3 ms·

To be clear, I don't know about this case in particular, but the current administration has admitted to be in direct contact with social media platforms to tag

by bko 5y ago

To be clear, I don't know about this case in particular, but the current administration has admitted to be in direct contact with social media platforms to tag "problematic" posts. And they may not even need to because the implicit threat is there. I used to be part of the "its a private platform" group, but I asked myself the question, what would actual government censorship look like. And I couldn't think of an answer that would make what we have today not censorship.

crazy_horse 5y ago
[flagged]
- barnesto 5y ago
  Trump was removed from all forms of social media, but tell us how you hate conservatives and their empty rhetoric. Guess that also means that the Trump administration was in close contact with the tech companies to ensure they banned him.
  - crazy_horse 5y ago
    He was removed when he wouldn't just give up power like a normal loser, but he sure as hell prodded them for 4 years and it sure as hell got him elected.
  - pvaldes 5y ago
    He practically removed himself by being unable to behave in a normal way. Can't blame other than himself by what happened. The capitol issue was just the last nail in his social coffin. Is too late to play the damsel in distress and the victim here.
- bko 5y ago
  > The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. [0] On your other point, I don't see how "they've always done that" means its not a first amendment issue. Finally, conspiracy theories are covered under freedom of speech. And freedom of speech is not "empty political rhetoric" [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment
  - crazy_horse 5y ago
    Thanks for the feedback, I knew there was more to it bu it's interesting that's a later interpretation (presumably the didn't imagine the executive would have so much power). The point I was making with the theorist stuff is this song falls right into prime Q, the government is killing us territory. If YouTube, years after giving those people platforms and building them up has decided that doesn't fit their values or the values of their advertisers that's how it works. I'm just not sure that conservatives really want to die on this hill with Kyrie Irving and the flat earthers.
- jquery 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    Perhaps I'm one of those rare people who oppose the censorship of viewpoints I despise.
    - jquery 5y ago
      Great. Me too. I just disagree that what YouTube is doing falls under censorship. BitChute exists and works just fine. I have no problem watching InfoWars if I want to. It's nothing like China where I would actually be risking prison if I shared something anti-government in a WeChat group.
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        It does when the government leans on them. How'd you like to be in the hot seat in front of Congress while they threaten and berate you about the content on your site?

by bko 5y ago

crazy_horse 5y ago

[flagged]

barnesto 5y ago
Trump was removed from all forms of social media, but tell us how you hate conservatives and their empty rhetoric. Guess that also means that the Trump administration was in close contact with the tech companies to ensure they banned him.
- crazy_horse 5y ago
  He was removed when he wouldn't just give up power like a normal loser, but he sure as hell prodded them for 4 years and it sure as hell got him elected.
- pvaldes 5y ago
  He practically removed himself by being unable to behave in a normal way. Can't blame other than himself by what happened. The capitol issue was just the last nail in his social coffin. Is too late to play the damsel in distress and the victim here.
bko 5y ago
> The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. [0] On your other point, I don't see how "they've always done that" means its not a first amendment issue. Finally, conspiracy theories are covered under freedom of speech. And freedom of speech is not "empty political rhetoric" [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment
- crazy_horse 5y ago
  Thanks for the feedback, I knew there was more to it bu it's interesting that's a later interpretation (presumably the didn't imagine the executive would have so much power). The point I was making with the theorist stuff is this song falls right into prime Q, the government is killing us territory. If YouTube, years after giving those people platforms and building them up has decided that doesn't fit their values or the values of their advertisers that's how it works. I'm just not sure that conservatives really want to die on this hill with Kyrie Irving and the flat earthers.
jquery 5y ago
[flagged]
- WalterBright 5y ago
  Perhaps I'm one of those rare people who oppose the censorship of viewpoints I despise.
  - jquery 5y ago
    Great. Me too. I just disagree that what YouTube is doing falls under censorship. BitChute exists and works just fine. I have no problem watching InfoWars if I want to. It's nothing like China where I would actually be risking prison if I shared something anti-government in a WeChat group.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      It does when the government leans on them. How'd you like to be in the hot seat in front of Congress while they threaten and berate you about the content on your site?