EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts

Post by astrostl » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:58 PM UTC

disown wrote: post #130

colanderman wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They sort of have to be. In the fight to preserve electronic freedoms, freedom from censorship and freedom to operate a service as one pleases come at odds with each other in cases like this. If instead, the government had confiscated Parler's domains, or enjoined Apple, Google, and Amazon from booting them, I think EFF's response would (rightly/expectedly IMO) be very different. As an EFF member I think they made th…

> As an EFF member I think they made the right call here. They didn't. They chickened out. The ACLU was more vocal in its opposition to censorship. That should show how cowardly the EFF is being right now. You falsely made it seem like EFF only deals with or is concerned with government "suppression". That isn't true. Most of EFF dealings is with corporate "suppression". Under normal circumstances, EFF would have bee…

Post by julianmarq » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 6:20 PM UTC

RobLach wrote: post #134

deet wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps I'm using the word "censor" in a way that points to the government being the censor. But I mean it to be more encompassing of any entity that has the right to remove content from communications channels. Currently the platforms are private (as a peer comment points out). So right now there isn't technically a "freedom of speech" issue as it's a private matter and private entities in the USA don't need to resp…

I think most people have a fundamental misunderstanding of what social media platforms are and how they operate, all of which is laid out within the contractual obligations of the mutually agreed upon terms of service. If you post something to say, Twitter, that is now their content that you have given to them for their benefit with the sole purpose of extracting value from the attention the content you handed over t…

Post by trendoid » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 6:39 PM UTC

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #120

illustriousbear wrote: post #119

The EFF giving a nothing statement that sides with corporate monopoly censorship. This is how you become irrelevant as an activist organisation, what sane person would donate to them now?

That’s the most interesting question to me. Why? Why are all these organizations willing to burn bridges? Rational people can see this surreal juvenile drama..this theatre..for what it is..and they are also watching and noticing the cognitive dissonance that has gripped our country. After Jan 20, the real damage would be the aftermath of tech industry’s blitzkrieg. There is a silent majority that is watching and wond…

Post by jelliclesfarm » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 6:44 PM UTC

Brian_K_White wrote: post #144

RobLach wrote: post #19

Earlier 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…

Conservatives are getting the teeniest taste of being the wrong color in the only grocery store in town that are mysteriously always out of everything, or trying to buy a wedding cake while gay. Except they're not. I would love the perfection of that, but all they're getting is the same treatment on-line as if they did the same screaming at the other customers and urinating in the isles in a grocery store. They are s…

Post by jelliclesfarm » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 6:54 PM UTC

trendoid wrote: post #145

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the most interesting question to me. Why? Why are all these organizations willing to burn bridges? Rational people can see this surreal juvenile drama..this theatre..for what it is..and they are also watching and noticing the cognitive dissonance that has gripped our country. After Jan 20, the real damage would be the aftermath of tech industry’s blitzkrieg. There is a silent majority that is watching and wond…

>There is a silent majority that is watching and wondering. And shaking our heads. I am not sure that you are in silent majority. Most people agree that Twitter should have banned Trump long time ago and are relieved that they finally did that. Since the majority do believe Trump incites violence, Twitter and Facebook etc. felt okay going ahead with banning him. I still haven't heard a rational argument against banni…