4 ms·

> The very fact that Parler was banned by Big Tech and not by US Congress puts a very bad light on America. That you think a private company being shunned by o

> The very fact that Parler was banned by Big Tech and not by US Congress puts a very bad light on America. That you think a private company being shunned by other private companies, is worse for free speech than a private company being banned by the government, shows you don't really understand the american definition of free speech.

shripadk 6y ago
I don't care about American Free Speech. I'm not an American. I'm an Indian. Yes it is worse for America's image that a competitor censors another competitor. It puts a bad light on the US Government itself that it cannot regulate private companies and are at the mercy of private companies that even Government communications can be censored. This is far beyond what free speech is all about. And don't tell me US Government hasn't banned private companies. Huawei ban immediately comes to mind. So many companies have been banned for nefarious activities including but not limited to fraud and scams. It is 100 percent in the purview of US Congress to ban for any violations of law. Free speech has nothing to do with powers the US Government enjoys vis-a-vis legal entities like a company or trust. A company is not an individual. A company is not a Citizen of the United States. A company doesn't enjoy free speech rights. It is a legal entity that was allowed to function because of the US Government. Not because Apple, Facebook, Twitter or Google decided to. Only the US Government can cancel trade licenses, company registration and debar individuals from ever holding directorship. That power is not vested in the hands of few silicon valley companies.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- scrollaway 6y ago
  Trade sanctions are a different thing to sanctions imposed for speech. I'm not american either but if I'm going to comment on the USA, I'm going to respect their own definitions and culture. Meanwhile you're trying to make a point you don't fully grasp yourself. Sorry.
- gnarlysasquatch 6y ago
  > A company doesn't enjoy free speech rights. Actually, it does according to Citizens United v. FEC.
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  I disagree, in fact it enhances my impression of the US government in the way that it exercises restraint on its immense natural power. It's quite easy for governments to flex their power and regulate anything and everything. This is common in third world countries and developing societies: edicts are the answer to everything. It is the language of dictators. The US government can absolutely force Twitter and Facebook to do whatever it wants but it doesn't, instead it guarantees freedoms to enterprises and entrusts slow but deliberative bodies with the task of deciding when exceptions should be made. It creates courts and laws for companies to resolve disputes amongst themselves. These principles are upheld even at the government's own inconvenience. I find that far more admirable than the hasty and impulsive exercises of power that characterize uncivilized authorities that aspire to rule instead of govern.
  - scotty79 6y ago
    Freedom is not something natural. In 100% freedom your stronger neighbour would have freedom to restrict your freedom and you would have freedom to resist, fail, and be sad about it. So your freedom is dependant of how much the strongest entity around is willing to limit freedom of your neighbors of restricting your freedom. US government showing restraint when major players on the market use their position to restrict freedom of smaller entity is reducing freedom not increasing it.
    - themacguffinman 6y ago
      That's why the US government also sets limits on what private companies and their customers can do to restrict each other's freedoms. Under these democratically deliberated laws, Parler has as much freedom to use Twitter & Facebook as you have freedom to do use my lawn. The principle still holds even if every neighbor in your neighborhood hates you and denies you access to their lawn; The scope & scale of their lawn restriction is irrelevant because American society finds their freedom over their property to be more important than your freedom to use it. There are things that the US government deems too important to restrict, but Facebook & Twitter is well outside that category. That's where American society has drawn the line, and it's a line that I agree with as well.

shripadk 6y ago

I don't care about American Free Speech. I'm not an American. I'm an Indian. Yes it is worse for America's image that a competitor censors another competitor. It puts a bad light on the US Government itself that it cannot regulate private companies and are at the mercy of private companies that even Government communications can be censored. This is far beyond what free speech is all about. And don't tell me US Government hasn't banned private companies. Huawei ban immediately comes to mind. So many companies have been banned for nefarious activities including but not limited to fraud and scams. It is 100 percent in the purview of US Congress to ban for any violations of law. Free speech has nothing to do with powers the US Government enjoys vis-a-vis legal entities like a company or trust. A company is not an individual. A company is not a Citizen of the United States. A company doesn't enjoy free speech rights. It is a legal entity that was allowed to function because of the US Government. Not because Apple, Facebook, Twitter or Google decided to. Only the US Government can cancel trade licenses, company registration and debar individuals from ever holding directorship. That power is not vested in the hands of few silicon valley companies.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
scrollaway 6y ago
Trade sanctions are a different thing to sanctions imposed for speech. I'm not american either but if I'm going to comment on the USA, I'm going to respect their own definitions and culture. Meanwhile you're trying to make a point you don't fully grasp yourself. Sorry.
gnarlysasquatch 6y ago
> A company doesn't enjoy free speech rights. Actually, it does according to Citizens United v. FEC.
themacguffinman 6y ago
I disagree, in fact it enhances my impression of the US government in the way that it exercises restraint on its immense natural power. It's quite easy for governments to flex their power and regulate anything and everything. This is common in third world countries and developing societies: edicts are the answer to everything. It is the language of dictators. The US government can absolutely force Twitter and Facebook to do whatever it wants but it doesn't, instead it guarantees freedoms to enterprises and entrusts slow but deliberative bodies with the task of deciding when exceptions should be made. It creates courts and laws for companies to resolve disputes amongst themselves. These principles are upheld even at the government's own inconvenience. I find that far more admirable than the hasty and impulsive exercises of power that characterize uncivilized authorities that aspire to rule instead of govern.
- scotty79 6y ago
  Freedom is not something natural. In 100% freedom your stronger neighbour would have freedom to restrict your freedom and you would have freedom to resist, fail, and be sad about it. So your freedom is dependant of how much the strongest entity around is willing to limit freedom of your neighbors of restricting your freedom. US government showing restraint when major players on the market use their position to restrict freedom of smaller entity is reducing freedom not increasing it.
  - themacguffinman 6y ago
    That's why the US government also sets limits on what private companies and their customers can do to restrict each other's freedoms. Under these democratically deliberated laws, Parler has as much freedom to use Twitter & Facebook as you have freedom to do use my lawn. The principle still holds even if every neighbor in your neighborhood hates you and denies you access to their lawn; The scope & scale of their lawn restriction is irrelevant because American society finds their freedom over their property to be more important than your freedom to use it. There are things that the US government deems too important to restrict, but Facebook & Twitter is well outside that category. That's where American society has drawn the line, and it's a line that I agree with as well.