Canadian Money Forum banner

61 - 80 of 91 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,240 Posts
If they're going to play the "I can do what I want on my platform" game, then remove safe harbour.
This will as a consequence lead to severe restriction of user generated content (ie, 95%+ reduction in user generated content).

Internet forums might become non-viable if they were liable for any opinions/statements posted on them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,388 Posts
This will as a consequence lead to severe restriction of user generated content (ie, 95%+ reduction in user generated content).

Internet forums might become non-viable if they were liable for any opinions/statements posted on them.
I agree, that's why they call it "the nuclear option".

The alternative I think most people want is simply fair (politially unbiased) treatment.
There are many examples, I've raised several.
It's also an accepted fact by most.

I think the bigger and more inclusive a platform claims to be, the more open their requirements are.

I think that outside of overt criminal activity, one should have internet access.
In think this should include access to major communication platforms and technologies that benefit from legislated liability shields.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,240 Posts
I think that outside of overt criminal activity, one should have internet access.
In think this should include access to major communication platforms and technologies that benefit from legislated liability shields.
This would not just protect conservatives, but also things that almost everyone find highly objectionable (holocaust denial, hate speech etc.).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,388 Posts
This would not just protect conservatives, but also things that almost everyone find highly objectionable (holocaust denial, hate speech etc.).
It would also protect lefties when the right takes power.
In the past it was the lefties who were the defenders of free speech, now it's the right.
The principle is the same.


To the rest, yes, but we don't agree what is and is not hate speech.

Finally "highly objectionable" changes over time and by location.
Remember in some places advocating for consensual homosexual acts is a serious crime.

I don't think the following are "hate speech", some will disagree.
It's okay to be gay.
It's okay to be white.

I'm for restricting sufficiently harmful speech. I am not for banning entire classes of speech that may simply cause some emotional distress.
The cost of restricted speech is simply too high.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,240 Posts
It is hyperbolic to suggest that conservatives are banned from social media.

If you want to restrict platforms from moderating content, I think you need verified identifies for anyone contributing to social media so that they can be obtain for civil action. I'm not sure it's worth that cost. I'd rather just let there be 8chan equivalent platforms for more out-there opinions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,388 Posts
It is hyperbolic to suggest that conservatives are banned from social media.

If you want to restrict platforms from moderating content, I think you need verified identifies for anyone contributing to social media so that they can be obtain for civil action. I'm not sure it's worth that cost. I'd rather just let there be 8chan equivalent platforms for more out-there opinions.
The claim is a pattern of politically biased bans and moderation.
If they were refusing service based on religion it would be clearly illegal.

All I want is for the monopoly/oligopy companies to either stop political discrimination, or not benefit from the liability shield provisions.

If these forums don't benefit the public, why should we subsidize them?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,009 Posts
The claim is a pattern of politically biased bans and moderation.
If they were refusing service based on religion it would be clearly illegal.
I really don't understand how you can claim anti-right bias when Facebook is tremendously popular among the far right. Facebook has probably been one of the greatest gifts to the far right, to help spread their propaganda.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,014 Posts
People are being censored for inciting violence. We will be just fine without those people on social media.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,388 Posts
People are being censored for inciting violence. We will be just fine without those people on social media.
What violence did Lindsay Shepard commit?
She simply stated that a specific person didn't have a uterus.. lifetime ban from Twitter.

I think factual statements should be permitted in all but the most extreme cases.

That's actually the heart of the issue, if you can get banned, for making a true factual statement, that is not illegal, there is a problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,014 Posts
It may be a factual statement or it may not, but the only purpose for making such a statement in a public forum is to mock and bully the targeted person.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,388 Posts
It may be a factual statement or it may not, but the only purpose for making such a statement in a public forum is to mock and bully the targeted person.
So it isn't banning for violence. Glad you accept that.
A healthy majority believe there is political censorship online.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,014 Posts
Twitter is a private company. They ban violations of their terms of conditions. They don't need any reason at all to ban people.

Don't like it............go somewhere else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,009 Posts
Twitter is a private company. They ban violations of their terms of conditions. They don't need any reason at all to ban people.

Don't like it............go somewhere else.
Conservatives usually whine endlessly about how the government should stay out of a corporation's business, and the FREEDOM of the individual (or corporation) to make its own decisions.

Twitter gets to make its own decisions. Facebook gets to make its own decisions.

The owners of this forum get to make their own decisions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,388 Posts
Conservatives usually whine endlessly about how the government should stay out of a corporation's business, and the FREEDOM of the individual (or corporation) to make its own decisions.

Twitter gets to make its own decisions. Facebook gets to make its own decisions.

The owners of this forum get to make their own decisions.
Then they should be held responsible and face the consequences.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,388 Posts
Twitter is a private company. They ban violations of their terms of conditions. They don't need any reason at all to ban people.

Don't like it............go somewhere else.
And you wonder why people aren't having productive discussions.
Ok, I get it, no amount of data, or logic is going to convince sags & james that discussing issues is better than the alternative.
Not only that, you think it's better to try and use force and authority to shut down dissent, do you know where that leads?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Conservatives usually whine endlessly about how the government should stay out of a corporation's business, and the FREEDOM of the individual (or corporation) to make its own decisions.

Twitter gets to make its own decisions. Facebook gets to make its own decisions.

The owners of this forum get to make their own decisions.
So I usually stay out of these as frankly I use this as a investing site, but I assume from your comments then that you are fine with a company that decides not to serve a gay couple who wants a wedding cake (as happened somewhere last year), or a barber that won't cut someones hair because they don't like their tattoos, or a landlord that decides he won't rent to a specific nationality of people? Just like to know the rules everyone wants to play by as too many of us there seems to be two sets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,388 Posts
So I usually stay out of these as frankly I use this as a investing site, but I assume from your comments then that you are fine with a company that decides not to serve a gay couple who wants a wedding cake (as happened somewhere last year), or a barber that won't cut someones hair because they don't like their tattoos, or a landlord that decides he won't rent to a specific nationality of people? Just like to know the rules everyone wants to play by as too many of us there seems to be two sets.
Of all your examples I think the rental one is the best.
 
61 - 80 of 91 Posts
Top