@thewheels
.308 Win
It's another federal alphabet soup agency dressed up in disguise.
Trump to use Executive order to censor Internet.
- Thread starter Deplorable Me
- Start date
It's another federal alphabet soup agency dressed up in disguise.
ManrisFrack
.223 Rem
Beliefs are beliefs until you believe that humans are delicious and start eating them. There's an external consequence in that case. Censorship doesn't have level distinctions like that. To censor is to take an action that affects someone else. You've drawn a false equivalency.
If it's bad, why don't we use the government to do something about it? We, as a society, punish people for other "bad" actions all the time.
ManrisFrack
.223 Rem
Copyright IS one of the things we're talking about. The law protects these internet companies from being sued over it. This EA is reported as changing the way this protection is applied. It isn't censorship. It's 'if you're gonna suppress speech, you have to take on the responsibility for upholding slander, libel and copyright standards - just like the publishers of books, papers and television content have had to do for decades upon decades'. The ones saying it's censorship are the talking heads trying to gin up outrage and they're wrong.
FB certainly doesn't get everything, including the libelous and slanderous content. But the fact that they enforce some of it just illustrates my previous point - they no longer deserve legal status (and protection) as a platform. Platforms are NOT liable for copyright infringements and they shouldn't need to expend resources to police those infringements. Enforcing copyright is behavior that a publisher would need to engage in. YouTube is engaging in these behaviors as well.
Last edited:
The government, clearly, can't be trusted to deal with bad things.
And what I define as bad , because it is demonstrably so , and what the government does are far removed.
Let's cut to the basics :
Do you think Facebook and Google should have the right to censor what they put on their sites?
Should this site?
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
If you put that way, yes. I see your point and agree. If Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg for example joined this site and started spamming anti gun rhetoric after every post, the site administrators here should have the right to ban him and delete his posts.
On the flip side, he has a right to do the same.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
He has a right to delete our posts on Facebook is what I mean if that was your question since it's his site just like this is our site.
I agree.
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
Let me know the ticker symbol for the ATF because I'd be very interested in taking a controlling stake and re-writing the corporate mission statement.
ManrisFrack
.223 Rem
Yes. But should they choose to censor, they should also not be immune from lawsuits for users posting content that breaks copyright, libel or slander laws. If they want to maintain their immunity from these lawsuits, they should not be allowed to sensor. Basically subject them to the traditional distinction that has governed platforms and media for longer than we've been alive. Right now, they have both immunity and are freely censoring opposing viewpoints.
The whole idea behind protecting the internet companies was to provide a place for free exchange of ideas and information that didn't turn into a complete shit show. Without protection, they got sued for censoring obscene material. Obviously that turns the internet into giant mess of porn, execution videos, spam, etc., etc. in short order. The law makers never gave a thought to putting a guard rail on the other side of the road - the side where a few giant companies control the platforms where a vast majority of communication takes place and where these companies have begun to wield their power according to their beliefs and in direct opposition to the free exchange of ideas and information.
Everything could have worked out fine if the social media sites had remained NEUTRAL platforms and stuck to regulating obscene, spammy, and illegal material. They just couldn't stop there though. They had to start using their all powerful algorithms to 'make the world a better place'. They've trampled the ideal of a free and open internet as certainly as government censorship would have.
So to converge things a bit:
We've used the government to deal with 'bad' things since it's inception. It's a basic function of all governance. Why is this 'bad' thing less worthy of regulation than others?
Considering that our government has proven itself incompetent in many instances, does it make sense to abandon it as a tool to mitigate or punish 'bad' behavior? What are the alternatives?
Is the market capable of reducing the communication dominance of these companies? Will we insist on the ideal of freedom so adamantly that we avoid governmental tyranny only to walk straight into corporate tyranny?
Because the less government the better.
Yeah, it's looking that way.
Yes, and we might. We've tried option A, but have never tried a free market.
ManrisFrack
.223 Rem
I'd argue that we're trying the free market every day - or at least to the greatest extent we'll ever again manage. The barrier to entry as a social media platform is incredibly high. I doubt that we'll ever see anyone out Facebook Facebook.
But the first two responses... exactly how far IS the gap between Libertarianism and Anarchism? If some laws were necessary in the past it would stand to reason that some new laws might be necessary in the future. Consequently, this corporate censorship of a large portion of the public discourse might be one of the situations where intervention is warranted.
For my personal take - I think that the censorship is wrong and should be discouraged. I also don't think the one for one sacrifice of these corporations' right to free association is acceptable either. Attaching responsibility to the choice to censor is, I believe, as good a solution as we could hope for.
But the first two responses... exactly how far IS the gap between Libertarianism and Anarchism? If some laws were necessary in the past it would stand to reason that some new laws might be necessary in the future. Consequently, this corporate censorship of a large portion of the public discourse might be one of the situations where intervention is warranted.
For my personal take - I think that the censorship is wrong and should be discouraged. I also don't think the one for one sacrifice of these corporations' right to free association is acceptable either. Attaching responsibility to the choice to censor is, I believe, as good a solution as we could hope for.