4 ms·

So. 1. There were bad people on the site, whom other people (you included) wanted to shut up. The site refused to do so. This speaks to the quality of the site

So. 1. There were bad people on the site, whom other people (you included) wanted to shut up. The site refused to do so. This speaks to the quality of the site, no? They refused to censor something while there was a strong push to censor it - that means they will probably not censor you, when your opinion will differ from the opinion of powerful people. That means that a person should rather support the site that does not censor opinions the person does not agree with. Unless the person hopes to always agree with the opinions of the powerful people even when the powerful opinions change. 2. The logic of the federal constitution prohibiting only Congress to pass censorship laws, as far as I get it was: if a business indulges in censorship, customers can drop it and go to its competition. That's exactly what I am doing - defending the American way of life one less purchase on Amazon at a time. Suggestion not to worry is rather strange in the context: the federal constitution puts the task of stopping censorship in private businesses on private citizens, me (and you) included. 3. Actually, I live in California and California constitution protects my right of speech from private censorship too! It even works - if a private business is a shopping mall, eg. But it does not work for Google or Facebook. Because people do not think it's important. That means a piece of paper, even if it is named "constitution" can't protect the rights declared in it - if people stop thinking these rights are important. Why shouldn't I be worried - I have a "living experience" in a country with the right of free speech in the constitution only. A clarification. 4. There were extremists on the site making calls to violence. Actually, at the moment of the de-platforming it was about "Russian propaganda". Some factual information was labelled "foreign propaganda" and censored. Again, I have and enormous "living experience" in the country with a permanent ban on "foreign propaganda". A puzzle. 5. that is neither censorship as a society would consider it nor is it problematic. My English is not that good but a dictionary tells me that: cen·sorship /ˈsensərSHip/ noun 1. the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security. prob·lem·at·ic /ˌpräbləˈmadik/ adjective constituting or presenting a problem or difficulty. To consider this neither a censorship nor problematic you should change dictionaries first (probably you all are tired of my mentioning my "living experience", but yes, I have that one too).

morby 4y ago
1. First of all I didn’t care about Parler, it was a dump doomed to fail. Second this point is purely opinion. Third, your notion of what free speech is in this country is flawed. calls to commit violence and/or riot are not protected free speech under the constitution 2. I don’t care if you choose not to do business with AWS. My comment is on your opinions on whether what AWS did were legitimate. 3. Explain? How is a mall restricting you? Stores will kick you out for being loud and obstructive. It happens all the time without legal repercussion. Actually the government does protect the rights of Facebook, Google, etc to host content by users that are calls to violence, harm, abuse, etc. there are many examples of this. The constitution will never tell a company it has to do business with an entity that hosts that content though. That’s what’s crazy about the duality of free market ideologues. They want business to have free reign but then hate when they exercise it? I’m having a hard time trying to grasp what you’re getting at here, actually. My point about censorship is in juxtaposition to government censorship which is what society should be worried about. If a business doesn’t want to do business with people who break the law that’s entirely up to them.
- Ferrotin 4y ago
  > 3. Explain? How is a mall restricting you? That is California law because of the Pruneyard decision. Read it if you want an explanation.
  - morby 4y ago
    Thank you for directing me to that. Must say, I see no correlation between the right to protest in a private establishment (that permits public access, a stipulation of the ruling) and the right to make calls to violence (which does not exist) Edit: that last part should read: the right to make calls to violence in addition to the rights of private entities to choose to not do business with people for non-discriminatory reasons (discrimination based on protected statuses of individuals)

morby 4y ago

1. First of all I didn’t care about Parler, it was a dump doomed to fail. Second this point is purely opinion. Third, your notion of what free speech is in this country is flawed. calls to commit violence and/or riot are not protected free speech under the constitution 2. I don’t care if you choose not to do business with AWS. My comment is on your opinions on whether what AWS did were legitimate. 3. Explain? How is a mall restricting you? Stores will kick you out for being loud and obstructive. It happens all the time without legal repercussion. Actually the government does protect the rights of Facebook, Google, etc to host content by users that are calls to violence, harm, abuse, etc. there are many examples of this. The constitution will never tell a company it has to do business with an entity that hosts that content though. That’s what’s crazy about the duality of free market ideologues. They want business to have free reign but then hate when they exercise it? I’m having a hard time trying to grasp what you’re getting at here, actually. My point about censorship is in juxtaposition to government censorship which is what society should be worried about. If a business doesn’t want to do business with people who break the law that’s entirely up to them.

Ferrotin 4y ago
> 3. Explain? How is a mall restricting you? That is California law because of the Pruneyard decision. Read it if you want an explanation.
- morby 4y ago
  Thank you for directing me to that. Must say, I see no correlation between the right to protest in a private establishment (that permits public access, a stipulation of the ruling) and the right to make calls to violence (which does not exist) Edit: that last part should read: the right to make calls to violence in addition to the rights of private entities to choose to not do business with people for non-discriminatory reasons (discrimination based on protected statuses of individuals)