And what did they do when Conservatives and Republicans were ready to abandon Twitter and move out?
They banned Parler.
Are you fucking kidding me??? You liberal-left-commies have no more excuses, and no more counter-arguments. Just admit that you’re fascists and be done with it.
Nazi-hating Nazis.
Literally nobody said this or anything like this.
I thought it was your MO to try and apply this to others, but you seem to be trying quite hard to show it applies to you.
Now would be a great time to remind us all that you’re just succumbing to your own “bubble of belief”. You specifically, without dilluting it to the general case of everyone equally to take the focus away from the person it’s most clearly applying to right now. You don’t have do to this - I respect your freedom of speech, I’m just giving you the opportunity to be as openly intellectually honest as you ought to be.
Magnus kindly puts you straight in his above post, just like PK also did, thank you Magnus and PK.
This is one of the primary concerns of the left - to figure out how to organise big brother/tech so that it isn’t either in the hands of government or private business, but in the hands of the people themselves.
People have already begun integrating themselves with technology to an extent, and much of this technology already operates without our awareness and in ways that private business or government are deciding - e.g. phones and the internet in general. They already feed back information to us in ways decided by these bodies, but just imagine what could happen once technology feeds back information even more directly to our brains. We could essentially become puppets without even realising we have strings. It won’t just be freedom of speech that will be destroyed here, when we are unknowingly speaking and even thinking the sentiments of our private or public owners.
This cannot be allowed to happen - ownership MUST be entirely devolved from the level of whoever has the capital to the level of everyone in society. This is all Capitalism → Socialism means, and anybody who tells you that it’s just a move to more centralised Authoritarianism is straight up lying to you. The name itself should be perfectly clear that it’s a movement of power to the people, and if there’s any argument that devolving ownership to everyone is impossible, then this is already a capitulation to government or private businesses literally owning your mind. Best of luck to them (i.e. their owners).
From the other thread that presumably inspired this one:
To anyone who doesn’t want private companies being unconstrained by the same constitution that restricts the government, then join the left and stop supporting private sector getting away with whatever they like. Do it, I know you won’t.
On its own, the corporation can’t legally restrict, detain and execute you, government can, all the corporation can do is refuse to serve you.
Don’t you find it odd big brother, big tech and MSM aren’t concerned about the far left, only the far right?
Why would big tech, and so many corporations, care about politics at all?
Why would they tend to side with the left against the right?
Do you really think it’s because corporations, which practice slave labor in 3rd world countries, care?
They don’t.
Government and the military works together with big tech, MSM and megacorporations.
Government subsidizes them, and in turn, corporations are loyal to government.
They work for each other and not for us, you cannot separate government from corporations and say, one is good, or at least a lot better than the other, they both work in tandem to screw us over.
These days, the corporate state has been more afraid of the populist right than the populist left, just because the populist right has been gaining far more ground with the people than the populist left.
The populist right tends to be anti-war, libertarian and nationalist, the corporate state is pro-war, globalist and authoritarian.
The corporate state is opposed to some factions of the right, just as they’re opposed to some factions of the left, they opportunistically co-opt and exploit both left and right, they use what works for them, and discard what doesn’t.
Government has far more power than social media has, government has power over every aspect of life, social media only has power over one, altho it’s an important one.
Do you fear social media censoring the, whatever you want to call it, the alt, far or populist left at all?
We have some control over big business, we are free to work for them, buy their products, or not.
It’s not perfect, but we have some control over them, just as we have some control over government.
K: as I have made clear over these many, many years,
I consider the tyranny of big business/corporations being
the single biggest issue facing us as human beings…"
G: the corporation is way, way, way more dangerous then the government
and way more in control then the government ever was…
[/quote]
On its own, the corporation can’t legally restrict, detain and execute you, government can, all the corporation can do is refuse to serve you.
K: a corporation can get you tossed into jail… but that really isn’t the whole of the entire
corporate world domination of you or me or all of us…
for example are you aware that of car companies, there are only 6 in the whole world,
of breakfast cereals there are only 5 breakfast companies, and of media corporations,
that there are only 6 who own 95% of all media in America…that over 100 corporations
that make a billion or more in profits, don’t pay taxes including Amazon…
you whine about big tech and fail to mention the entire corporate mess that
dominates America…big tech/media isn’t isolated and separate from the other
companies, they are part of them and the right wing appeasement of corporate
America has caused in large part the power of big tech…
the right wing has cheered when the corporation was give the right of a
person… that decision alone has dramatically changed the corporate landscape…
that moscow Mitch held up the entire stimulus package to give corporations
legal immunity from lawsuits stemming from covid…
the right wing has catered to the big corporations and big tech and now you whine
because it isn’t doing your bidding…tough shit… what about when the left
complained bitterly about the corporate welfare given to big business during the
last tax cuts… which caused most people who make less then 75,000 a year
taxes to go UP but hay, the wealthy and corporations got their big tax cuts…
in fact, the entire of the big tech/media domination lies at the right wing feet…
you gave them tax breaks and rewrote entire sections of law to allow them to happen…
you can’t give big business and big tech all the tools to dominate America
and then whine when they use it against you… what did you think was going to
happen? no, I have fought against big business and that includes big tech
but the right keeps on giving them handouts and corporate welfare
and the power over our lives…
you want to blame someone, trying blaming the face in the mirror…
Kropotkin
Not all rightwingers are the same, some are against corporate welfare, tax loopholes and the personizing of corporations across the board, not just when it suits them, rightwingers like Maxime Bernier in Canada and Rand Paul.
They’re also against fractional reserve banking, regime change wars and all forms of social control, whether it’s leftwing social control, or rightwing.
They’re libertarians, not crony capitalists.
At times, even tho they disagree on some things, they’ve made allies with the populist left.
Some are also ardent nationalists, and sometimes their nationalism precedes their libertarianism.
They adopt immigration reduction and protectionist policies, which aren’t strictly libertarian.
Altho they’re reluctant to increase regulations or taxes, some’re at least willing to prevent multinationals from doing business within their jurisdiction, if they believe the multinational will be corrupt or exploitive.
Some aren’t entirely opposed to increasing taxes or regulations, but believe they should be implemented at the local level more.
do y’all really want to argue in favor
of a bunch of companies banding together
who together hold monopoly over communications
to refuse service to speech that they don’t like?
a business can do whatever they want with their property
that is not my issue
it is monopoly I am against
monopolies are an impediment to free market
We don’t have capitalism, we have fractional reserve banking, and corporate welfare, regulation and tax loopholes for big business, so there’s little point in socialists and capitalists blaming each other.
And we will continue to have corporatism, so long as the populist left fears the populist right more than the corporatist, war mongering ‘center’, and vice versa.
The center is the problem, they’re not the center at all, they’re totally owned by the rich and powerful.
We have to start taking chances, support so called ‘radicals’, stop playing ‘lesser of two evils’ politics.
Myself I prefer either libertarianism, or socialism to what we have now, what we have now is far worse than both.
Corporations are rewarded for being politically correct with government subsidies and tax breaks.
What is political correctness?
Speech that benefits the powers that be.
They’re not just anti-racism and sexism, I mean they’re pro-racism and sexism against whites and men, they’re against anything that challenges them, against conspiracy theories of any kind, not just ones coming from the right, but ones coming from the left too, altho the right tends to be the bigger scapegoat these days.
It just so happens quasi-populists like Trump, Bolsonaro, Farage and so on started gaining ground in the mid to late 10s, if leftwing populists had’ve gained ground, they’d probably be going to war against them instead.
I saw the media turn against Sanders like it did against Trump when Sanders started gaining ground.
The way I see it, people have got to stop thinking in terms of left and right, and more in terms of us, represented by populists and various antiestablishment schools of thought, and them.
The establishment hides behind left, right and center, they’re neither.
What they fear most of all is left and right uniting on some key things against the status quo.
I am waiting for someone to address the OP assuming there are people who disagree with it.
Observer? Urwrong?
I side with EFF on the matter
it’s a good read i promise
eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/b … -and-stack
the precedent this sets is fucking horrible for everyone
also, on the importance of free speec
best 30 minutes you’ll spend today:
youtube.com/watch?v=EuNeqawPuuY
Just going to barge in on some points here:
Politically the left currently has the “moral highground”, and authoritarians who call themselves leftists are trying to manipulate both business and government into bowing to their version of progression e.g. affirmative action etc.
Private business is simply responding to consumer demand, because they already have the support of the right. They want the business of both left and right.
MSM knows it can whip up the highest emotional response from these authoritarians and sell the most as a result. They want the business of both left and right.
Yeah, all private business can do is refuse to serve you even your basic physiological needs, indirectly sentencing you to death if you can’t afford to pay enough to make them profit.
That way they’re in the clear because “obviously” it’s the fault of the individual who died, even if a company has more than enough means to have helped the casualty.
Government relies on taxation from private companies to afford to prob up such a person, and if they are starved of funds it’s their fault and rich private companies are completely off the hook.
People can die as a result of poorly funded workplace conditions, maybe a prison is privately run and detained people die there, maybe a private security company kills somebody, but then it’s all “oops, let’s try not to do that again”, it’s just one private company out of many, people will probably keep buying maybe even unawares, and the owners will just start anew under a different name if any brand name reputation is compromised. But if the government does it? Oh boy. Everyone knows exactly who to point their finger at, everything is political and out in the open, accountability is much higher, politician’s careers are ended, but it’s fine - they’ll just find another job in the private sector. There isn’t really much difference between the capacity to oppress here, except it’s indirect and hidden and the private level, and direct and out in the open at the public level. It’s good that government is so regulated, and it’s a good sign that we can see its malpractice. It’s bad that private companies are not nearly so regulated and it’s a bad sign that its malpractice is much less conspicuous.
I’d recommend asking the left just how anti-war they are. The fact that the alliance between private business and state is pro-war has nothing to do with the left. Supporters of war and soldiers are FAR more rightist than leftist. As far as they’re concerned they’re fighting the just fight against people who deserve it. You almost never get that same attitude amongst the left. So who is supporting the pro-war agenda here?
Government shouldn’t be censoring anyone. If private companies are going to be public platforms, then free speech could apply only to the users without any “corporate personality” rights that make the company a legal person with free speech rights to override the free speech of their users. But the first amendment ends up protecting the company, enabling them to pick and choose its users to portray the image they want to portray, at the expense of the “undesirable” user speech that they don’t want shared. And then the government is blamed for failing to uphold the first amendment? What a joke. How about users use public forums however they choose, and gravitate to whichever ones they like the best? But that would restrict private business rights to the same degree as government… - how awful for the right.
Exactly - all laymen (the vast majority) have is our purchasing power over business, and indirect democracy every few years over government. Big companies have huge purchasing power and the funds to poor into lobbying to get even more purchasing power in league with the government. Where is the power of the people over the powerful i.e. where is the Socialism? If you’d rather hand over all your power, you can be content with negligible purchasing power and an occasional general election. The people should have control over business and government to match or even exceed their power over us. Such is the left wing cause. I’d gladly ally with the right to reel big private business in so that they cease their alliance with government. This needs to be done BEFORE technology is even more integrated into people’s lives.
Who do you get the impression is arguing in favour of private companies banding together, and with government to hold a monopoly over communications?
i saw a cut and dry defense of corporate censorship in the OP
that’s all i saw
so yeah the OP did give me that impression
and I’m just sitting here thinking well?
are we going to let people be silenced, just like that?
and i also think it’s massively hypocritical
that it’s the same people
who years ago threw a huge fit
over gays not being able to buy a wedding cake
and it’s all fun and games
when it’s just a matter of going to another business
but what happens when your internet provider for your entire city
cuts your internet access down?
what are you going to do then
run your own optic fiber across the fucking atlantic?
what if private business owned the street in front of your house?
try that one out as a thought experiment
can they go like
“we’re not infringing on your right to come and go
you just can’t use our street”
That is… honestly bizarre.
You made me second guess myself with how sure you were, and I re-read the OP yet another few times.
Literally nothing in there defending corporate censorship.
Like, nothing at all.
And it’s “all you saw”? 
It’s actually kind of excited my curiosity how you were able to read it that way - and on reflection it seems like you’re not even the only one who managed to do so.
All it’s saying is that people are often seeming to misunderstand how free speech doesn’t apply to Twitter users, or any privately owned speech platform even if it’s a public forum. And that’s just a true statement of fact, as is on record as passed by the Supreme Court. That’s paragraph 1.
And it’s saying that it only applies against the government from censoring speech. That’s paragraph 2, and he quoted the first amendment to back it up in paragraph 4. Paragraph 3 simply clarifies how these facts apply to private firms like Facebook and Twitter.
Paragraph 5 is a reflection on how P4’s quotation doesn’t apply to private firms. P6 is commentary on private business priorities that exist instead of having the same first amendment restrictions that apply to government. P7 applies the concept to himself as an example, with a historical fact about the history on the topic. P8 ties up his point about private business in relation to the first amendment and P9 is ironically a quip about actually reading things properly.
Nowhere, not once was there any hint of prescriptive suggestion - it was pure description of facts that turn out to be all correct. There was no implication of preference for or against anything, corporate censorship or otherwise.
Is this really what’s been happening on this board all this time, and it’s only really just crystallised beyond doubt right here? I mean, I know the other guys are usually just too dumb for that to be clear, but I know you’re not. So I’m genuinely fascinated how you read into that post what you did, and so clearly too. I hope you’re as confounded and interested by this as I am - I think it’s really quite cool. Or maybe just a simple mistake, I dunno, but that’s boring.
To me it is “honestly bizarre” that you think phon’s reply is honestly bizarre.
Phoneutria is certainly right. The OP did present the case that it is lawful for corporations to band together and limit speech on their platforms - because the US Constitution’s First Amendment didn’t apply to them. And the argument presented is almost right - just not quite.
How did you miss it?
Like we are expected to believe that if social media bands together to censor someone on the left, these fulminating fanatics on the right would not be cheering them on.
That’s the thing about objectivism: the utter hypocrisy embedded in it.
I expected you to have a warped interpretation, just not her.
She specifically said “defense” of corporate censorship. Not factual description of corporate censorship that the First Amendment doesn’t care about, which is all the OP mentioned.
The OP also didn’t mention any “banding together” by corporations, even though (as in her article) the actions of big players coincided to that effect whether intentionally or not. So that’s you injecting her words into the OP that weren’t there, like a kind of shared hallucination.
I’d ask how you missed this, but I except nothing else at this point based on consistent previous experience.
And as usual, I missed nothing but yeh, no surprises there either.
But y’know fuck it - let’s say I’m wrong - where does the OP say anything about corporations banding together and not merely acting individually as they would be expected to do due to private interests?
Which sentences in the OP specifically defend corporations limiting free speech on their platforms. I want quotes.
Monopolies are not forbidden by the US Constitution either - certainly not by the First Amendment. That is a statute issue.
I suggest you never pursue a carrier as a barrister.
His argument was that there was nothing illegal about what the corporations did. And that is almost right (perhaps a first but certainly an improvement for PK). What is left out of the presented argument in a court is a part of the argument - “deceit on the court by omission” - actually illegal even in the US but rarely enforced.
His argument was in support of the legality of the corporation’s actions - as a whole - which happens to include by default their collusion to accomplish “what they want” in regards to limiting free speech.
He claims that it is “clearly allowed”. But that is actually not true - not even under the Title V 230 amnesty. But it takes a legal mind and honest judges to see that (none of whom could be found on this board).
WHERE?!
You got fucking nothing. Like I thought.
Now sit down and think about what you’ve just tried to pull, yet again. Apologise if you want, blame it on your specific “bubble of belief” (without diluting it to “everyone has one equally”) - I don’t care. Just stop with the intellectual dishonesty.
I don’t care how passionate you are about your politics, I will continue to expose this shit time and again - and trust me you do yourself no favours every time you try it. Your evaluations of my potential competence as a barrister mean literally nothing at this point - if anything I’m sick of people telling me I’d make a good one all my life. “Observe” how in return I don’t want to dissuade you from a career as a barrister despite your numerous and significant shortcomings - I want you to get better. I remember you telling me it’s an area of interest and enthusiasm for you and I would never stoop so low as to try and put out a productive spark just to spite someone. But you will get nowhere along that path if you continue to try to keep up this pretense that you are better than you are. I could be a resource for somebody like you but you just cannot seem to stop yourself from squandering it.
But whatever.
Everything you said could be true (apart from the above quote which is flagrantly false, doing nothing to support it your accusations) and you’d still not have backed up the specific accusations countered by my last post - to which you merely pretend to have answered.
Thanks for proving me right again and everything, but stop disgracing yourself every time you do it, please. For your sake.