isn't the government, and is therefore not subject to constitutional constraints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anler Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 2 minutes ago, motonoggin said: We've absolutely seen it before. Talk radio is dominated by right wing politics and views. Regardless, big tech isn't the government, and is therefore not subject to constitutional constraints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 8 minutes ago, Anler said: He is but, weirdly just learned this after the “Kapernickel affair”. Some learned a lot. Some didn’t learn anything and many just got dumber. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 9 minutes ago, Zambroski said: He is but, weirdly just learned this after the “Kapernickel affair”. Some learned a lot. Some didn’t learn anything and many just got dumber. I never made a first amendment argument about Kap. It wasn't government that was penalizing him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ActionfigureJoe Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 34 minutes ago, f7ben said: I think there are some existential questions that need to be asked concerning the collusion of these companies in restricting free speech. When you consider apple , google , amazon , twitter and Facebook have now shown themselves to be acting in unison with the same objectives it’s clear the danger to free speech is something that we haven’t seen before Oh bullshit. There’s tons of other websites for the free exchange of whatever information one is seeking or wanting to post. FB, Twitter, IG or any of the others has no monopoly on the exchange of ideas and information. People are just pissed off because they have a smaller audience to annoy on smaller and less established sites. Fucking drama llamas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted January 11, 2021 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted January 11, 2021 36 minutes ago, motonoggin said: We've absolutely seen it before. Talk radio is dominated by right wing politics and views. Regardless, big tech isn't the government, and is therefore not subject to constitutional constraints. Big tech was handed a free pass at meeting legal responsibilities that other certain groups publishing content must. In order to get this free pass they must not censor free speech. They have more than crossed the line when it comes to who they censor and for what reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 18 minutes ago, motonoggin said: I never made a first amendment argument about Kap. It wasn't government that was penalizing him. That’s my bad if I was mistaken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry ginger Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 41 minutes ago, motonoggin said: We've absolutely seen it before. Talk radio is dominated by right wing politics and views. Regardless, big tech isn't the government, and is therefore not subject to constitutional constraints. the right cult loves them some talk radio, the left cult seems to like the intrawebs more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 1 minute ago, Highmark said: Big tech was handed a free pass at meeting legal responsibilities that other certain groups publishing content must. In order to get this free pass they must not censor free speech. They have more than crossed the line when it comes to who they censor and for what reason. This sounds like a regurgitated talking point. What legal responsibilities are you referring to, specifically? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted January 11, 2021 Author Share Posted January 11, 2021 10 minutes ago, ActionfigureJoe said: Oh bullshit. There’s tons of other websites for the free exchange of whatever information one is seeking or wanting to post. FB, Twitter, IG or any of the others has no monopoly on the exchange of ideas and information. People are just pissed off because they have a smaller audience to annoy on smaller and less established sites. Fucking drama llamas. I’m far more concerned with apple and google limiting app exposure ....at the same time coupled with extreme partisan censorship Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ActionfigureJoe Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 2 minutes ago, Highmark said: Big tech was handed a free pass at meeting legal responsibilities that other certain groups publishing content must. In order to get this free pass they must not censor free speech. They have more than crossed the line when it comes to who they censor and for what reason. Whine whine whine. Go make your own fucking site like donjr.com. He’s about to make a fortune. There’s no censorship here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 1 minute ago, f7ben said: I’m far more concerned with apple and google limiting app exposure ....at the same time coupled with extreme partisan censorship Again, private companies. Talk radio has been like that for decades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 I guess we shoulda thought about this harder before letting capitalists basically run our shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted January 11, 2021 Author Share Posted January 11, 2021 1 minute ago, motonoggin said: I guess we shoulda thought about this harder before letting capitalists basically run our shit. No doubt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ActionfigureJoe Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 Just now, f7ben said: I’m far more concerned with apple and google limiting app exposure ....at the same time coupled with extreme partisan censorship Why? It’ll just open up numerous more market opportunities. Don jr is loving it. He’s screaming censorship while his site grows and on the verge of making millions by giving trumpers a soft landing. There’s suddenly tons of opportunities for additional sites. There doesn’t have to be a google or apple app. I’ll say it again, I don’t think Twitter and FB want to be a political platform. The world prior to trump didn’t see this kind of political traffic and warfare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted January 11, 2021 Author Share Posted January 11, 2021 Just now, ActionfigureJoe said: Why? It’ll just open up numerous more market opportunities. Don jr is loving it. He’s screaming censorship while his site grows and on the verge of making millions by giving trumpers a soft landing. There’s suddenly tons of opportunities for additional sites. There doesn’t have to be a google or apple app. I’ll say it again, I don’t think Twitter and FB want to be a political platform. The world prior to trump didn’t see this kind of political traffic and warfare. 98% of devices are apple and google thats dangerous when they start limiting access Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ActionfigureJoe Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 Just now, f7ben said: 98% of devices are apple and google thats dangerous when they start limiting access They have every right to determine what app is in their catalog. I’ve seen no blocking of other sites by said devices. So they aren’t limiting access. This is a lot shit about nothing. Fucking political clickbait. As for ISP’s being able to control content, well we have repealed net neutrality. Thanks trump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted January 11, 2021 Author Share Posted January 11, 2021 1 minute ago, ActionfigureJoe said: They have every right to determine what app is in their catalog. I’ve seen no blocking of other sites by said devices. So they aren’t limiting access. This is a lot shit about nothing. Fucking political clickbait. As for ISP’s being able to control content, well we have repealed net neutrality. Thanks trump. Try and go to parler.com right now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted January 11, 2021 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted January 11, 2021 10 minutes ago, motonoggin said: This sounds like a regurgitated talking point. What legal responsibilities are you referring to, specifically? Nope. This was put in place so websites don't have to verify information like news or other publishing organizations are supposed to follow. Section 230 is a piece of Internet legislation in the United States, passed into law as part of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996), formally codified as Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 at 47 U.S.C. § 230.[a] Section 230 generally provides immunity for website publishers from third-party content. At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 We should take the capital with whatever it takes. Ok faggot... shut down the site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ActionfigureJoe Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 4 minutes ago, f7ben said: Try and go to parler.com right now Why would I? They’re offline until next week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ActionfigureJoe Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 4 minutes ago, Highmark said: Nope. This was put in place so websites don't have to verify information like news or other publishing organizations are supposed to follow. Section 230 is a piece of Internet legislation in the United States, passed into law as part of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996), formally codified as Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 at 47 U.S.C. § 230.[a] Section 230 generally provides immunity for website publishers from third-party content. At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users: Does this mean Momo could be sued over his virtual helicopter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 14 minutes ago, ActionfigureJoe said: Why? It’ll just open up numerous more market opportunities. Don jr is loving it. He’s screaming censorship while his site grows and on the verge of making millions by giving trumpers a soft landing. There’s suddenly tons of opportunities for additional sites. There doesn’t have to be a google or apple app. I’ll say it again, I don’t think Twitter and FB want to be a political platform. The world prior to trump didn’t see this kind of political traffic and warfare. And you fucking know they're going to censor anyone to the left of Hitler. And not one of the supposed free speech advocates will say a fucking word. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.