531–540 of 776 posts
It's always funny when these threads come up and people who ostensibly hold the progressive viewpoint that corporations have an inordinate amount of power and influence suddenly pull out their Ayn Rand books and Gadsden flags and argue that corporations should be able to do anything they want because they are a private entity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not, just allow everything that is legal? There is no need to be the arbiter of what is right for the world.
That's Gab's approach. Allow everything that is legal, and crack down on what is illegal. Unfortunately, Gab being perceived as a haven for the alt-right is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The incessant media coverage against it and platform bans (Google and Apple banned their app, Chrome and Firefox banned their browser extension) are designed to scare normal people off from using it (and makes it even more notorious an…
no they would still be by far the loudest and stupidest, while all the mentally stable people realize that there's no point in arguing with the deranged and find better things to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t know how old you are, but I think you’re being ignorant about the full spectrum of what Farrakhan represents. He co-organized the Million Man March, which was a defining event in the 1990s, much like the Ferguson shooting is today. A recent Rasmussen poll found that over half of black likely voters had an at least somewhat favorable impression of him. You’re acting like he’s just anti-Semitic and not cultural…
I'm fairly old, thanks, and I understand that Farrakhan has been a loud voice in America. But a radical anti-Semite who uses social media to promote violence against Jews being banned from FB is, IMO, the right thing to do. Being a black political figure isn't an excuse. > Farrakhan has always been anti-Semitic, and nonetheless many black people have been willing to overlook that. Have the Jews he's been targeting wi…
Furthermore, you're being obtuse by saying that it's just a matter of Farrakhan "being black." There is a spectrum of views among black people about America. For better or worse, Farrakhan is a culturally significant part of that spectrum. And he's a fixture of black politics. (Here he is standing next to Obama in 2005 at a Congressional Black Caucus event: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-appearances/the-...). Facebook is now silencing all of his messages. I think there is a real question of whether a company that almost entirely lacks black leadership has the moral authority to do that.
> If Farrakhan were banned for being "anti-white," as you previously tried to provide cover for,
I don't know where you got the idea that I was covering for anything. The original post I was replying to didn't specifically mention antisemitism, it said "racism" is justification for banning someone. That leads to the obvious question of whether Facebook would be justified in banning Farrakhan over his anti-white statements. After all, that would seem to follow if "racism" (generically) is a justification for being banned on Facebook. Would you agree that would be a harder question to answer?
Every time this subject comes up, someone inevitably says something like "Facebook is a private corporation, the first amendment only applies to the government, and if you want to use Facebook you have to play by their rules. No one is owed a platform." Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are basically monopolies. They are the only services in their class to take seriously if you're looking to gain a follow…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some people like to have an unlimited variety of opinions available, and others like to live in an echo chamber. Facebook is very good at creating echo chambers.
This sets up a false dichotomy. There are plenty of opinions of a variety of flavors available after removing these people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ..when their product category is fundamental to modern life. FB/YT/Twitter are not fundamental to modern life. They aren't even fundamental to gaining an audience. Lots of businesses[1] manage to turn handsome profits without advertising on those platforms. [1] And that's what infowars/milo are -- businesses looking for make a profit by producing social commentary and then selling ad space / books / videos / merch…
>FB/YT/Twitter are not fundamental to modern life. Neither are cakes. But people on left celebrating Facebook for doing what they want on their platform - seem quite similar to the people on the left also trying to get a baker forced to make a cake. Can't have it both ways. (edited for clarity)
Your position is a bit like saying "Some people claim they're OK with the US/UK having nuclear weapons, but not North Korea. Can't have it both ways." or "Some people want charities to be tax exempt but not businesses. Can't have it both ways." or "Some people want gun control for civilians but not for the military. Can't have it both ways." Yes, many policies apply differently to different people for different reasons! That's a good thing.
It’s only unfortunate that it took social networks this long to ban their toxic behavior and talk. These people did a lot of damage. A lot. All in the name of free speech. And to those saying, just because Facebook can, doesn’t mean they should. These people had the same freedom. Just because they can, they shouldn’t. But they chose hatred. And here we are. You reap what you sow. Facebook doesn’t owe them anything. E…
> These people did a lot of damage. A lot. Like what? If this damage is so prevalent then it should be easy to cite something specific.
Every time this subject comes up, someone inevitably says something like "Facebook is a private corporation, the first amendment only applies to the government, and if you want to use Facebook you have to play by their rules. No one is owed a platform." Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are basically monopolies. They are the only services in their class to take seriously if you're looking to gain a follow…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are basically monopolies Monopolies of what, exactly? I admit to sometimes looking at entertaining videos on youtube. About an hour or maximum two hours a week worth. I'm not sure what you're suggesting that facebook and twitter are monopolizing. I haven't used the former in years and the latter just about ever -- aside from maybe five tweets over the course of twitter'…
I'm not fully thought out on this, but I think a decent starting analogy would be to a public square or space in a city. These companies hold a monopoly on the online equivalent of that because of the way network effects work.
So this is different from walking past a demonstration or assembly in the city, it is more of an Inception movie-like warping of the entire city to bring everyone closer to these peoples voices.
Every time this subject comes up, someone inevitably says something like "Facebook is a private corporation, the first amendment only applies to the government, and if you want to use Facebook you have to play by their rules. No one is owed a platform." Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are basically monopolies. They are the only services in their class to take seriously if you're looking to gain a follow…
Let's take your argument that these corporations are monopoly as truth for a moment, there are still rules. In the USA, just because we have the first amendment doesn't mean you're not responsible for your words. Fighting words is a thing (it's actually a term), verbal harassment is a thing, etc... Alex Jones from InfoWar sic his followers to harass the Sandy Hook victims' parents. He was free to say what he wants an…