Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free speech is not just the freedom to say what you want to say. It is also the freedom not to be compelled to say what you don't want to say. That includes the right not to be compelled to let others use you to broadcast messages you disagree with. Furthermore, freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequences.
> Free speech is not just the freedom to say what you want to say. It is also the freedom not to be compelled to say what you don't want to say. This is a powerful idea. Have you found legal protections in the United States for this principle? I can think of some limited examples (Miranda rights, for example), but I do not, off the top of my head, see the the U.S. Constitution as generally protecting this right broad…
EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts
81–90 of 164 posts
Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
That's not really up for you specifically to decide. He said it though.
Not me specifically, but everyone generally.
Nevertheless, your naivete is like a newborn deer gamboling through a forest.
Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
Where did I say I was certain?
Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has to be. EFF is pro free-speech and pro privacy (fights censorship tools and government back doors to encryption, etc). Huge powerful corporations coordinating to censor someone is antithetical to their mission. However, they can’t take the pro free speech stance here because most of their donors are generally leftists who absolutely despise Trump. So the only move is to put the mission on the back burner and ko…
even ACLU managed to squeak a protest via their counsel. weak squeak..but a statement nevertheless. https://www.newsweek.com/aclu-counsel-warns-unchecked-power-... : [..]A legislative counsel member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) warned Friday that the suspension of President Donald Trump's social media accounts wielded "unchecked power," by Twitter and Facebook. Kate Ruane, a senior legislative counsel…
Wow, it's nice to see this type of response from ACLU.
Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts
#85I think EFF should look for improvements to their communication on this topic. They need to be providing much more practical leadership guidance. The ideological goals don't need compromise -- but the practical reality is that our society _needs_ an organization like EFF to be at the forefront on these topics -- advocating for better abstractions to help shape how we as a society should think and deal with these comp…
> EFF shouldn't be effectively silencing itself by becoming a voice that just repeats platitudes.
I don't follow how this is tantamount to silencing itself. Would you explain?
Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts
#86Is "to curate their site" the same as "to curate their content"?
I would think so, yes - the contents of their site.
Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts
#87Well, 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…
> who said LEAVE IN PEACE is what we should be doing.
“we”?
He also called the insurrectionists “patriots”, and said that he “loved them”, while they were holding the capital building, looting, causing damage, and parading confederate flags through the halls. Just FYI. As like another thing to consider.
It’s sort of surprising how you didn’t mention that yourself. It was literally in the same tweet. I guess it must have slipped your mind.
Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts
#88I 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…
Free speech is not just the freedom to say what you want to say. It is also the freedom not to be compelled to say what you don't want to say. That includes the right not to be compelled to let others use you to broadcast messages you disagree with. Furthermore, freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequences.
The huh? Are you saying if Twitter was compelling to let Trump on their platform and send messages that’s the same as compelling speech?
But it’s not Twitters speech. It’s Trumps.
Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts
#89Well, 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?
I'm not sure of this, but I have a hypothesis that you're misunderstanding the Trump phenomenon.
Here's the idea to consider: Trump was sincere! Trump is basically always sincere. Even when he contradicts himself in a matter of minutes. He is a master bullshitter who grew up going to Normal Vincent Peale's church. His entire life is built on the idea that it's all a stage, all a game. The RESULT of that is: he's extremely practiced at coming up with stories and convincing himself. In other words, self-deception. He knows he's bullshitting, but he doesn't think a reality beyond bullshitting exists. He believes what he says all the time. That's why he doesn't give the normal tells that indicate shifty lying and deception. Unlike the other politicians who are obviously being calculating and withholding their real thoughts, Trump is transparent. He's saying exactly what he actually thinks, and even when it is complete oxymoronic, he experiences no cognitive dissonance. He's not really lying in the normal sense, he's delusional.
Check out https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/episodes/91612...
Trump is the ultimate self-deceiver. That's why his followers find him so appealing. He's authentic in that you can tell he really does say what he thinks and doesn't hold back. It's just that his mind is so constantly focused on whatever will get people to like him and otherwise what serves his interest, the content of his beliefs is similar to what it would be if he were consciously being deceptive. But if he were concerned about his stories being consistent and believable in content, he'd get all nervous and seem more like a liar. He's able to talk with sincerity because he doesn't care if his stories make sense, even as bullshit he still believes them for himself, at least enough to say the things in earnest.
Of course, I don't really know, but this would explain part of how it's possible for so many people to have still seen him as honest despite the plainly factually wrong things that come out of him.
Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts
#90Read this article before you downvote or flag: