3 ms·

So basically if you run a forum and someone posts a Nazi manifesto, and you choose to remove it because your forum is about Chia pets, the government can come a

So basically if you run a forum and someone posts a Nazi manifesto, and you choose to remove it because your forum is about Chia pets, the government can come after you. Do you think this makes sense? I would argue that removing something from my own site is as much me exercising free speech as adding something.

CBLT 7y ago
That is a strawman argument. Re-read the article, this does NOT say everything is protected. Rather, it is clarifying what is protected and what is not.
- theturtletalks 7y ago
  Regardless, why can’t a platform censor anything they want? It’s their platform and they can do what they want. If censoring eventually pushes people away from your platform, then the market corrected itself.
  - CBLT 7y ago
    There's nothing factually wrong with your opinion. I understand it and respect it. For me, I believe that platforms as massive and widespread as Facebook or Twitter distort the free-market ruleset, and that some amount of regulation is in fact healthy for the industry they participate in and society as a whole. Once we get to take a look at the actual text, we'll be able to have rational, reasoned discussions about whether this particular regulation is healthy, or unhealthy.
    - theturtletalks 7y ago
      I respect and understand your opinion as well, but making companies become regulated as far as what content they can or must show is opening Pandora’s box. Especially with a government that gets a lot of bad press, they could use that regulation to drown out any voice. If the government is really concerned about people’s voices and free speech being impeded, they should make their own forum or social feed where nothing is censored. We’ll see how that turns out.
  - duemti 7y ago
    They can but not when they publicly declare that they are fair to all users when in fact they make their policies after a political agenda. Much has been uncovered by whistleblowers from big tech companies.
- IgorPartola 7y ago
  Why should speech be protected from those speaking it? This is a great way to literally put words into someone else’s mouth.
MrSlovenia 7y ago
Good point. There should definetly be a requirement for a large mass of users. Because otherwise FB, Tweeter and Google can push their views. So a "must be a large social network or forum" must be a requirement in this law. If Tweeter, Google or FB tried to push their agenda they could do it easily. Obviously fringe/small forums must be exempt.
- IgorPartola 7y ago
  Except we know exactly why Trump is looking to do this: truth hurts and people saying the truth about him is painful for him. He wants the Fox and Breitbart perspective to be given equal weight as if it is worthy of the attention. It isn’t. Google for example has shown time and time again that they do not prioritize a specific political point of view.
  - z9e 7y ago
    You don't think this has anything to do with the plethora of suggestions that Twitter and YouTube apparently suppress conservative views?
    - IgorPartola 7y ago
      I think it has to do with it 100%. I don’t believe it’s true, but I do believe it has to do with those rumors.
    - harimau777 7y ago
      My understanding is that the opposite is often true. That is: social media companies do not implement algorithms designed to take down racist content because it would take down content posted by many conservative politicians.
  - espeed 7y ago
    Things change. Fox is not the same.
- root_axis 7y ago

CBLT 7y ago

That is a strawman argument. Re-read the article, this does NOT say everything is protected. Rather, it is clarifying what is protected and what is not.

theturtletalks 7y ago
Regardless, why can’t a platform censor anything they want? It’s their platform and they can do what they want. If censoring eventually pushes people away from your platform, then the market corrected itself.
- CBLT 7y ago
  There's nothing factually wrong with your opinion. I understand it and respect it. For me, I believe that platforms as massive and widespread as Facebook or Twitter distort the free-market ruleset, and that some amount of regulation is in fact healthy for the industry they participate in and society as a whole. Once we get to take a look at the actual text, we'll be able to have rational, reasoned discussions about whether this particular regulation is healthy, or unhealthy.
  - theturtletalks 7y ago
    I respect and understand your opinion as well, but making companies become regulated as far as what content they can or must show is opening Pandora’s box. Especially with a government that gets a lot of bad press, they could use that regulation to drown out any voice. If the government is really concerned about people’s voices and free speech being impeded, they should make their own forum or social feed where nothing is censored. We’ll see how that turns out.
- duemti 7y ago
  They can but not when they publicly declare that they are fair to all users when in fact they make their policies after a political agenda. Much has been uncovered by whistleblowers from big tech companies.
IgorPartola 7y ago
Why should speech be protected from those speaking it? This is a great way to literally put words into someone else’s mouth.

MrSlovenia 7y ago

Good point. There should definetly be a requirement for a large mass of users. Because otherwise FB, Tweeter and Google can push their views. So a "must be a large social network or forum" must be a requirement in this law. If Tweeter, Google or FB tried to push their agenda they could do it easily. Obviously fringe/small forums must be exempt.

IgorPartola 7y ago
Except we know exactly why Trump is looking to do this: truth hurts and people saying the truth about him is painful for him. He wants the Fox and Breitbart perspective to be given equal weight as if it is worthy of the attention. It isn’t. Google for example has shown time and time again that they do not prioritize a specific political point of view.
- z9e 7y ago
  You don't think this has anything to do with the plethora of suggestions that Twitter and YouTube apparently suppress conservative views?
  - IgorPartola 7y ago
    I think it has to do with it 100%. I don’t believe it’s true, but I do believe it has to do with those rumors.
  - harimau777 7y ago
    My understanding is that the opposite is often true. That is: social media companies do not implement algorithms designed to take down racist content because it would take down content posted by many conservative politicians.
- espeed 7y ago
  Things change. Fox is not the same.
root_axis 7y ago