[deleted]
EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts
61–70 of 164 posts
Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts
#62I see. Hold your ground for free speech till... Ok, we were kidding we were just bluffing. Go ahead. We don't care. We support corporate censorship now full throat. It's for the best. We're looking out for your own good. I mean really, so you know it was in the government's purview to hold Snowden, Manning and Assange accountable to what's within their rights too. Nice to see you sway with the wind there EFF. Guess B…
What are you trying to say Biden can do now because of this? It wasn’t clear to me.
But more broadly what is your position here? Are you saying companies and people that run any kind of forum are not allowed to moderate it? They must allow all posts? Or do they have to have approval from the government for their moderation? Or do you want all forums and social media to be nationalized run by the government and we can have a state social media?
Surely I’d think state media and state censorship is worse for everyone than private media and private censorship (which is something we have always had in the US). And surely forcing every website with a commenting system to post everything anyone wants to share is not fair on anyone either. The problem therefore is something other than these bans.
Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts
#63I see. Hold your ground for free speech till... Ok, we were kidding we were just bluffing. Go ahead. We don't care. We support corporate censorship now full throat. It's for the best. We're looking out for your own good. I mean really, so you know it was in the government's purview to hold Snowden, Manning and Assange accountable to what's within their rights too. Nice to see you sway with the wind there EFF. Guess B…
They're saying to apply the same rules to everyone, and that the rules should be based on a human rights framework. Those seem like pretty good ideals to me.
Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts
#64Well, I’ll never be donating again. I’m more concerned about parler being banned or that “hang pence” was trending, but banning the president - who said LEAVE IN PEACE is what we should be doing. I’m against all rioting (all year it feels like) and what happened Jan 6 was horrifying. You know how to simmer tensions? You convince the leaders of said movement to calm followers. banning / arresting / killing all the lea…
> You know how to simmer tensions? You convince the leaders of said movement to calm followers.
Please explain what about Trump's history suggests that he will be convinced?
I understand a respect, even some degree of zeal, for principles such as freedom of speech. But these do not exist in a vacuum. And, practically, the degree of the president's ability to speak to an audience is unparalleled.
In short, there are larger concerns here besides the general principle of free speech in the abstract. We should be discussing the consequences of incitement, falsehood, provocation, threats, disinformation, insults, and so on.
Up until Trump, societal norms, by and large, kept presidential speech within sensible bounds. [1] Trump has ignored those norms.
[1] Of course, there was plenty of deceipt, lying, cover-ups, rhetoric, and so on. But by any measure, Trump has blown the door off civility and credibility.
Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts
#65Well, I’ll never be donating again. I’m more concerned about parler being banned or that “hang pence” was trending, but banning the president - who said LEAVE IN PEACE is what we should be doing. I’m against all rioting (all year it feels like) and what happened Jan 6 was horrifying. You know how to simmer tensions? You convince the leaders of said movement to calm followers. banning / arresting / killing all the lea…
> but banning the president - who said LEAVE IN PEACE is what we should be doing. This is not all he said, nor does this capture the key context. The argument is simple: the risk of allowing Trump to continue to have access to Facebook and Twitter outweighs the benefit. I would like to point out that the president has an unmatched ability to put out information, independent of social media, including: whitehouse.gov,…
I don’t have a ball in this match other than the one that wants to continue to raise my daughter without civil unrest. How are you so certain of the benefit of this action?
Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts
#66Echo of majority view on incident. Clarification of legal basis for censorship on private platforms. Support of section 230. Concern about bias in private censorship. Call for transparency and consistency. It's as neutral as can be.
[dead]
Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts
#67Well, I’ll never be donating again. I’m more concerned about parler being banned or that “hang pence” was trending, but banning the president - who said LEAVE IN PEACE is what we should be doing. I’m against all rioting (all year it feels like) and what happened Jan 6 was horrifying. You know how to simmer tensions? You convince the leaders of said movement to calm followers. banning / arresting / killing all the lea…
> banning the president - who said LEAVE IN PEACE is what we should be doing
He read that, in the usual monotone he reserves for words he doesn't believe for a second. Did you actually believe he was sincere?
Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts
#68I disagree. For example people who know what their officials are saying which is why twitter let trump on while he violated some rules. Making shit they say less visible is not a great idea
Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free speech for a corporation is allowing them to ban whatever they want that's effecting their bottom line. Hosting and publishing certain speech is a liability. Why should the state dictate what a corporation must allow on their own servers facilitated by the services they created? Should the state force YouTube to include videos no advertiser wants to be associated with? EFF's statement is consistent with protecti…
I'm sorry but it's not consistent with protecting digital rights. This is not the same EFF that supported the Freedom of Speech stance by Apple against the FBI when terrorists killed 16 people in San Bernardino. Below a poster liked a response by the ACLU which is a much better response to Freedom of Speech than that by the EFF. The EFF caved. They abandoned their one and only mission to promote freedom of speech.
> This is not the same EFF that supported the Freedom of Speech stance by Apple against the FBI when terrorists killed 16 people in San Bernardino.
In both cases the EFF sided with the company's ability to practice their free speech instead of the government compelling them to speak or not speak. Seems perfectly consistent.
Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts
#70Well, I’ll never be donating again. I’m more concerned about parler being banned or that “hang pence” was trending, but banning the president - who said LEAVE IN PEACE is what we should be doing. I’m against all rioting (all year it feels like) and what happened Jan 6 was horrifying. You know how to simmer tensions? You convince the leaders of said movement to calm followers. banning / arresting / killing all the lea…
>You know how to simmer tensions? You convince the leaders of said movement to calm followers. this. this is why the deplatforming of a single political leader is confusing. if trump can calm down the fringe elements, that's what he needs to do. gagging him from ever reaching that base is counter productive. one day..we will all be looking back at these events and scratch our heads. this course of action makes no sen…
Yes, after four years of the Trump administration, this is what we'll scratch our heads about. This is what will seem strange and surreal and irrational. Absolutely.