781–790 of 1001 posts
First they came for the Nazis. And I did not speak up because I was not a Nazi.
Then they came for the pedophiles. And I did not speak up because I was not a pedophile.
Then they didn't come for me, because I'm not morally reprehensible, and life was good.
At what point do such things change into a public discourse problem? Do we wait until it can be shown that companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. influenced elections because they refused to serve information from a candidate they didn't like? If we aren't already there, it's not long before it is. What do you think would happen if these "private companies" with such deep hooks into our communication infra…
> What do you think would happen if these "private companies" with such deep hooks into our communication infrastructure suddenly decided to remove all data associated to the Republican Party? For that matter, the Democratic Party? They wouldn't do that, because there would be justified public outcry. Luckily, as moral agents, we humans are capable of differentiating "general political party" from "white nationalists…
If Facebook and Twitter suddenly decided to de-platform and ban any discussion praising, defending, or favoring a political party, where would the outcry happen? On Facebook? Sorry, it’s banned!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." - Noam Chomsky
Good old Chomsky. I really like his views on this topic. However the question leads down a rabbithole. Absolute freedom is a contradictory concept. How can you kick an unwanted visitor out of your house because you don't like what he's saying? Aren't you infringing on his rights? Someone needs to draw a line. So what about a social media oligopoly? How dominant does Google need to be before you have to tell them to a…
And there's no paradox of tolerance with speech - you can tolerate intolerant speech just fine, so long as you police the actions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the last time there was a “Hebrew Israelite”-motivated mass killing was... when, exactly?
[flagged]
I consider myself a free speech absolutist. Or very nearly so. But that runs both ways. Not only do I think that almost all (to borrow a mathematical term) speech should be permitted, but also that the onus is on the speaker to make themselves heard or to find an audience. No company or platform owes them anything. In earlier times, that meant that no newspaper or printing press was required to print everything sent…
I agree with the spirit of this totally, if I run a coffee shop I sure as heck would kick out white nationalists and would support other coffee shops having that ability. There’s a weird side to this though that if you want to host a video let’s say YouTube is the place for it. Or if you want to organize a group Facebook is THE place for it. Well what if your group is about shutting down Facebook? Facebook could clos…
“It's an universal law-- intolerance is the first sign of an inadequate education. An ill-educated person behaves with arrogant impatience, whereas truly profound education breeds humility.”
“Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years.”
― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn,
My question is this: Are they also going to ban other ethno nationalist movements? Last I checked, the Hebrew Israelites (a black nationalist and anti semitic group) are on FB. They believe that the people who currently identify as Jews are evil impostors.
And the last time there was a “Hebrew Israelite”-motivated mass killing was... when, exactly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What do you think would happen if these "private companies" with such deep hooks into our communication infrastructure suddenly decided to remove all data associated to the Republican Party? For that matter, the Democratic Party? They wouldn't do that, because there would be justified public outcry. Luckily, as moral agents, we humans are capable of differentiating "general political party" from "white nationalists…
>They wouldn't do that, because there would be justified public outcry. Luckily, as moral agents, we humans are capable of differentiating "general political party" from "white nationalists", and can target the latter and not the former. Why white? The CCP is running concentration camps for hundreds of thousands of Muslims right now, yet I see no ban on the only party that can be called National Socialist today, just…
In principle, who could be opposed? In practice, how will this actually work out? True story. I have a friend who got a temporary ban from Facebook (I think 90 days?) for commenting on a story about a Texas billionaire paying to hunt endangered animals, "How much would it cost to hunt Texas billionaires?" That was considered a violation of their anti-bullying stance. Knowing her, it wasn't. It was sarcasm. Moving on…
We've had Nazis and Klansmen effectively shut out of public discourse for decades. They aren't on TV. Their ads don't run in newspapers. If you go shopping in a pointy white hood and a swastika armband, the store (or the shoppers, more insistently) will likely ask you to leave.
Facebook (and similar) are the ones with the odd new 'principle' thing they tried which is 'it's ok for the hyper-overt bigots to shit everywhere with no consequences'. In practice, it has not worked out well so they are belatedly changing it.
This list is not full.contact General ,To get the additional information and place the order,
BEST COUNTERFEIT EURO,POUNDS & DOLLAR NOTES.
Key words
Canada Cards United States Cards Student Cards International Cards Private Cards Adoption Certificates Baptism Certificates Birth Certificates Death Certificates Divorce Certificates Marriage Certificates Custom Certificates High School Diplomas G.E.D. Diplomas Home School Diplomas College Degrees University Degrees Trade Skill Certificates Social Security Validate SSN Number Driver License Search Spy Products Voice Changers Listening Devices Invisible Ink DMV Record Inquiry Background Check Investigate Anyone
Skype : Dr.koffi hassan WASHINGTON TIMES EXECUTIVE COMITTEE MEMBER BRITISH AFRICAN LEAGUE OF NATIONS SECRETARIAT WHATSAPP:+237694717781
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Similarly, Fox News isn't required to carry content they don't want to, and their political reach is enormous.
And CNN, MSNBC, Vox, HuffPost, Slate, The Guardian etc. are not required to carry content that doesn't align with their political agenda. I'm not sure I understand your point? With media outlets there are plenty of alternatives. There are no direct alternatives to Facebook that provide the same services at that scale and reach.