Big Tech Authoritarianism

[BowdonUK]

The Proud Boys, the first white supremacist group with a black leader. Bizarro world.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

I think in a way these big tech companies have exposed themselves.

When the dust settles they are going to be called back to give evidence of how they aren't cartels, or stifling competition. Previously they denied this after coming under heavy attack from both the Dems and Reps. Now they have done this latest action they have proven they can't be trusted to keep a level playing field.

They have also proven themselves publishers, which in order to get section 230 protection it was claimed they weren't, that they were a benign organisation just being the conduit for peoples posts. The only requirement they had was to help law enforcement if someone made a post that broke the law, similarly to BT, VM, or the ISP's over here.

But with them in effect going beyond the law and deciding which posts are allowed and which aren't, they have crossed the line. Their own pages of the Trump tweets show they are sitting around discussing tweets. This isn't something they should be doing. The only discussion they should be having is "Is this post lawful by US law or not?".

I don't know how websites got section 230 protection in the first place. The original cause of section 230 was to protect ISP's from legal challenges. A website isn't a service.

Big tech does need anti-trust to take a good long look at them and break them up where necessary.

Section 230 needs updating. It became law to stop small startups from being sued out of business for speech on their platforms/websites because they couldn't be expected to have the money to hire people to moderate them, so they were given the exemption. However that has changed and sites like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and the other big social media sites can indeed afford to properly police their platforms now. If people think this is going to be good for extreme views being published on them they are very very wrong. The Gov can't force any company to publish speech, that would fall foul of the 1st amendment. These platforms are going to come down harder on extreme speech, not be more relaxed on it. Though if they are broken up then it would be easier for new sites to take up that speech, I can't see advertising money wanting to be associated with it so how do they make their money? Unless it is a subscription service.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Trump denounces ‘all white supremacists’ including Proud Boys | Donald Trump News | Al Jazeera

Trump is clever in how he phrases things. Micheal Cohen explained he speaks in code, like a mob boss so as to not directly say the words that could be held against him but it still tells you exactly what he wants/thinks. What Trump does can't be called a dog whistle though. A dog whistles is something you really have to listen for, Trump makes it loud and clear, its more a klaxon and his fans love him for it. He says what lots of them want to be able to say. If you can't see it staring you right in the face you must have your eyes screwed shut and fingers in your ears. He's a racist POS, he's shown that for decades.

 

[BowdonUK]

Big tech does need anti-trust to take a good long look at them and break them up where necessary.

Section 230 needs updating. It became law to stop small startups from being sued out of business for speech on their platforms/websites because they couldn't be expected to have the money to hire people to moderate them, so they were given the exemption. However that has changed and sites like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and the other big social media sites can indeed afford to properly police their platforms now. If people think this is going to be good for extreme views being published on them they are very very wrong. The Gov can't force any company to publish speech, that would fall foul of the 1st amendment. These platforms are going to come down harder on extreme speech, not be more relaxed on it. Though if they are broken up then it would be easier for new sites to take up that speech, I can't see advertising money wanting to be associated with it so how do they make their money? Unless it is a subscription service.

I can imagine how an assumption was made about a website with thousands of users also becoming unmanagable, so it looks like they just lumped websites in with the existing defintions that had applied to ISP's.

I would be happy for RealID to be implemented, and for people to have to prove who they are before they had an account on these social media sites. I know many people who seem to have multiple accounts on facebook, and I've seen many 'sock puppet' accounts on Twitter. I think rules need to be brought in on how people sign up and verify who they are instead of a lot of people hiding behind fake accounts.

 

[Tom1138]

Trump is clever in how he phrases things. Micheal Cohen explained he speaks in code, like a mob boss so as to not directly say the words that could be held against him but it still tells you exactly what he wants/thinks. What Trump does can't be called a dog whistle though. A dog whistles is something you really have to listen for, Trump makes it loud and clear, its more a klaxon and his fans love him for it. He says what lots of them want to be able to say. If you can't see it staring you right in the face you must have your eyes screwed shut and fingers in your ears. He's a racist POS, he's shown that for decades.

Please post racist comments made by Trump.

 

[dlockers]

Please post racist comments made by Trump.

Why do you support him so much?

Edit: heres an entire Wiki dedicated to the topic, with sources at the bottom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump

Of course, you and your disenfranchised cronies will argue he didn't "black and white" say racist things.

 

[chrcoluk]

I hate trump, but I have long been against censorship.

Most conspiracy theories no longer have a voice, they may well be rubbish, but I should be the one to decide that for myself not a tech giant.

I moaned about this a year or so ago but was in a minor opinion.

 

[Tom1138]

Why do you support him so much?

Edit: heres an entire Wiki dedicated to the topic, with sources at the bottom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump

Of course, you and your disenfranchised cronies will argue he didn't "black and white" say racist things.

The above comment answers your question. I neither love or hate him, I just dislike people deciding what is wrongthink. It's my decision. This is the start of Fahrenheit 451 and people like you are complicit, even the slightest sniff thinking different to you and you are saying I'm a crony of Trump.

 

[dlockers]

The above comment answers your question. I neither love or hate him, I just dislike people deciding what is wrongthink. It's my decision. This is the start of Fahrenheit 451 and people like you are complicit, even the slightest sniff thinking different to you and you are saying I'm a crony of Trump.

Maybe you are all just misunderstanding what the internet is then, if this is the trigger for you to get 'woke' on censorship. Much more credible, intelligent and reasonable causes to do that about.

 

[Tom1138]

Maybe you are all just misunderstanding what the internet is then, if this is the trigger for you to get 'woke' on censorship. Much more credible, intelligent and reasonable causes to do that about.

You mean I should only try and fight for freedom of speech for a particular group of people which you like? And the rest get cancelled?

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

The above comment answers your question. I neither love or hate him, I just dislike people deciding what is wrongthink. It's my decision. This is the start of Fahrenheit 451 and people like you are complicit, even the slightest sniff thinking different to you and you are saying I'm a crony of Trump.

Orwellian phrases really are being seized on by the right huh. Its laughable of course. Trump is one of the worst offenders for cancelling voices he doesn't agree with or that make comments on him he doesn't like. I find it hilarious that the right now screams "1984!" Orwell would be laughing in his grave.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

I can imagine how an assumption was made about a website with thousands of users also becoming unmanagable, so it looks like they just lumped websites in with the existing defintions that had applied to ISP's.

I would be happy for RealID to be implemented, and for people to have to prove who they are before they had an account on these social media sites. I know many people who seem to have multiple accounts on facebook, and I've seen many 'sock puppet' accounts on Twitter. I think rules need to be brought in on how people sign up and verify who they are instead of a lot of people hiding behind fake accounts.

The problem with that is some people have to hide their identity. You can't force them to use their real identity or they simply won't be able to have an account and post.

 

[dlockers]

You mean I should only try and fight for freedom of speech for a particular group of people which you like? And the rest get cancelled?

I mean, you should try and comprehend that a persons private Twitter account is not the golden fleece of freedom of speech you make out. It actually really detracts from your argument, and actually makes you come across as a 'bit thick'. I mean, he literally has another account which is for his specific role as POTUS. Remember when crooked Hillary used private email to conduct her duty? Samesies.

 

[Tom1138]

Orwellian phrases really are being seized on by the right huh. Its laughable of course. Trump is one of the worst offenders for cancelling voices he doesn't agree with or that make comments on him he doesn't like. I find it hilarious that the right now screams "1984!" Orwell would be laughing in his grave.

And the assumption is I'm the right because I wish for freedom of speech, Orwell would be not laughing but rolling in his grave.

I mean, you should try and comprehend that a persons private Twitter account is not the golden fleece of freedom of speech you make out. It actually really detracts from your argument, and actually makes you come across as a 'bit thick'. I mean, he literally has another account which is for his specific role as POTUS. Remember when crooked Hillary used private email to conduct her duty? Samesies.

But how far will this go? They will not stop with just Trump. And that is my issue, it's just the start of Big Tech deciding what we should see. There are streaming outlets which edit movies because of something someone did like. This is worrying. And I understand the right for freedom of speech, but please don't call me think I would not do the same to you despite our disagreements.

 

[chroniclard]

I hate trump, but I have long been against censorship.

Most conspiracy theories no longer have a voice, they may well be rubbish, but I should be the one to decide that for myself not a tech giant.

I moaned about this a year or so ago but was in a minor opinion.

When these conspiracy theories result in the riots we have seen the other day?

Some of the conspiracy stuff on Gab is truly mind boggling. Never mind the QAnon groups, they are loony.

Unsure if this stuff should be censored or not......Trump ban is fine though.

The QAnon stuff, again bigged up by Don "honest as the day is long" Trump, is pretty big and these kinds of conspiracy theories are growing. We even have stupid movements in the UK now touting conspiracy theories, anti mask marches (David Icke derp).

 

[dlockers]

And the assumption is I'm the right because I wish for freedom of speech, Orwell would be not laughing but rolling in his grave.

Bet you're an anti-masker 100%

 

[Tom1138]

Bet you're an anti-masker 100%

Wrong. But you wouldn't believe me.

 

[dlockers]

Wrong. But you wouldn't believe me.

Ah I see. So your black and white belief system on freedoms is also selective. Gee, you could be a moderator on Twitter!

What makes you believe the right to wear a mask is not a choice, but the right to share nonsense on Twitter is a fundamental encroachment on your freedoms?

Edit: The right to bare arms is also at risk, with the Capitol now enforcing security checks at the door. Oof, are you triggered?

 

[Tom1138]

Ah I see. So your black and white belief system on freedoms is also selective. Gee, you could be a moderator on Twitter!

What makes you believe the right to wear a mask is not a choice, but the right to share nonsense on Twitter is a fundamental encroachment on your freedoms?

Edit: The right to bare arms is also at risk, with the Capitol now enforcing security checks at the door. Oof, are you triggered?

You sound very angry. I don't like guns but understand the rights of those who want to use them. The right to wear a mask is a choice, a choice I made. I can choose not to wear one. But that decision is mine. Freedom to speech is also freedom of choice.

 

[dlockers]

You sound very angry. I don't like guns but understand the rights of those who want to use them. The right to wear a mask is a choice, a choice I made. I can choose not to wear one. But that decision is mine. Freedom to speech is also freedom of choice.

The decision is yours unless you enter Morrisons. Big supermarket out to get us!!!