Facebook, Twitter purge more independent media accounts

[Soxbadger]

2 hours ago, raBBit said:

Your view is entirely biased. I speak out for the little guys and you're asking why I don't also speak out for the reprehensible mainstream media corporations. I am not speaking out for them because they are a bane of society. I am not speaking out for them because they are not being attacked. In fact, they are benefiting from this. So aside from them being the beneficiaries from this, they are irrelevant, so why bring them up?

I understand they are private companies. I am interested in the idea of making them public utilities. Given the way technology has changed I think the efforts to protect freedom of speech have to change as well. I understand private business rights and I am in favor of them. There is an issue when the private companies that have become mediums for spreading information have stifled free thought and alternative media because the same people being targeted don't have a medium in place to talk about their inequity.

My bias is that I believe in freedom of speech and think it is important. So if that's seeping out of my posts I am making my point. I care if they are from one radical town in California. You might be okay with a few billionaires working with the intelligence agencies shaping the way Americans think and eliminating alternative opinions. I am not okay with that.  

I am enjoying watching Facebook die. They asked me to take pictures of my home last month. They are a sick, invasive company and a major force in the fight to end all privacy for Americans. 

Time will tell who was right to defend these few consolidating corporations  who are attacking free thought and eliminating personal privacy and who was right to speak out against what is happening underneath our nose. I pity the day where Ill be able to say I told you so. 

I bolded the only part of your post that really matters. You want the govt to take over private companies. I personally dont think that is a good idea, I think it sets a bad precedent. Should the govt take over Fox, CBS, CNN? What about Sinclair?

The people you are seeking to protect have unlimited other mediums. Twitter and Facebook are 2. Do you think that I should get to complain that Sinclair media isnt offering me a column in their newspapers? Do I get to complain Fox isnt giving me a prime time television slot to express my views?

How exactly do you think this is going to end if we start to let the govt decide what is okay, what isnt okay and who can say/do what?

That is the freedom of speech I am protecting. I am protecting people from the govt regulating what is okay, what isnt okay and who can say what. Youre missing the entire point of free speech when you start to suggest that somehow free speech gets better if we let the govt arbitrate what can be said.

 

(edit)

And the reason my view isnt biased is because Im treating everyone the same despite their political view. Your picking out twitter and facebook, because you dont like their California views. Surprisingly I dont see any mention of Sinclair buying up every newspaper. 

(Edit 2)

The more I think the more I just dont see the comparison to utilities. Facebook and Twitter arent necessary by any means. They are merely a convenience.

 

Edited October 12, 2018 by Soxbadger

[raBBit]

3 hours ago, Soxbadger said:

I bolded the only part of your post that really matters. You want the govt to take over private companies. I personally dont think that is a good idea, I think it sets a bad precedent. Should the govt take over Fox, CBS, CNN? What about Sinclair?

The people you are seeking to protect have unlimited other mediums. Twitter and Facebook are 2. Do you think that I should get to complain that Sinclair media isnt offering me a column in their newspapers? Do I get to complain Fox isnt giving me a prime time television slot to express my views?

How exactly do you think this is going to end if we start to let the govt decide what is okay, what isnt okay and who can say/do what?

That is the freedom of speech I am protecting. I am protecting people from the govt regulating what is okay, what isnt okay and who can say what. Youre missing the entire point of free speech when you start to suggest that somehow free speech gets better if we let the govt arbitrate what can be said.

(edit)

And the reason my view isnt biased is because Im treating everyone the same despite their political view. Your picking out twitter and facebook, because you dont like their California views. Surprisingly I dont see any mention of Sinclair buying up every newspaper. 

(Edit 2)

The more I think the more I just dont see the comparison to utilities. Facebook and Twitter arent necessary by any means. They are merely a convenience.

The italicized is a nice touch of civility to open up a respectful conversation, lol.

They're all in cahoots as it is. I would rather have these media giants aligned with the government in plain sight as opposed to having their business relationships take place behind the scenes.

To the bolded -  government entities are already regulating what is okay to say they're just doing it through the guise of private companies from Silicon Valley - Google/YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. Reddit is doing it as well but they're obviously not as influential. They have all acted together at different points. It is entirely coordinated. That's not a coincidence. It's not like your billionaires at the top of these companies all of a sudden thought "fake news" was bad at the same time.

Edited October 12, 2018 by raBBit

[Dam8610]

I didn't know @raBBit was a Socialist. That's new.

[Soxbadger]

4 hours ago, raBBit said:

The italicized is a nice touch of civility to open up a respectful conversation, lol.

They're all in cahoots as it is. I would rather have these media giants aligned with the government in plain sight as opposed to having their business relationships take place behind the scenes.

To the bolded -  government entities are already regulating what is okay to say they're just doing it through the guise of private companies from Silicon Valley - Google/YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. Reddit is doing it as well but they're obviously not as influential. They have all acted together at different points. It is entirely coordinated. That's not a coincidence. It's not like your billionaires at the top of these companies all of a sudden thought "fake news" was bad at the same time.

I was trying to be civil and not take the bait when you made comments about the day when you were right and I was wrong. I wanted to focus on the crux of the issue, which is whether I think the govt should regulate Facebook and Twitter. 

I think the main difference is you seem to think that Facebook and Twitter are aligned with Trump and the Govt. I think its the exact opposite. In August of this year, Trump called banning "very dangerous."  http://fortune.com/2018/08/20/donald-trump-facebook-twitter/ That doesnt make it seem that the govt is in alignment with the actions that Facebook and Twitter just took.

I could come up with a variety of reasons why Twitter and Facebook with take similar action on similar days. None of my contenders would be that they are working in alignment with the government. All of them would be based on bottom lines, answering to shareholders and board of directors.

At the end of the day, I think the best way to keep govt from regulating what is okay, is to not give them the power to do it. You seem to think that if we gave the govt the power to regulate, somehow that would end in less regulation. I dont agree with that logic.

Strangely you seem to have the same goal as me, less govt regulation of speech. We just have diametrically opposed ways of reaching that goal. My way is that we fight to the bitter end to never allow the govt the right to do it. Your way seems to be that we give them the right to do it, in hope that somehow it will make it better.

Maybe Im misunderstanding.

[caulfield12]

59 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

I was trying to be civil and not take the bait when you made comments about the day when you were right and I was wrong. I wanted to focus on the crux of the issue, which is whether I think the govt should regulate Facebook and Twitter. 

I think the main difference is you seem to think that Facebook and Twitter are aligned with Trump and the Govt. I think its the exact opposite. In August of this year, Trump called banning "very dangerous."  http://fortune.com/2018/08/20/donald-trump-facebook-twitter/ That doesnt make it seem that the govt is in alignment with the actions that Facebook and Twitter just took.

I could come up with a variety of reasons why Twitter and Facebook with take similar action on similar days. None of my contenders would be that they are working in alignment with the government. All of them would be based on bottom lines, answering to shareholders and board of directors.

At the end of the day, I think the best way to keep govt from regulating what is okay, is to not give them the power to do it. You seem to think that if we gave the govt the power to regulate, somehow that would end in less regulation. I dont agree with that logic.

Strangely you seem to have the same goal as me, less govt regulation of speech. We just have diametrically opposed ways of reaching that goal. My way is that we fight to the bitter end to never allow the govt the right to do it. Your way seems to be that we give them the right to do it, in hope that somehow it will make it better.

Maybe Im misunderstanding.

Right.  Should the Trump administration be able to regulate Nike for initiating a Kapaernick camapign...or punish American companies for relocating their supply chains to SE Asia to save money for consumers and improve the bottom line in terms of profitability?  To close down Papa John’s for “unfairly” pushing out their founder?

if what they’re doing is based on what’s best for the company’s yearly results...why would that be any different than a chemical company deliberately polluting (and paying a lessened fine due to lowered regulations) because paying the fine would be a lot cheaper than retrofitting or building new factories?

What possible entity is currently non-politicized within the government enough to capably and objectively assess situations like the OP raised?

It’s a free country.  Entities that want to gather have every right to construct their own platforms.  It would be like SoxTalk banning all those with “rightist” views and even moderates/centrists to create a community of like minded, liberal Sox fans.  Doing that would actually lower participation and discussion, right?  Well, the result would be something like WSI, dictatorship run amok.  Which is why other Sox-related sites filled the void...there’s no reasons those offended groups and individuals can’t go out and do their own thing.  At a certain point, if Twitter, FB, etc., becomes too heavy-handed or regulated in terms of what can be discussed, their customers will abandon them , too.  Survival of the fittest.  A decade ago, MySpace. The next year, it will be Snap or FB that falls out of fashion if they can’t provide what their customers want (and invade their privacy to mine data while projecting the image of a useful and even community-strengthening “free” service).

Someone needs to go back and read their Ayn Rand trilogy.

[raBBit]

12 hours ago, Soxbadger said:

1.) I was trying to be civil and not take the bait when you made comments about the day when you were right and I was wrong. I wanted to focus on the crux of the issue, which is whether I think the govt should regulate Facebook and Twitter. 

2. I think the main difference is you seem to think that Facebook and Twitter are aligned with Trump and the Govt. I think its the exact opposite. In August of this year, Trump called banning "very dangerous."  http://fortune.com/2018/08/20/donald-trump-facebook-twitter/ That doesnt make it seem that the govt is in alignment with the actions that Facebook and Twitter just took.

3.) At the end of the day, I think the best way to keep govt from regulating what is okay, is to not give them the power to do it. You seem to think that if we gave the govt the power to regulate, somehow that would end in less regulation. I dont agree with that logic.

4.) Strangely you seem to have the same goal as me, less govt regulation of speech. We just have diametrically opposed ways of reaching that goal. My way is that we fight to the bitter end to never allow the govt the right to do it. Your way seems to be that we give them the right to do it, in hope that somehow it will make it better.

Maybe Im misunderstanding.

1.) I never said you were wrong. I said I pity the day I can say I told you so. But if you think these social media giants aren't working with the government behind the scenes than you are wrong. You didn't specifically say that though. Regardless, there's no bait here. I am giving my opinion. Try not to look at everything as if it is personal because it certainly isn't.

2.) That's not accurate.

3.) This is the distinction we have disconnect on. You think the government shouldn't regulate what is okay - I agree with that. The problem is these companies are already in cahoots with the government. They are all tools of the intelligence apparatus. I would rather they be classified as government entities so they don't have the protections of private institutions. Right now they are influenced by the government and used as pawns but can act like they're acting in their own private interests. It's a ruse. Call it what it is so Americans can have the protections necessary for freedom of speech.

4.) This blends in with 3. Once these social media companies finish getting rid of the libertarians, the anti-media, the conspiracy theorists and other fringe groups, all we will have left is moderates, democrats, progressives and leftists. At that point, they will begin to attack the dissident left. I fear the day but perhaps then you will be able to digest what I am speaking to.  

First they came for the conspiracy theorists, you are not a conspiracy theorist so you didn't speak out.

Then they came for the independent media, you are not the independent media so you didn't speak out.

Then they came for the libertarians, you are not a libertarian so you didn't speak out.

Next they'll come for the dissident left and there will be no one to speak out for them. 

Edited October 13, 2018 by raBBit

[caulfield12]

Maybe Americans really don’t want freedom of speech and actually prefer an authoritarian strongman making these decisions for them.

With the way our country is divided now, neither side really has an advantage.

Even if the MSM and Silicon Valley was controlled by the left (and there’s talk radio, Fox, Limbaugh, Breitbart, Alex Jones, Q Anon and the leaders in the majority of small and mid-sized cities as well as 90% of rural areas to disabuse one of that notion...or Peter Thiel), the fact of the matter is the Right controls the Supreme Court, the Senate, the House, most governorships, state legislatures and city councils/school boards.  Not enough? Citizens United, the Koch Brothers, the majority of non-tech mainstream corporations and investment banks are actually quite conservative.

You write as if 1984, Brave New World or Animal Farm dystopia is right around the corner.  It’s not.

If anything, there’s more of a threat to the Left than to the Right, especially if the Republicans can slow down or at least curb immigration flows.  This doesn’t even take into account gerrymandering, Jim Crow 2018 Version 2.0 Enhanced across the South, Native Americans being disenfranchised, State Legislatures interfering in elections, etc. 

(Maybe it is the end of the world. Iowa State is suddenly the best college football team in America!)

 

Edited October 14, 2018 by caulfield12