Propaganda - and Social Media - and Free Speech

The most protected kind of speech is that which conflicts with the official State Sponsored Narrative of the day -- nothing is more sacrosanct - and the ability of the Press to be separate from the state - and free to express the same - "Free" meaning you don't have a boss who is in bed with the State sponsored narrative who forces you to tow the party line. - like we see on CNN - MSNBC these days w/r to covid

The big Social Media Giants have corned the market - have a kind of oligopoly on speech - what message they wish to promote - or censure. If this were a "foreign actor " we would call this medling with our election proces on Steroids .. but it is the same as a foreign actor - as is a publically traded company - many shares owned by foreigners .. and special interests and in context it matters not - as is same thing.

We have seen propaganda like never before with Covid -- of the state sponsored kind .. manufacturing consent across the globe - via the global Public Relations entities ... selling the public a bill of goods - which most have bought - using all the techniques of Authoritarian-Totalitarian regimes - to shape the mind of the masses.

We must not let the Google's and Facebooks of the world control the message ... this must be verboten .. and in fact .. somewhere in the books ... already is verboten. .

 

I warned people many years ago free speech was in jeopardy when I was asked not to use racial slurs. Looks like I was right.

 

Your poll is a false dichotomy.

So, I answer none of the above.

Caveat emptor: Social media is an industry comprised of private entities, the use of which is strictly voluntary. Private parties lack the capacity to violate your free speech rights, and unless you are a shareholder, you lack standing to do anything about it.

But in a nation of free men, authoritarianism is always a poor choice. You are also free to start your own social media company.

 

Ha Ha That post better stay at 100% for yes! You really don't think the authoritarians are going to speak up do you? It all started down hill about the time they burned Huck Finn.

 

Wonder if you feel the same way about utilities? Don't vote Democrat?.....we're going to shut off your electric! Only difference is, this addresses public speech in a public forum. Hitler loved the control of speech. Social Media is something he would have loved to control through a private cover!

 

"Blacks are stupid and violent, the 2020 election was stolen by widescale fraud, Covid isn't real and the vaccinations are killing everyone. There is a plot to replace whites with Mexicans.

Only a violent uprising will save the US. Let's organise one"

Spoiler: Read this before responding

[NOTE: SARCASM. I WAS MAKING A JOKE FOR THE PURPOSES OF ADDRESSING THE OP AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING ANY OF THIS IS ACTUALLY TRUE.]

 

Straw man: Social media is a luxury. Electric power is a necessity hence a regulated public utility operated through public-private enterprises in exchange for right-of-way on public lands. Also, please tell me how the power company would know who you voted for?

Correction: private property open to the public by invitation. That invitation can be withdrawn for any reason they see fit.

See: Godwin.

 

Electricity is also a luxury before the modern world. The IRS can target by political affiliation, so could an electric company. They could probably find out very easy throughCyber Companies.

Maybe a "Private Monopoly" it is a monopoly nonetheless.

 

Whay is a monopoly exactly?

 

Actually - no false dichotomy ... no understanding of free speech - nor what an oligopoly is and how it functions- nor the ability to absorb new information.

1) Social Media is not comprised of private entities - is is composed of mostly publicly traded entities.
2) the claim that someone could just start a new oil company did not change the fact that STD Oil was a Monopoly .. same with railroad
3) Private parties do not lack the capacity to violate free speech -- where did you come up with that ringy dingy ?

Now go and learn.

 

Well ... we have a partial dissenter in Bow to Robots -- who claimed false dochotomy so didn't answer..

 

None of the above addresses the OP - just a serious of moronic tropes in an effort to demonize the messenger.

For the record - my arguments against Red/Trump/Religious Right are way better than yours .. so save your strawman and Ad Hom fallacy for someone who at least is in the right camp.

 

Your confusing racial slurs with free speech and conflation of the two - is what puts free speech in jeopard .... now go and learn

 

Actually it's highly relevant. Don't plot/cause harm to democracy/others and the consequences of your 'free speech' remains intact. I couldn't care less about your self-conjectures.

 

That was not clear at all from your post .. hence the requirement for conjecture.

Plots to harm others are not free speech though .. so the relevence is still obscure - What does this have to do with the Free Speech being restricted by Social Media and Media in general.

The general public was not plotting to cause harm to democracy .. yet their speech was restricted - so your claim is false

Last - who gets to decide what "Harm to Democracy" is ? So flawed on another front .. .. Plotting to change some system that happens to be democratic .. causing harm to that system - is protected speech .. and so you don't seem to understand what free speech includes - and its purpose .. which is exactly to cause harm to the system in place .. and the main reason it is protected.

 

Comments inserted.

Hopefully more sensible people than those trying to undermine democracy. I'll call that a win...

 

I've already learned we now have speech police and you sound like you are on the force. But I'll defend your right to say what you believe and I'll never give up my right to use racial slurs. Fair enough?

 

No idea what you think is a win - as you had to be corrected left right and center -

 

A choice between two loaded questions is precisely a false dichotomy.

LOL. Your argument confuses publicly-traded with publicly-owned. Let me explain the difference: Publicly-traded entities are private entities. A public entity: ie, the state, is owned by the public, the entire public. Private entities are owned by private parties -- could be one, could be a dozen through a partnership or a close corporation, could be millions through equity ownership traded on an exchange, but publicly-traded =/= publicly-owned. Just as Wal-Mart is a publicly-traded private enterprise, so is Facebook: Patronage is strictly voluntary and comes with terms and comditions which govern the relationship between the end-user and the private enterprise, which can be revoked by the private enterprise at any time resulting in the cessation of the relationship. Just like Wal-Mart can remove from its private property and trespass Rashida Tlaib for (hypothetically) running down the aisle shouting "exterminate the Jews," so too can Facebook remove a user from its private property (their server) for a violation of their terms of service: Facebook's house, Facebook's rules. Private property -- whether your home, or a business open to the public -- is private. You own the property, you make the rules.

Now you're moving the goalposts: you are now arguing "social media" should be broken up under anti-trust? How does this solve your "problem"? A Facebook broken up into smaller Facebooks still operates exactly the same way on the front end.

Well there's this old piece of paper under glass at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.. It contains some sections called "amendments." The first one should answer all your questions. Pro tip: this old paper restrains the state, not private entities.

Fallacy, argumentum ad hominem: only betrays your lack of confidence in your own argument, and the inherent weakness thereof.

 

You are conflating two things that don't belong in the same basket - and thus will be helpless - your arguments against the censorship police.

This is a distinction that is rather subtle - but important - "Essential liberty" - is not the right to go out and kill someone - do you get this distinction ? .. what do you think it is ? Whats the difference ?

 

Is that what you thought you did?

 

How is the question "Yes" speech must be protected loaded ? and 2) if you let an interest - be it public - private - or a unholy union of the two as is the case here - control the message - there is no such thing as a functional democratic process ... you end up in "Tyranny of the Majority" / Simple Majority Mandate - as justification for law .. and give huge power to the interest to influene and make law -- as is the case here ...

but I couldn't fit all that into the question -- and it is not a false choice .. you just can't deal with the consequences of your choice - unt dat ist problem.

You go on to post some gibberish on the definition of Public vs Private company - so no need to correct your nonsense in that respect - as it matters not .. it is an interest .. public or private.

Your lack of understanding of what a monopoly/oligopoly is - and how it relates to the issue .. is not me moving the goal posts . The companies in question have a monopoly on speech at present ..

Monopolies are now allowed without stringent regulation .. have follow rules that other companies do not have to follow .. Don't have the same rights other companies do ..

 

No.. you were not right .. as you do not know what "Free Speech" is - so have no basis to claim it is in jeopardy.

 

Definitions matter. Your statement "don't plot/cause harm to democracy/others" lacks context and nuance.

For example, HUD housing has a very bad habit of paying to put massive numbers of low income Democrat voters into prosperous Republican communities against the will of the conservatives who built those communities. This harms the Democratic will of the people in that community. It changes and subverts the community for the worse (and to the political advantage of Democrats). This translates into higher crime rates, less cohesion and happiness in the community and ultimately to the destruction of the community. It has happened hundreds of times over the decades. This is a plot by the federal government to cause harm to successful conservative communities and to deny them freedom of association (which is supposedly protected through the Constitution). I think this plot to harm "Democracy" should be punished by dismantling HUD.

I fear that your definition of Democracy does not include the concept of productive tax paying middle class conservatives having the ability to build and maintain communities that share their values. That is very odd given that the elites are able to do so with impunity. Is it really a Democracy when the rules for the rulers are completely different than those for the plebes?

 

Democratic Party Stances: Citizens United was a travesty!
Democratic Party Stances: Dark money affects elections and needs to be brought into the light!
Democratic Party Stances: We need to stop the lobbying by corporations!
Democratic Party Stances: We need to get rid of SuperPacs! (meanwhile uses them)

All of those stances above are about privately owned businesses. All of them involve some form of Free Speech. Anyone can start up a SuperPac (their own social media platform). Anyone can lobby (send letters). Anyone can give money to the candidate of their choice thereby expressing their Free Speech just like its considered Free Speech to burn the American Flag (hand out pamphlets).

But ensuring that Twitter, who has more memberships than the entire United States, and Google who handles searches measuring twice the amount of people on the entire planet every year (they also own YouTube who has more memberships than the populations of China and the United States combined), doesn't make it to where their platforms can affect the election by censorship? God Forbid!!!

Btw, Anyone else remember when Democrats and everyone else on the left insisted that these companies DIDN'T censor about a year - year and a half ago? Now they've embraced it.