3 ms·

>It's their platform they can censor who they want. No, it's actually unconstitutional when you have Senators like Hirono requesting and goading them into remo

>It's their platform they can censor who they want. No, it's actually unconstitutional when you have Senators like Hirono requesting and goading them into removing people they don't like. I find it hilarious that years of being against "big business" democrats are now the one's championing monopolies and in bed with everyone in Silicon Valley. >The government certainly should not be able to come in and fine you for deleting comments on your blog. But it's ok to threaten action if Trump isn't removed from platforms? Double standards are great!

wonderwonder 5y ago
"it's actually unconstitutional when you have Senators like Hirono requesting and goading them into removing people they don't like". Maybe its unconstitutional (although if they did not use government power to force it then likely not) for the senator to encourage it, but it is most certainly not for the platform owner to do so. "But it's ok to threaten action if Trump isn't removed from platforms?" Can you show me where the government threatened action if Trump was not removed from these platforms? There is no double standards. Governments wield the power of state sanctioned violence and their ability to use that force to demand actions from private entities should be limited where ever possible. You are conflating private and government entities and they are really not comparable under any credible view especially that of the constitution. Anyone that believes in the first amendment should be very against governments being able to determine content on private platforms. "I find it hilarious that years of being against "big business" democrats are now the one's championing monopolies and in bed with everyone in Silicon Valley" This is not a political party issue, its a constitutional one.
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  Oh give me a break this is the lamest excuse for trashing the 1st amendment I've ever heard. If you have government officials bringing executives and having hearings asking Zuckerberg when they're going to do something about removing speech they find offensive your first amendment is basically gone. Do you think they just invite him in to hear what he has to say? It's all an intimidation tactic to elicit coercion from these companies so they can use these platforms to push their agenda and silence anything else while guaranteeing funding. >Anyone that believes in the first amendment should be very against governments being able to determine content on private platforms. Wow? gaslight much? This would have done the opposite by disallowing the platforms to allow you only to see specific things. I don't know what to tell you if you're so confused that you think blocking specific speech is more supportive of the 1st amendment. >This is not a political party issue, its a constitutional one. I don't even know what you mean by that. There's one party pushing de-platforming and removal right now.
werm82 5y ago
>No, it's actually unconstitutional when you have Senators like Hirono requesting and goading them into removing people they don't like. No, it's not unconstitutional. Government officials are allowed to voice their opinion.
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  Having someone in a hearing and "voicing" your opinion all over the internet has real repercussions when it comes from a public institution that can obliterate your business with a few laws if you don't do what they like. It is not simply voicing their opinion, it's an obvious tactic to get away with shutting down dissenting opinions under the guise of questioning. Why pass laws limiting speech when you can have your lackey friends in SV do it? It's a coercion tactic similar to what police do since they're in a position of power. Would you be ok if they brought in the local restaurant owner and asked them why they served transgender people and when they were going to stop them from spreading trans culture inside their business?
timdev2 5y ago
> No, it's actually unconstitutional when you have Senators like Hirono requesting and goading them into removing people they don't like. I agree that elected officials shouldn't try to make an end-run around the 1st Amendment by threatening to regulate companies if they don't censor on behalf of those officials. When they do, shouldn't we should place the blame at the feet of those elected officials, not the companies they're attempting to extort?
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  Isn't that sort of hard to separate though? Are they doing this on their own, or to stay in the good graces of the current administration? Would they even admit it if they're being coerced? The would have to go to the government to ask for help and that's certainly not going to work very well if those are the people instigating the problem in the first place.
  - timdev2 5y ago
    Sure. That's problematic. But that's no excuse to not place blame where it should rightfully be laid, and instead place it elsewhere just because doing so is easier. There are rights at stake here.

wonderwonder 5y ago

"it's actually unconstitutional when you have Senators like Hirono requesting and goading them into removing people they don't like". Maybe its unconstitutional (although if they did not use government power to force it then likely not) for the senator to encourage it, but it is most certainly not for the platform owner to do so. "But it's ok to threaten action if Trump isn't removed from platforms?" Can you show me where the government threatened action if Trump was not removed from these platforms? There is no double standards. Governments wield the power of state sanctioned violence and their ability to use that force to demand actions from private entities should be limited where ever possible. You are conflating private and government entities and they are really not comparable under any credible view especially that of the constitution. Anyone that believes in the first amendment should be very against governments being able to determine content on private platforms. "I find it hilarious that years of being against "big business" democrats are now the one's championing monopolies and in bed with everyone in Silicon Valley" This is not a political party issue, its a constitutional one.

CountDrewku 5y ago
Oh give me a break this is the lamest excuse for trashing the 1st amendment I've ever heard. If you have government officials bringing executives and having hearings asking Zuckerberg when they're going to do something about removing speech they find offensive your first amendment is basically gone. Do you think they just invite him in to hear what he has to say? It's all an intimidation tactic to elicit coercion from these companies so they can use these platforms to push their agenda and silence anything else while guaranteeing funding. >Anyone that believes in the first amendment should be very against governments being able to determine content on private platforms. Wow? gaslight much? This would have done the opposite by disallowing the platforms to allow you only to see specific things. I don't know what to tell you if you're so confused that you think blocking specific speech is more supportive of the 1st amendment. >This is not a political party issue, its a constitutional one. I don't even know what you mean by that. There's one party pushing de-platforming and removal right now.

werm82 5y ago

>No, it's actually unconstitutional when you have Senators like Hirono requesting and goading them into removing people they don't like. No, it's not unconstitutional. Government officials are allowed to voice their opinion.

CountDrewku 5y ago
Having someone in a hearing and "voicing" your opinion all over the internet has real repercussions when it comes from a public institution that can obliterate your business with a few laws if you don't do what they like. It is not simply voicing their opinion, it's an obvious tactic to get away with shutting down dissenting opinions under the guise of questioning. Why pass laws limiting speech when you can have your lackey friends in SV do it? It's a coercion tactic similar to what police do since they're in a position of power. Would you be ok if they brought in the local restaurant owner and asked them why they served transgender people and when they were going to stop them from spreading trans culture inside their business?

timdev2 5y ago

> No, it's actually unconstitutional when you have Senators like Hirono requesting and goading them into removing people they don't like. I agree that elected officials shouldn't try to make an end-run around the 1st Amendment by threatening to regulate companies if they don't censor on behalf of those officials. When they do, shouldn't we should place the blame at the feet of those elected officials, not the companies they're attempting to extort?

CountDrewku 5y ago
Isn't that sort of hard to separate though? Are they doing this on their own, or to stay in the good graces of the current administration? Would they even admit it if they're being coerced? The would have to go to the government to ask for help and that's certainly not going to work very well if those are the people instigating the problem in the first place.
- timdev2 5y ago
  Sure. That's problematic. But that's no excuse to not place blame where it should rightfully be laid, and instead place it elsewhere just because doing so is easier. There are rights at stake here.