Companies Censoring Speech

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Moderator: Uccisore

Re: Companies Censoring Speech

Postby James S Saint » Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:17 pm

I see public nudity in a similar vein. Such restrictions "should be" in the hands of jurisprudence, not private insanity. Such allows for higher and lower courts, including Congress, to contemplate the degree of restriction and restraint most suitable for the nation as a whole as well as more local situations.

The internet is a different form of countryside with its own version of estates and congregations. Just as with a physical nation, the more generalized the law (socialistically dictated), the worse suited. But on the other hand, anarchy of law (arbitrary private choice) demands conflict, political and insidious competition, and upheaval.

The internet has special considerations in almost every other sense. It only makes sense, that "internet-regional" (not physical-regional) jurisdiction and jurisprudence be enforced. Such would allow for "Iregions" to elect representatives for their situations and live by their democratically chosen standards. Putting media pressure on private companies to force hidden mind control agendas is worse than just letting the Pope make the decisions.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25428
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Companies Censoring Speech

Postby Otto_West » Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:25 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Otto_West wrote:
Carleas wrote:Otto, "diversity" also even more clearly doesn't mean a racially pure ethnostate.

Yes, it does.

Race, culture, and languages all throughout history stem originally from isolated homogenous areas but now this international globalization project seeks to undermine all of that in eradication.

Exactly.

Furthermore, diversity includes white nationalists, xenophobic japanese, fanatical muslims, bigoted blacks and whatever else can be imagined.

Echochambers are not diverse.

These globalists are all about getting rid of racial, cultural, ideological, social, and political diversity. That is their end game. Their end game is global uniformity and conformity by obliterating all opposition or dissenters, this is their long game going into the future.

They want to rule the world in a singular entity style fashion and never use the word diversity sincerely.
Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.
User avatar
Otto_West
Doom Pornographer
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 7:40 pm
Location: Dumbfuckistan- Will Work For Depreciating (FRN) Shekels.

Re: Companies Censoring Speech

Postby James S Saint » Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:50 pm

Otto_West wrote:and never use the word diversity sincerely.

Two classes; Chosen humans (with their androids) and animal (the Unchosen).
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25428
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Companies Censoring Speech

Postby UrGod » Thu Aug 24, 2017 8:49 pm

I don't consider the "elite" as one pole of the developing split in (perhaps mostly western only) humanity. The elites are a side effect and not a cause. The real split is between people who want to think (engage honestly with reality) and those who do not.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1624
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Companies Censoring Speech

Postby UrGod » Thu Aug 24, 2017 8:57 pm

I believe in near absolute free speech, but much as how a free market requires basic level regulation of laws to enforce an equal playing field of opportunities (not outcomes), opportunities you can work for based on your individual skills and effort, and to prevent fraud and theft, so too does free speech require rules against speech that fundamentally undermines the very condition and purpose of free speech itself. Examples include laws against speech inciting violence and crime, speech that is slanderous that causes harm based on lies, and speech that deliberately drowns out the speech of others in a significant way.

You can't go to a public space (under protection of the first amendment) and use a megaphone to shout down everyone else around you, because that isn't speech so much as the blocking of speech. Similarly online forums should restrict or ban trolling. And that is up to the managers/owners of the online fora. This is why private ownership is important. A proper society will have many competing platforms and avenues of speech, as well as a basic minimum standard of guaranteed right to speech that others cannot violate (such as shutting you up with their trolling). The purpose of free speech is to encourage and allow discourse.

The problem today is that under radical social justice paradigms you have many easily triggered people who actually interpret the opinions of others as "violence" against themselves. These people are so weak that they actually cannot stand up for their own speech and ideas in the face of the speech and ideas of others. Part of the right of free speech is the right to walk away and not talk whenever you feel like it would be purposeless to continue... modern leftists have forgotten this.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1624
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Companies Censoring Speech

Postby Serendipper » Thu Aug 24, 2017 9:43 pm

Carleas wrote:Ah, I'd forgotten about Marsh v. Alabama, excellent point. It looks like the reasoning is pretty narrow, specific to "company towns", and it's apparently been rejected as applied to email (and to non-company-town malls; that NYT article says the case there was decided on the free speech clause in the NJ constitution, not the one in the US Constitution).


Yup Marsh was probably the first case you studied and it's easy to forget our roots ;) The AOL case (regarding email) was in 1996 before even I got online in earnest... and it was about spam being covered under the 1st amendment which is effectively hijacking AOL servers for capital gain and not really about free speech. Yeah I knew it was state constitution but only cited it to reflect my opinion on the matter.

I do think there's some difference from the current situation. The case in Marsh was such that certain speech could be effectively precluded unless it was allowed on private property. That's not true when GoDaddy or Google deny your domain registration, since that market is pretty competitive, and even for .com domain there are dozens of registrars (if Tucows or ICANN itself blacklisted a domain it would be different). It isn't clear that anything short of ICANN is really sufficient to effectively preclude internet speech.


All that ICANN stuff is greek to me. I just want to join political discussions without having to earn a degree in web design and shellout money for what should be public space or, alternatively, walk on eggshells about what I say for fear of being banned from the "mainstreet" controlled by privateers. I feel I have a right to any speech I want to read yet corporatocracy seems to think it has a right to decide what I can consume.

Serendipper, do you have an idea of where we might draw the line? Surely a small site could ban people, so how big would a user base have to be before it would be subject to constitutional restriction? Obviously it will be fact-specific, but wondering what your thoughts are on factors that might apply.

I don't know... how big does a company have to be before it cannot refuse service to people on the basis of color, religion, etc?

It seems to me if an establishment is open to the public meaning there are no barriers to entry in the form of a key or membership card that would indicate the place is private and not open to the public, then I don't see why constitutional protection shouldn't follow the public inside. Where in the constitution does it indicate anything about a right to censor the public on private property if the private property is open to the public?

Enter the TOS agreement. I remember inquiring if I could compel people to sign a document swearing not to sue me if they have an accident on my property and was sternly informed that people cannot sign their rights away and that I would still be subject to suit regardless of the document. So if I cannot have a TOS agreement for people riding recreational vehicles on my property that protects me from the stupid mistakes someone else may make, then what gives the power to websites to remove rights from people? I'm getting screwed on both ends here. I can be compelled to have my rights taken, but can't compel others?

What it effectively boils down to is cyberspace claim-holders want their right to free speech online but also want the right to censor dissenting opinion and that is asking for the right to dictate virtue by virtue of the luck in selecting a cool name like twitter and lucky enough to take advantage of the fed-money-printing inflating the stock market to grow into a tyrannical dictator of social justice.

At the end of the day, my view isn't whether the ground is public, but whether the person standing there is considered a public or a private guest. Am I here because of an invitation or did I stumble in because the owner had an "open to the public" sign? Wherever I go as a representative of the public, I should have the protection of the constitution.

This site, for instance, shows on google search (I assume; haven't checked, but let's assume). That means I am someone who is addressing the public because my conversations are not hidden from them under lock n key. Because I am addressing the public, I cannot be censored. Also, I freely walked in here. There were no barriers to entry other than the signing of my rights away at the door. By all rights, I am public who is speaking to the public and should not be censored in any way (except in violations of law or soliciting and reasonable things like that). I mean, I can't claim the 1st in order to hijack the site to peddle my own products (AOL case). I also shouldn't be allowed to disrupt (subjective, I know). There are reasonable exceptions, but free speech should contingent on the state of the person and not of the property.

What do you think? I'm not a lawyer, but have read some cases and think, depending who the judges are and what side of the bed they woke on and how the stars align, they may agree with me.
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Companies Censoring Speech

Postby WendyDarling » Thu Aug 24, 2017 10:15 pm

Today, judges tow their political party line, so while your description of private vs. public justice may seem legally reasonable, don't expect judicial decisions to be.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 6203
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Companies Censoring Speech

Postby Serendipper » Thu Aug 24, 2017 10:18 pm

Otto_West wrote:These globalists are all about getting rid of racial, cultural, ideological, social, and political diversity. That is their end game. Their end game is global uniformity and conformity by obliterating all opposition or dissenters, this is their long game going into the future.

They want to rule the world in a singular entity style fashion and never use the word diversity sincerely.

I've been struggling for some time in deciding if it's a conspiracy and I just can't tell. It's like trying to decide if the sun on the back of George Washington's armchair is rising or setting.

Some folks, I think, are just misguided. All we can do is provide education as best we can then hope for the best.

The civil war, for instance, was not about slavery.

https://www.loc.gov/teachers/newsevents ... nFirst.pdf

First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln
MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have
no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."


Plus:

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), also known simply as the Dred Scott case, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on US labor law and constitutional law. It held that "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves",[2][3] whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court,[4][5] and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States.

So the South had Lincoln's word plus the Courts decision and therefore had no grounds to attack based on any perceived threat to slavery. The notion is ridiculous.

But they did anyway on April 12th 1861 at Ft Sumter in an effort to kick the US Army off of southern ground. Why?

https://archive.org/stream/TheMoneyMast ... s_djvu.txt (keyword search 'tariffs' to find it)

So what was the Civil War all about? There were many factors at play. Northern industrialists had used protective tariffs to
prevent their southern states from buying cheaper European goods. Europe retaliated by stopping cotton imports from the
South. The Southern states were in a financial bind. They were forced to pay more for most of the necessities of life while
their income from cotton exports plummeted. The South grew increasingly angry.

But there were other factors at work. The Money Changers were still stung by America's withdrawal from their control 25
years earlier. Since then, America's wildcat economy, despite the presence of fractional reserve banking with its attendant
booms and busts, had made the nation rich - a bad example for the rest the world.

The central bankers now saw an opportunity to use the North/South divisions to split the rich new nation - to divide and
conquer by war. Was this just some sort of wild conspiracy theory? Well, let's look at what a well placed observer of the scene
had to say at time.

This was Otto von Bismarck, Chancellor of Germany, the man who united the German states in 1871. A few years later, in
1876, he is quoted as saying:

"It is not to be doubted, I know of absolute certainty," Bismarck declared, "that the division of the United States into two
federations of equal power was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were
afraid that the United States, if they remained as one block and were to develop as one nation, would attain economic and
financial independence, which would upset the capitalist domination of Europe over the world. "

Within months after the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter, the central bankers loaned Napoleon III of France (the nephew
of the Waterloo Napoleon) 210 million francs to seize Mexico and station troops along the southern border of the U.S., taking
advantage of the Civil War to violate the Monroe Doctrine and return Mexico to colonial rule.

No matter what the outcome of the Civil War, it was hoped that a war-weakened America, heavily indebted to the Money
Changers, would open up Central and South America once again to European colonization and domination - the very thing
America's Monroe Doctrine had forbade in 1823.


What the statues being torn down really represent is not slavery, but independence, individuality, identity. The whole thing has been perverted by a veil of slavery to provoke people into giving up their liberties. Is it conspiracy? Could be or it could be a combination of that and ignorance because, for a long time, I thought the war was about slavery too. That's what they teach in school.
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Companies Censoring Speech

Postby UrGod » Thu Aug 24, 2017 10:19 pm

Private vs public justice is an irreducible categorical divide. The best that can be achieved is a continuous negotiation between the two, that evolves positively over time. Absolute private or absolute public are both unacceptable tyrannies.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1624
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Companies Censoring Speech

Postby Serendipper » Thu Aug 24, 2017 10:48 pm

WendyDarling wrote:Today, judges tow their political party line, so while your description of private vs. public justice may seem legally reasonable, don't expect judicial decisions to be.

That's true.

So, would a liberal judge side with private business or public interest? That's a tough call because on one hand they may want the power to censor hate speech, but on the other they generally hate unregulated private business.

Conservatives would rule for private business because because.

The Fairness Doctrine is a good example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission's view — honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC, which was believed to have been under pressure from then President Ronald Reagan, eliminated the Doctrine in 1987.

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lion_ ... Co._v._FCC

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), while strongly suggesting that broadcast radio stations (and by logical extension, television stations) are First Amendment speakers whose editorial speech is protected, upheld the equal time provisions of the Fairness Doctrine ruling that it was "the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here."

The FCC by administrative rulemaking had required that discussion of public issues be presented on broadcast stations, and that each side of those issues must be given fair coverage. 395 U.S. 367, 369. As a result, the FCC added an "equal time rule" and a "response to personal attack" rule. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. challenged these rules as unconstitutionally infringing on the speech of the station's editorial judgment. Justice Byron White, writing for the majority explained, the FCC has included among the conditions of the Red Lion license itself the requirement that operation of the station be carried out in the public interest.

He stated that "without government control, the medium would be of little use because of the cacophony of competing voices, none of which could be clearly and predictably heard."

Justice White also explains that it is the rights of the viewers and listeners that is the most important, not the rights of the broadcasters.The Court did not see how the Fairness Doctrine went against the First Amendments goal of creating an informed public.


Reagan apparently didn't care for that. Wasn't good for business.
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Companies Censoring Speech

Postby Otto_West » Fri Aug 25, 2017 2:39 pm

Serendipper I would say conspiracy because there are groups in the west trying to merge all western nations under one authority. They eventually want to set up this stage for all other nations across the planet as well.
Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.
User avatar
Otto_West
Doom Pornographer
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 7:40 pm
Location: Dumbfuckistan- Will Work For Depreciating (FRN) Shekels.

Re: Companies Censoring Speech

Postby Serendipper » Fri Aug 25, 2017 6:53 pm

Otto_West wrote:Serendipper I would say conspiracy because there are groups in the west trying to merge all western nations under one authority. They eventually want to set up this stage for all other nations across the planet as well.

Are they doing it for some nefarious purpose or because they believe that is what is best for humanity? In other words, do they know what they are doing is wrong and are doing it anyway for their own selfish gain or do they believe what they are doing is right?

For instance the climate change agenda could be known to be crap but is driven anyway, in spite of the negatives, for the purpose of developing alternate technologies, ultimately for the good of humanity, that otherwise would not be economically viable. Solar panels for example, without the gov, no one would invest in their development because they cannot compete with fossil fuels economically. Coal has found its lower bound in electricity price because we're finding it and burning it as efficiently as we can, but solar has no lower bound and could conceivably be a next-to-free source of energy one day, so the good of humanity seems the ultimate goal if you consider what free energy + robots can do... so the question is are they smart enough to see that or is it an unintended consequence of ignorance? Probably the latter but sometimes I wonder because the case against the climate change narrative is pretty strong.

It just goes to show how things can seem like conspiracy, but could be just an illusion. Objectively, I can't tell if "they" are colluding or independently coming to the same conclusion. Peter Schiff is a rich jewish 'banker' and argues vehemently for the free market. Some fit the narrative and some don't.

Ron Paul argues for a gold standard. Why does he do that? People argue over the national debt. Why? If we paid down the debt, we wouldn't have a dollar to spend because debt is money. Both notions are silly and seem to be metaphorical red herrings thrown to the public so they have something to sink their teeth into and stay out of the way. Conspiracy or ignorance?

Money is debt https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7sBehblZk8
National debt (5 part series) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6qHXtn0xX8

After taking the red pill I wonder "Why isn't this taught in school? How can so many people be so wrong? Is it a conspiracy?"

Bill Still in the Money Masters video claims both the gold standard and the federal reserve system gives control to the "masters" while the proper way is to have the treasury simply issue debt-free money like Lincoln's Greenbacks or Franklin's Colonial Scrip, and so as long as we argue for a gold standard or for the fed system (pitting one side against the other), we totally miss the correct system that would remove their power. Conspiracy? So it would seem.

Money Masters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miD_mtAEdRs Read the comments. Not a single thumbs down.

People get the government they deserve and when they don't have the attention span to find the truth, they get treated like the mindless cattle they aspired to be. Education is the only way out.
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Companies Censoring Speech

Postby Otto_West » Sat Aug 26, 2017 12:56 am

Serendipper wrote:
Otto_West wrote:Serendipper I would say conspiracy because there are groups in the west trying to merge all western nations under one authority. They eventually want to set up this stage for all other nations across the planet as well.

Are they doing it for some nefarious purpose or because they believe that is what is best for humanity? In other words, do they know what they are doing is wrong and are doing it anyway for their own selfish gain or do they believe what they are doing is right?

For instance the climate change agenda could be known to be crap but is driven anyway, in spite of the negatives, for the purpose of developing alternate technologies, ultimately for the good of humanity, that otherwise would not be economically viable. Solar panels for example, without the gov, no one would invest in their development because they cannot compete with fossil fuels economically. Coal has found its lower bound in electricity price because we're finding it and burning it as efficiently as we can, but solar has no lower bound and could conceivably be a next-to-free source of energy one day, so the good of humanity seems the ultimate goal if you consider what free energy + robots can do... so the question is are they smart enough to see that or is it an unintended consequence of ignorance? Probably the latter but sometimes I wonder because the case against the climate change narrative is pretty strong.

It just goes to show how things can seem like conspiracy, but could be just an illusion. Objectively, I can't tell if "they" are colluding or independently coming to the same conclusion. Peter Schiff is a rich jewish 'banker' and argues vehemently for the free market. Some fit the narrative and some don't.

Ron Paul argues for a gold standard. Why does he do that? People argue over the national debt. Why? If we paid down the debt, we wouldn't have a dollar to spend because debt is money. Both notions are silly and seem to be metaphorical red herrings thrown to the public so they have something to sink their teeth into and stay out of the way. Conspiracy or ignorance?

Money is debt https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7sBehblZk8
National debt (5 part series) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6qHXtn0xX8

After taking the red pill I wonder "Why isn't this taught in school? How can so many people be so wrong? Is it a conspiracy?"

Bill Still in the Money Masters video claims both the gold standard and the federal reserve system gives control to the "masters" while the proper way is to have the treasury simply issue debt-free money like Lincoln's Greenbacks or Franklin's Colonial Scrip, and so as long as we argue for a gold standard or for the fed system (pitting one side against the other), we totally miss the correct system that would remove their power. Conspiracy? So it would seem.

Money Masters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miD_mtAEdRs Read the comments. Not a single thumbs down.

People get the government they deserve and when they don't have the attention span to find the truth, they get treated like the mindless cattle they aspired to be. Education is the only way out.

Conspiracies involve a great deal of complexity and many different kinds of individuals, some probably follow orders convincing themselves they're doing what's best while others at the top probably do it for purely malicious reasons. Either way the road to hell is paved with good intentions as the old saying goes. Conspiracy thrives in an environment of ignorance for without that it wouldn't exist.
Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.
User avatar
Otto_West
Doom Pornographer
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 7:40 pm
Location: Dumbfuckistan- Will Work For Depreciating (FRN) Shekels.

Re: Companies Censoring Speech

Postby Serendipper » Sat Aug 26, 2017 2:17 am

Otto_West wrote: Conspiracies involve a great deal of complexity and many different kinds of individuals, some probably follow orders convincing themselves they're doing what's best while others at the top probably do it for purely malicious reasons. Either way the road to hell is paved with good intentions as the old saying goes. Conspiracy thrives in an environment of ignorance for without that it wouldn't exist.

Totally agree.

the road to hell is paved with good intentions

"Kindly let me help you or you'll drown", said the monkey putting the fish safely up a tree.
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Companies Censoring Speech

Postby Otto_West » Sat Aug 26, 2017 2:21 am

Serendipper wrote:
Otto_West wrote: Conspiracies involve a great deal of complexity and many different kinds of individuals, some probably follow orders convincing themselves they're doing what's best while others at the top probably do it for purely malicious reasons. Either way the road to hell is paved with good intentions as the old saying goes. Conspiracy thrives in an environment of ignorance for without that it wouldn't exist.

Totally agree.

the road to hell is paved with good intentions

"Kindly let me help you or you'll drown", said the monkey putting the fish safely up a tree.

Outright tyranny is too obvious so instead you kill and destroy people under the pretense of kindness or reason.
Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.
User avatar
Otto_West
Doom Pornographer
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 7:40 pm
Location: Dumbfuckistan- Will Work For Depreciating (FRN) Shekels.

Re: Companies Censoring Speech

Postby Carleas » Sat Aug 26, 2017 4:57 pm

Serendipper wrote:All that ICANN stuff is greek to me...

Unfortunately, I think the technical details matter to the questions here. Some of the conflict on this question comes from the different ways to describe what's happening. The common metaphor for the internet of "cyberspace" makes it feel like websites are open rooms that people walk into and out of. Under that description, it does seem quite similar to a mall or a company-town sidewalk. This seems to be the description you rely on later in your post.

But on the back end, there's another description, and that's the one site owners are likely to use: the site is a file on a computer (the server), and "visiting" a website really means requesting the file, which the computer agrees to send back, and the user's machine then turns into the websites we're familiar with. "Posting" something on a website means sending a piece of text to the server and asking the server to repeat that text every time someone requests the site. Under this description, requiring a site to protect free speech means forcing the site's owner to say things they don't want to say. Under this description, the balance of free speech seems to weigh more towards the site owner, who is saying, "Say what you want, just don't make me say it".

Should the law favor the way the non-technical user sees the interaction, or the way the site owner sees the interaction, or should it attempt to say which description is "real"? (And I'm sure there are other descriptions, though perhaps more obviously irrelevant; files and requests are really metaphors themselves for structures and interactions composed of small electrical charges)

Serendipper wrote:how big does a company have to be before it cannot refuse service to people on the basis of color, religion, etc?

That's a good question. My intuition is that speech is different, but I find it hard to articulate why. One possibility is that speech by its nature has more content than skin color or religion, i.e. it affects a business more to have someone in their store saying "black power, white genocide" than it does to have someone in their store who is black. That seems right to me, and it might be enough that in the balance of interests, we could consistently permit restrictions on a business from discrimination in the latter case and not in the former (though I am ambivalent on whether restriction in either case is wise; while I abhor discrimination, it is naive to think that bigotry can be regulated away).

Serendipper wrote:It just goes to show how things can seem like conspiracy, but could be just an illusion.

I say it's almost always an illusion. Most conspiracy theorizing is like the teleological argument in theology, and is wrong for the same reasons. Humans look for purpose in things because we're social animals evolved to read minds and be wary of the secret intentions of those around us. When we see things happening at a societal scale, we apply the naive theory of mind that served us in tribes of a few hundred, and conclude that there must be some group of people who understand and manipulate all of society to their own ends. But much of what happens is emergent from a bunch of uncoordinated decisions. Stock market fluctuations, voting patterns, exchange rates, political movements, etc. etc. are all the result of the collective decisions of many individuals, none of which interact with enough other individuals to collude sufficiently to bring about their desired outcome. Certainly some people have more influence than others, but influence over a chaotic system is very different from control of that system. The way that a chaotic system responds to stimuli is inherently unpredictable.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 5406
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Companies Censoring Speech

Postby Serendipper » Sat Aug 26, 2017 11:40 pm

Carleas wrote:The common metaphor for the internet of "cyberspace" makes it feel like websites are open rooms that people walk into and out of. Under that description, it does seem quite similar to a mall or a company-town sidewalk. This seems to be the description you rely on later in your post.

Well, it's more than just being able to stumble-in and I think the free speech case is stronger for websites than for malls because malls do not broadcast the speech all of the world on search engines. What goes on inside of a mall generally stays inside the local community (outside of news coverage). So if malls can be considered mainstreet, how much more are websites?

"Posting" something on a website means sending a piece of text to the server and asking the server to repeat that text every time someone requests the site. Under this description, requiring a site to protect free speech means forcing the site's owner to say things they don't want to say. Under this description, the balance of free speech seems to weigh more towards the site owner, who is saying, "Say what you want, just don't make me say it".

Forums sometimes have sections reserved for upgraded members where conversations are hidden or they have sections open to the general community that also do not appear on search engines, so it seems there is an easy way for site-owners to "Say what you want, just don't make me say it" by simply not being public with the speech. But that's the thing they don't want to do and it's transparent to me that they want their cake as well as eating it. They want to censor public speech on the grounds of the utilization of private equipment and thereby have some control over public opinion. That, I think, is what the founding fathers sought to avoid.

Should the law favor the way the non-technical user sees the interaction, or the way the site owner sees the interaction, or should it attempt to say which description is "real"? (And I'm sure there are other descriptions, though perhaps more obviously irrelevant; files and requests are really metaphors themselves for structures and interactions composed of small electrical charges)

Well, the government is "by the people and for the people" so the best interest of the people seems to be the best interpretation of law. Therefore, are the people better served by having speech censored or by neutering those wishing to censor?

Serendipper wrote:how big does a company have to be before it cannot refuse service to people on the basis of color, religion, etc?

That's a good question. My intuition is that speech is different, but I find it hard to articulate why. One possibility is that speech by its nature has more content than skin color or religion, i.e. it affects a business more to have someone in their store saying "black power, white genocide" than it does to have someone in their store who is black. That seems right to me, and it might be enough that in the balance of interests, we could consistently permit restrictions on a business from discrimination in the latter case and not in the former

Someone in a store saying "black power, white genocide" can be interpreted as being disruptive to business depending how they're saying it. It's different if one had a t-shirt with the black power words or politely handing out pamphlets, but to be accosting customers or yelling or even standing on a soapbox speaking is interfering with the right of the store owner to conduct business. What constitutes disruption is subjective and seems hardly a solution because one could just about make any case for disruption, so it would have to be stated clearly what disruption means. It's not the content of the speech, but the actions taken by the speaker that constitute disruption.

Someone could claim a black person being in a store constitutes disruption because customers are uneasy in the situation, but the black person is not doing anything in action to cause disruption. Effectively, the owner wants to censor the black person's blackness from the store.

In my mind, censorship is akin to murder and there isn't much distinction between either method of silencing folks. We could censor black people by throwing them in rivers or censor white people by banishing them from the community. Either way, it's the same effect. If I get banned from here, how will anyone know I wasn't taken out and shot? The only difference is that I know better, but as far as the community is concerned, I may as well be dead.

(though I am ambivalent on whether restriction in either case is wise; while I abhor discrimination, it is naive to think that bigotry can be regulated away).

Yes, just yesterday I listened to Peter Schiff talking about a guy who went into a starbucks demanding audio equipment so he could hear the music. Because they didn't have such equipment, he filed a suit for $10k. Peter says the guy has had several of those suits in a short time and calls them "driveby lawsuits". Then he went on to talk about handicap accessible swimming pools where instead of providing the access to the handicap, businesses just close the pool. Some of the laws are getting ridiculous and it's an artifact of a prosperous society when we start to care more and more about those around us. Reminds me of this bit from the Sopranos:

Tony: This broad she's from Russia, dirt poor. She had some kind of osocarma disease in her leg when she was nine. She says that nowhere else in the world do people expect to be happy except for here in this country, and still we're not. And we got everything. And when we're not, what do we do? We go to shrinks. For what, $6 or $7 a minute?

Dr. Melfi: There's some truth to what she says. But should that be a source of shame? That when the desperate struggle for food and shelter is finally behind us we can turn our attention to other sources of pain and truth?


When societies prosper, they wonder why there aren't more women in power and more minorities and more catering to the disabled and so on. They lose sight of the traditions which built the society and therefore undermine the very thing that caused the prosperity. I know because I've been there and then it dawned on me one day that "Hey, maybe there's some value to these goofy traditions. Let me think it over for a while." Then it all came together and made sense why empires rise and fall.

Serendipper wrote:It just goes to show how things can seem like conspiracy, but could be just an illusion.

I say it's almost always an illusion. Most conspiracy theorizing is like the teleological argument in theology, and is wrong for the same reasons.

Natural selection can't be teleological or it wouldn't be natural selection, but natural selection itself could be a means to an end just like we use genetic algorithms to find solutions to problems. Life could be the universe's way or reorganizing itself and natural selection is simply finding the best way to do that.

Humans look for purpose in things because we're social animals evolved to read minds and be wary of the secret intentions of those around us. When we see things happening at a societal scale, we apply the naive theory of mind that served us in tribes of a few hundred, and conclude that there must be some group of people who understand and manipulate all of society to their own ends.

Yes, we have to be aware of our tendencies. That's why I go back and forth because it sure seems like conspiracy, but I also know I have a propensity to see it that way.

The way that a chaotic system responds to stimuli is inherently unpredictable.

Chaotic systems are only considered unpredictable because we don't have instruments sensitive enough to gather the data accurately enough. Chaotic systems are not random, but are extremely sensitive to initial conditions. So, they aren't inherently unpredictable, but essentially unpredictable. Just a minor distinction as a matter of trivia. :)

Is this a conspiracy?



Is she stupid or was she hired because she will tow the line? The latter seems like conspiracy to control public opinion.

Thanks for the good conversation!
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Companies Censoring Speech

Postby WendyDarling » Sun Aug 27, 2017 12:34 am

:lol: Yes, democratic controlled media is supposed to control what we think. Hilarious insert foot, but most won't get it.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 6203
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Companies Censoring Speech

Postby Otto_West » Sun Aug 27, 2017 3:20 am

Corporate marxist media more like it.
Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.
User avatar
Otto_West
Doom Pornographer
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 7:40 pm
Location: Dumbfuckistan- Will Work For Depreciating (FRN) Shekels.

Re: Companies Censoring Speech

Postby fuse » Sun Sep 03, 2017 11:59 pm

AutSider wrote:
fuse wrote:The existence of white people is not promoted by clinging to the symbols of defeated secessionist rebellions.

Sure it can be, if these symbols have in the meantime come to also symbolize white nationalism.

You're right that it promotes a reversion to group identity.

AutSider wrote:
fuse wrote:If you want to honor your heritage then don't stunt yourself with false security and the small wisdom that there is no greater unifying principle than race.

The bonds of people have always gone much deeper than race. You have to be psychologically lame or desperate to fall on race as the sole source of your pride and striving. There are much higher things in this world than reverence of this one recent simplification -- a half thing, impure, uneven, that can't possibly carry the whole weight of a person's identity. Not only are there more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, there is more in you than can be derived from the white race.

Oh, I agree there are greater unifying principles than race.
Nationality is one.
Regional identity within a nation is even greater than nationality.
Identity with your greater tribe (city/village) is greater than regional identity.
Identity with your immediate tribe (next-door neighbors) is greater than greater tribe identity.
Identity with your blood - fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, nephews, nieces, grandparents, and so on, is the greatest.

But surely you weren't suggesting that we should go in the other direction and consider humanity more important than race? Because if we apply that logic consistently, surely you see what kind of weird absurdities it would lead to.

Race, nationality, and blood represent one's origin and history, but these were not their own origin, and are generative of other values and identities that are the very reason anyone would have pride in them in the first place.

AutSider wrote:
fuse wrote:I can think of contexts where... I understand... why this mentality exists, the purpose it serves. But it's going nowhere, and advances no one. It's a dead end, and not necessarily because it clings to the wrong assumptions, but because it is myopic and clinging by nature.

Actually, that's where you're wrong. All other factors equal, groups which favor their own race will win out in conflict against groups which don't favor their own race. It is that kind of mentality which will survive, by definition.

Groups which don't isolate themselves and wage bigotted civil wars over identity politics, who cohere around higher values, are those which will not only survive but own the future. Tribalism in the nuclear age is pretty stupid and regressive. Things that may have been good enough for survival in the past don't work as well, or at all, in other conditions.
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4510
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Companies Censoring Speech

Postby Arminius » Mon Sep 04, 2017 1:10 am

Hello, Fuse.

fuse wrote:Tribalism in the nuclear age is pretty stupid and regressive. Things that may have been good enough for survival in the past don't work as well, or at all, in other conditions.

When it comes to nuclear attacks, mega cities are probably the worst and rural areas probably the best places in order to survive. So in the nuclear age, a relatively small tribe, if it is located in rural areas, is probably the best kind of togetherness.

The case of nuclear attack:
1) In the first place, you have to survive the nuclear attack, which is almost impossible in mega cities, if they are (and they probably are) the target of the nuclear attack.
2) In the second place, you need the help of other people, but in mega cities, if they are (and they probably are) the target of the nuclear attack, the other people are too many people and acting too chaotically (because of the huge panic).
3) In the third place, you need your water and food and to defend this, if there are other people who want to steal it from you, which is probably the case in mega cities and probably not the case in rural areas.
4) In the fourth place, you need a small group where you can address yourself to, and this is probably possible in rural areas and probably not possible in mega cities.

I guess that e.g. the relatively small tribes of the Amazon River region have probably good prospects to survive a nuclear attack.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5438
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Companies Censoring Speech

Postby Arminius » Mon Sep 04, 2017 1:25 am

James S Saint wrote:
Otto_West wrote:and never use the word diversity sincerely.

Two classes; Chosen humans (with their androids) and animal (the Unchosen).

Maybe in the future even two species. :o
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5438
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Companies Censoring Speech

Postby AutSider » Mon Sep 04, 2017 7:59 pm

Carleas wrote:The ever decreasing circles of care down to "identity with blood", combined with the obsession with genetic 'purity', seems to point toward keeping it in the family.


I don't see how. It's circles of care, not circles of sexual attraction. If anything, it would point toward keeping it with myself and being sexually attracted to myself.

statiktech wrote:
But surely you weren't suggesting that we should go in the other direction and consider humanity more important than race? Because if we apply that logic consistently, surely you see what kind of weird absurdities it would lead to.


What sorts of weird absurdities?


Well, if you're gonna prefer a more broad category (species) to a more specific one (race), then why not also prefer genus to species, and so on?

Image

Groups which don't isolate themselves and wage bigotted civil wars over identity politics, who cohere around higher values, are those which will not only survive but own the future. Tribalism in the nuclear age is pretty stupid and regressive. Things that may have been good enough for survival in the past don't work as well, or at all, in other conditions.


Things that have worked in the past work now and always will work. The natural law that permeates the universe and determines interactions between physical entities didn't change. In large societies the forces of natural selection may not act upon individuals directly, but it doesn't make them disappear, it just means they act upon that which is protecting the individual, which is society, so instead of the individual paying the cost for his weakness/degeneracy, society will pay the accumulated costs for all the individuals whose weakness and degeneracy it shelters.

So you may set up society in which you create what you would call "other conditions", aka, where you select for weakness, faggotry, and tribe-betrayal (whereas nature selects for strength, is anti-faggotry, and tribalistic) but this just means you are making that society weaker and that all other factors equal, it will get defeated by a society which has more natural conditions, if conflict happens (and it always does).

You can think of it in terms of concentric circles. Societies and individuals exist within the circle of nature. Each circle imposes laws upon those who exist within it. Individuals may escape the law of nature to an extent by entering the circle of society, but society itself still exists within nature and has to abide by its laws. So the natural selection that acted upon the individual is merely transferred to society instead, it doesn't disappear.

Another way to put it is that natural selection applies to all living entities, and society is a kind of a living entity composed of many other living entities, and in the same way the overall health of an organism depends on the health of its organs, and the health of a wolf pack depends on the health of the individual wolves, the health of society depends on the health of the individuals that constitute it.

You can create a society where you select against mentalities like tribalism, but that only means you're selecting against health and making that society weaker in relation to other societies, all other factors equal.

Changing the laws of society doesn't mean changing the laws of nature. The latter will always remain the same and determine the former.

What happens if a society attempts to eliminate all the selective forces on its population?

For example, suppose a society enables all of its members to survive and reproduce, even if they make no contribution to society. This describes the current reality of the welfare state. Everyone is allowed to have children, and the state takes care of all children, even if their parents cannot support them. This seems like a nice thing to do. But what are the consequences of this kind of altruism?

In the modern welfare state, the most effective reproductive strategy is to go on welfare and have lots of children. Genes that lead to this behavior will be selected for. People we consider to be unproductive and irresponsible will have the most children. Over time, the population will become adapted to extracting potential energy from the welfare state, rather than extracting potential energy from nature using social cooperation. Such people are a drain on society. They consume or destroy more potential energy than they produce. The welfare state has a dysgenic effect on the population: it promotes traits that are destructive to society.

Society is a tool like a hammer: it allows us to use energy more efficiently, but it also requires an input of energy to create and maintain. The members of society have to produce a surplus of potential energy to maintain society. Those who simply consume potential energy from society make society weaker.

There is no free lunch. Socializing selective forces does not make them disappear. It just transfers the selective forces from the individual to the society. That leaves society with less power to compete with other societies and to maintain its internal order. Eventually, it will collapse or be destroyed by outside forces.

And after that happens, the large population of unproductive people who were sheltering under its protection will once again be exposed to the elements. Without the welfare state, individuals will have to be productive and responsible in order to survive and reproduce.


http://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.hr/20 ... ution.html

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=192780#p2663500
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Companies Censoring Speech

Postby fuse » Thu Sep 07, 2017 6:37 am

AutSider wrote:Things that have worked in the past work now and always will work.

No, they wont.

The natural law that permeates the universe and determines interactions between physical entities didn't change. In large societies the forces of natural selection may not act upon individuals directly, but it doesn't make them disappear, it just means they act upon that which is protecting the individual, which is society, so instead of the individual paying the cost for his weakness/degeneracy, society will pay the accumulated costs for all the individuals whose weakness and degeneracy it shelters.

So you may set up society in which you create what you would call "other conditions", aka, where you select for weakness, faggotry, and tribe-betrayal (whereas nature selects for strength, is anti-faggotry, and tribalistic) but this just means you are making that society weaker and that all other factors equal, it will get defeated by a society which has more natural conditions, if conflict happens (and it always does).

Universal law might be a bit more complicated than you can imagine. I mean, something like "might is right" is just going to be way too general as the highest law of nature. You'd be surprised at what can possibly constitute might now and in the future. Your distinction between natural and non-natural conditions is arbitrary with respect to evolution. What matters is what competes. If a group is out-competed it goes away, doesn't matter if it was the traditionally stronger group. The game is always "rigged" by what competes the best. "Natural conditions" is a meaningless term here. There is only a distinction between local and global optima, where there are any number of examples of what's called a local optimum in the fitness landscape, i.e. a population that reaches it's highest peak with respect to its characteristic set and environment. If there is a global optimum, rest assured it would not even be related to homo sapiens sapiens, much less the white ones in particular.

The welfare state example is a poor excuse for racism. You tell me how many white and black people receive welfare of some sort in a given society and why they receive it. Oh a significant proportion of white people receive welfare, too? Meanwhile, my uncle is a medical doctor using his expertise to diagnose disease, perform surgery, and treat a variety of serious health issues. I'm white. He's black. We're family.

The reason the white nationalist movement has found some footing lately is that the more and more populated society gets, the more people in general feel crowded, stressed, and threatened by their neighbors. Tensions are high and resource scarcity is up. The larger group fractures along predictable political lines to consolidate resources for their racial/ethnic/cultural group.
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4510
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Companies Censoring Speech

Postby AutSider » Fri Sep 08, 2017 3:24 pm

fuse, yes they will.

Universal law might be a bit more complicated than you can imagine. I mean, something like "might is right" is just going to be way too general as the highest law of nature.


Might is right is pretty much correct. I used the word power instead of might but the idea is the same.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=191750

You'd be surprised at what can possibly constitute might now and in the future.


Unlikely.

What matters is what competes. If a group is out-competed it goes away, doesn't matter if it was the traditionally stronger group. The game is always "rigged" by what competes the best. "Natural conditions" is a meaningless term here.

The welfare state example is a poor excuse for racism. You tell me how many white and black people receive welfare of some sort in a given society and why they receive it. Oh a significant proportion of white people receive welfare, too? Meanwhile, my uncle is a medical doctor using his expertise to diagnose disease, perform surgery, and treat a variety of serious health issues. I'm white. He's black. We're family.


You probably haven't read and definitely didn't understand what I wrote and the stuff I linked, as none of it wasn't intended to be a justification for racism. But now that you say it, related:

http://voxday.blogspot.hr/2017/06/the-c ... erica.html

Because if you had read and understood them, you wouldn't have written any of the stuff you wrote. Go back and re read it. It addresses all of your claims. I'm not gonna waste time posting the same things all over again.
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users