191–200 of 1001 posts
"The company said users will be able to report such behaviors but it may also investigate cases proactively, for instance if there is a verified news report that a user has been arrested." So we've arrived at "innocent until accused" instead of "innocent until proven guilty"? And if proven guilty, they will both be punished under the law, and again by companies like Twitch? If proven innocent will they be restored? W…
So you want the government to force private companies to continue doing business with someone they no longer wish to provide services to? We aren't talking protected class here, we're talking private companies picking and choosing who to do business with via non-discriminatory means. That's called a free market. Will they be restored if they're proven innocent? Maybe. Maybe not. Again, that's called a free market.
I don't even care so much about social media, but banks and services that provide basic infrastructure to keep your own web services afloat shouldn't be allowed to discriminate people based on their politics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you want the government to force private companies to continue doing business with someone they no longer wish to provide services to? We aren't talking protected class here, we're talking private companies picking and choosing who to do business with via non-discriminatory means. That's called a free market. Will they be restored if they're proven innocent? Maybe. Maybe not. Again, that's called a free market.
At a certain point, these platforms have such enormous, unprecedented influence and control over public discourse, that they aught to be thought of differently than, say a restaurant refusing service to a guy without a shirt or shoes on. We're clearly in uncharted territory, when it comes to the control and release of information. Just using Twitter and Facebook for example - they've silenced the second-most voted fo…
If Trump really wants to get his thoughts out to the world, he can host his own website and publish them there. He can write letters to the editors of news sites and see if they’ll publish them. He can do TV interviews - any network would kill for those ratings right now.
Or he can stand outside and yell.
No one is entitled to a privately owned platform publishing their demonstrably violent rhetoric, even if they’re famous. Media platforms have always been allowed to be gatekeepers of whatever content they choose; the internet age didn’t change that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The claims of "cancel culture" may well be from people who should be "shunned from society" (as some would say), but it's very true that some people (definitely not all) "practicing" cancel culture can have a "guilty until proven innocent" mindset. Being correct often does not mean you're always correct; The left is not immune from hiveminding. I say this as a left leaning person.
Because this is always brought up, I will remark that I believe what the majority of commenters likely mean by free speech is the principle itself, and not the restrictions imposed on the government by the First Amendment. First and foremost, free speech is a moral principle. Secondly, while private companies can do what they want, that does not mean they should . Private companies like Apple can avoid taxes, yet man…
> First and foremost, free speech is a moral principle. Entirely. But... man I’m not so sure as many people believe this as they should. Can we not ignore that as soon as these tech companies get monopoly status, they close their fists in more every day? Something has to give. We would (should) not accept that someone with “wrong” views be denied a bank account or to shop at a grocery store. Why does government need…
Why? I am fine with banks and grocery stores having freedom of association, just as any other business or person should.
Being a KKK member is not a protected class, and discriminating against KKK members in hiring and in the provision of goods or services is entirely in-bounds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you want the government to force private companies to continue doing business with someone they no longer wish to provide services to? We aren't talking protected class here, we're talking private companies picking and choosing who to do business with via non-discriminatory means. That's called a free market. Will they be restored if they're proven innocent? Maybe. Maybe not. Again, that's called a free market.
At a certain point, these platforms have such enormous, unprecedented influence and control over public discourse, that they aught to be thought of differently than, say a restaurant refusing service to a guy without a shirt or shoes on. We're clearly in uncharted territory, when it comes to the control and release of information. Just using Twitter and Facebook for example - they've silenced the second-most voted fo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your 2nd source links to Hasan saying "America deserved 9/11". Since not everyone will click on your sources, I just want to point out what you consider "political speech" for others to see.
> Your 2nd source links to Hasan saying "America deserved 9/11". Maybe it did.
Goes to show that no one really wants "free speech".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What rule is she breaking?
I don't believe she is breaking any rules. Having seen some of her streams, her behavior belongs more on a porn cam site than Twitch. She constantly is like "Stop objectifying me, I am just playing video games" but she wears extremely sexualized clothing, bends over into the camera and from seeing her streams multiple times, seems to only play dance games (if you see where this is going.) She isn't breaking any rules…
There isn't anything wrong with that content. More innocent content is getting sexualized as we speak. She is playing into one aspect. Denying young people sexualized content means they will create sexualized content out of things not designed to be sexual in nature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At a certain point, these platforms have such enormous, unprecedented influence and control over public discourse, that they aught to be thought of differently than, say a restaurant refusing service to a guy without a shirt or shoes on. We're clearly in uncharted territory, when it comes to the control and release of information. Just using Twitter and Facebook for example - they've silenced the second-most voted fo…
They didn't "silence" him because his brand of politics. Their stated reason for banning him from their platform was literally " due to the risk of further incitement of violence." Their TOS have specific "Glorification of Violence policy", which aims to prevent the glorification of violence that could inspire others to replicate violent acts and determined that they were highly likely to encourage and inspire people…
I don't have a horse in that race, but it is disgusting how people defend this blatant and obvious bias as perfectly normal thing.