Your police shoot unarmed black people and your president defends them. Free world my ass.
Why we are suing the Administration
241–250 of 486 posts
Re: Why we are suing the Administration
#242Regardless of what you think about TikTok, the banning of an app in the interest of "national security" is largely unprecedented. The jump from banning Huawei from building critical public infrastructure to banning an app that hasn't even conclusively been proven to behave in any uniquely dangerous ways seems to be an intense, unjustified escalation of this conflict. [1] You may disagree with me on the strict securit…
Are you saying that CPC gets to ban Google, Facebook, Twitter & a ton of other non-Chinese online companies but the US government does not get to ban Chinese online companies, even in the name of fairness both in terms of trade and information flow? Chinese companies have to obey the CPC's orders that infringe users' privacy. Whether or not it is right for a country's government to spy on its citizens, the current ar…
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to care about what the CCP does over there. I don't live over there, I don't work over there, I don't consume media produced over there. Trying to "get back" at China for frivolous reasons simply won't cut it.
Re: Why we are suing the Administration
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hate to say it, but the terrific first amendment in the US only applies to the government. Companies and individuals can kick you out for saying things they dont like. There are laws against certain kinds of discrimination by companies, but those are not the first amendment. Just wanted to clarify that so we dont pretend companies are upholding constitutional rights on a regional basis. They are not accountable to it…
I'm sick of this response. These social media companies individually can reach billions of people with the ability (proven) to sway their thoughts and emotions (see Facebook, WHO, Reddit). Free speech must apply to public forums like this
I'm sorry you're sick of the First Amendment. Private companies have it just like you do.
The remedy is to break up the big forums, not to take away the rights of their owners.
Re: Why we are suing the Administration
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
My opinion is that the only realistic solution is a broad offering of many many social media apps, so that people can choose between them.
Wasn't this already "attempted" through the natural mechanics of the free market? Social media seems to tend toward monopoly (or at least oligopoly) due to the extreme realization of the network effect in this industry. Here is a sampling attempts (though I'm sure the graveyard has hundreds if not thousands of members): Friendster, DailyBooth, FriendFeed, Google Buzz, Meerkat, Yik Yak, Vine, Google Plus, MySpace, Pat…
Sort of. Networks tend to lead towards natural monopolies. If you were my age, you had AOL IM friends, ICQ friends, Yahoo friends, etc.
The US had a phone company at the national level until regulatory bodies made a market.
Re: Why we are suing the Administration
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like "fight fire with fire". Who defines which part of the world is "free"?
freedom can only start with free speech and can only start dying with censorship, you tell me now .. puns are fun but lead nowhere if you want to talk seriously
So which flavor of free speech[0] is good enough for you? Which countries pass the threshold? I know that the free speech we have in Germany is probably not good enough for most US people that are keen on free speech, but it's good enough for me (mostly).
When someone calls on the "free world", it has mostly become a US patriotism dog whistle to me without any deeper meaning.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country
Re: Why we are suing the Administration
#246I think that free world should ban every company that comply with china censorship, here we are not talking about something like explicit content, or violence censorship which belong to cultural differences, here we are talking about not being put in jail because you say publicly that tibet should be free. or because you try to report abuse and suppression of the ruling class this type of free speech should be guaran…
Hate to say it, but the terrific first amendment in the US only applies to the government. Companies and individuals can kick you out for saying things they dont like. There are laws against certain kinds of discrimination by companies, but those are not the first amendment. Just wanted to clarify that so we dont pretend companies are upholding constitutional rights on a regional basis. They are not accountable to it…
Doesn't the "terrific" 1st amendment (not sure in which sense you're using the word) cut against the type of regulations that the gp advocates for?
To the extent that banning pro-Tibet messages is expressive editorial conduct, the government's banning of such companies for engaging in such conduct would violate the 1st amendment protections against viewpoint discrimination.
Put another way, by preventing the government from regulating private companies in such a fashion, the 1st amendment can actually weaken free speech (though I would argue that the actual problem is fact that the big tech companies are so dominant that few viable alternative venues, with different editorial practices, exist).
The result is that when the government tries to reform the editorial practices of the tech companies, it has to do so through awkward means (like saying that they are not enforcing their own rules or threatening to strip them of their protection against libel and other causes of action). Anyway I'm pretty sure that if they condition civil liability protection on their following editorial "best practices", like what current bipartisan bills to reform section 230 do, the courts will not play along.
Re: Why we are suing the Administration
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
As 1984 put it ‘oceania has always been at war with eurasia’ edit: eastasia . Country’s have complex relationships. At the height of the Cold War the US and USSR still had some trade. It’s really propaganda that boils things down to allies and enemies.
Allegiances shift over time. I like to remind people of The Living Daylights (1987), in which James Bond helps a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists blow up a plane. (it's a Soviet plane running drugs, so it's OK, and the Mujahedein involved are run by a chap who went to Oxford, and are fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, so that's OK too)
Rambo 3 also comes to mind where he aids the Taliban. The end scene even has a commemoration to the brave freedom fighting Taliban.
Re: Why we are suing the Administration
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hate to say it, but the terrific first amendment in the US only applies to the government. Companies and individuals can kick you out for saying things they dont like. There are laws against certain kinds of discrimination by companies, but those are not the first amendment. Just wanted to clarify that so we dont pretend companies are upholding constitutional rights on a regional basis. They are not accountable to it…
I'm sick of this response. These social media companies individually can reach billions of people with the ability (proven) to sway their thoughts and emotions (see Facebook, WHO, Reddit). Free speech must apply to public forums like this
Why? Yes, these websites reach a lot of people, but why is that a reason that the site owners should not be able to control the type of content appears on their site?
Re: Why we are suing the Administration
#249I think that free world should ban every company that comply with china censorship, here we are not talking about something like explicit content, or violence censorship which belong to cultural differences, here we are talking about not being put in jail because you say publicly that tibet should be free. or because you try to report abuse and suppression of the ruling class this type of free speech should be guaran…
>I think that free world should ban every company that comply with china censorship,
If you feel that strongly about it, why not an invasion theater where America makes a big show of mobilizing and preparing to send its $3 trillion military to invade and overthrow China unless China liberates their NAZI-style concentration camps (1 million uighers) and end their censorship. China's censorship just cost the world about $10 trillion in lockdowns and lost economic activity, specifically when China applied pressure on the WHO to hide news about what was going on in China as China was battling what at that time was an epidemic rather than pandemic.
I only ask because your position is a very strong one...
>I think that free world should ban every company that comply with china censorship,
Re: Why we are suing the Administration
#250I think that free world should ban every company that comply with china censorship, here we are not talking about something like explicit content, or violence censorship which belong to cultural differences, here we are talking about not being put in jail because you say publicly that tibet should be free. or because you try to report abuse and suppression of the ruling class this type of free speech should be guaran…
It's the paradox of tolerance. How do you tolerate a platform that doesn't conform to your idea of tolerance? How do you distinguish that censorship from, say, Marvel rewriting Doctor Strange to remove Tibet?
I agree with the idea behind the paradox of tolerance, I just find the idea of this being only applied to a chinese-owned company because of things china does somewhat hilarious. America does much worse so its clearly not about morals or anything like that. I really wish that the discussion would more outwardly become "we're banning tiktok because China is our competitor in international geopolitics" so we can all move on with our lives and stop having these dumb discussions.