Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

Post by wmeredith » Thu, May 28, 2020, 1:06 AM UTC

clairity wrote: post #768

Traster wrote: post #36

I think this is going to be a discussion thread that is almost inevitably going to be a shitshow, but anyway: There are people who advocate the idea that private companies should be compelled to distribute hate speech, dangerously factually incorrect information and harassment under the concept that free speech is should be applied universally rather than just to government. I don't agree, I think it's a vast over-re…

it's clearly impossible for trump to shut down twitter. he doesn't know how his own government works and doesn't care to know, because his goal is entirely self-promotion and personal profit. he's not a hard person to figure out. it's more concerning that people are taking it seriously enough to create so much chatter. it's not even a free speech issue, insofar as twitter is not a government entity. there's literally…

Post by RonaldRaygun » Thu, May 28, 2020, 1:07 AM UTC

dntbnmpls wrote: post #846

Traster wrote: post #36

I think this is going to be a discussion thread that is almost inevitably going to be a shitshow, but anyway: There are people who advocate the idea that private companies should be compelled to distribute hate speech, dangerously factually incorrect information and harassment under the concept that free speech is should be applied universally rather than just to government. I don't agree, I think it's a vast over-re…

> There are people who advocate the idea that private companies should be compelled to distribute hate speech, dangerously factually incorrect information and harassment under the concept that free speech is should be applied universally rather than just to government. Firstly, stop qualifying it with "hate", "factually incorrect", etc. It's a cheap tactic by authoritarian types to justify censorship. The religious z…

Post by buzzkillington » Thu, May 28, 2020, 1:09 AM UTC

tootie wrote: post #714

qubex wrote: post #52

Wasn’t it Voltaire who said “ I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it ”? Nonetheless, this is pretty much par for the course for what the world has come to expect. Edit: It turns out that though phrase is often attributed to Voltaire, it was actually Evelyn Beatrice Hall, as noted by the poster below, to whom I am grateful for the correction.

When Voltaire was alive the French government was a monarchy that employed official censors that had the authority to prevent criticism of the church or state from being published by anyone. That kind of censorship is explicitly illegal under the first amendment. There is really no precedent for the mass publication of free-flowing content from anyone in the world prior the 1980s that would be relevant.

Post by buzzkillington » Thu, May 28, 2020, 1:10 AM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #70

qubex wrote: post #52

Wasn’t it Voltaire who said “ I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it ”? Nonetheless, this is pretty much par for the course for what the world has come to expect. Edit: It turns out that though phrase is often attributed to Voltaire, it was actually Evelyn Beatrice Hall, as noted by the poster below, to whom I am grateful for the correction.

Would he defend your right to say it in his living room , though? (Let's also not lose sight of the fact that Trump hasn't even had his tweets deleted or censored in any fashion. Just a note added underneath.)

Post by ClumsyPilot » Thu, May 28, 2020, 1:20 AM UTC

throwaway4715 wrote: post #734

Traster wrote: post #36

I think this is going to be a discussion thread that is almost inevitably going to be a shitshow, but anyway: There are people who advocate the idea that private companies should be compelled to distribute hate speech, dangerously factually incorrect information and harassment under the concept that free speech is should be applied universally rather than just to government. I don't agree, I think it's a vast over-re…

All these people who bought iphones for the curated app store talking about how Twitter shouldn't be allowed to curate their product. Perhaps Twitter is big _because_ it curates its product. That's what people want. The threat to force private entities to toe the line is the only speech issue here. If you think people want unedited speech then I believe Gab could use some of your money.