Propaganda - and Social Media - and Free Speech

I read a few times the post you lied about. HE did not tell you he is in favor of Govt having more control.

 

Sure after I digest what you claim.

 

It's not complicated. I'll wait...

 

I believe you wandered over the farm first then you said this.

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.

Private in that they are not funded by Government yet they support one of the two major parties. So that means to you they are free, to me they are authoritarians. Such as when they shut down free speech. If you think the Government should shut it down, that would explain your position.

But you wandered into the nation of free men. And of course Authoritarianism is a poor choice for both Government and the firms such as Facebook and Twitter.

I am free in one fashion. I am free to be educated in the system used by Facebook, Google and others but not free due to lack of funding. It takes millions of dollars to compete with any of those.

 

Do you dispute that social media providers are private entities?

Private as in they are owned by private parties, not by the state. As private parties they are free to support whomever they please -- just as you are.

Any private enterprise would fit that definition that you wrongly-apply: Authoritarianism applies to the state -- with which you have a mandatory association, hence they have authority over you. By contrast, you associate with private enterprises on a strictly voluntary basis: They have no capacity to exercise authority over you without your consent and acquiescence.

There is no right to free speech on someone else's private property. We may agree that FB's actions violate the principles of free speech, but they arein no way capable of violating our right to it.

What are you trying to claim here? Please try to be more clear in your posts.

Are Facebook and Twitter not run by free men?

This is known as capitalism. It is not without its down side, but it is the best economic system in terms of incentive and innovation.

 

If the state does not have the right to censor us all, and we are the state, how can we the state owners censor others?

 

No, but given the public rejects the right of the state to censor us, and we are the state, we can't censor any of us.
I have seen how FB censors speech. They should notice how it works for the Feds and do things that way.

They went so far as to censor our top elected official. And some posters I read on Youtube were also censored if not banned. Not for making threats, for exercising free speech.

The issue here as to the corporations, they are not individuals yet as to speech oprerate as individuals.

Say Corporation A hates Trump.
Corporation B loves Trump.
But is it the nature of the stockholders to all hate or all love Trump?
So it is some management person hating trump that shut him down on the platform.

Capitalism is the free movement of goods and capital to others at costs both agree to. I am not objecting to capitalism.

For the hell of it, if China owns most of the Stock in our firms, do you want China to sensor you using those firms?

 

Suppose the republicans' got control of all corporations who we use as platforms and they banned Biden or his supporters, will you approve that?

 

Nope -- ya don't got it - have absolutely no clue what I am in favor of .. try again..

 

Think I'm going to start a thread with that post. Not a single person that has argued against regulating social media has responded to it. As if they "don't see it".

 

Are you like seriously not able to figure out that forcing the SM Oligopolies not to engage in censorship - forces them not to engage in censorship - of content

or is it that you can not figure out how the abiity to manage the message -- via censorship of content - harms free speech .. nor that the desired outcome is "free speech" freedom of information .. freedom from state sponsored propaganda being forced on the masses - with no ability to respond - in a way that will impact the masses .. as that portal is closed to your nasty thoughts.

What is unclear to you my child ?

 

OIC, my mistake, sometimes i get mixed up as to who said what

You bring up a good point, it's not easy for FB to police itself. Then again, that's what they get 150 billion for.

 

So you’re ok with private entities having its own rules regarding what can be posted? Ok cool. So what have you been arguing about?

 

Your multiple ad hominem fallacies betray the weakness of your argument and your lack of intent to engage in a factual good faith discussion. Your concession is accepted.

 

There is no monopoly that has their political speech or opinions regulated regarding what they can't say or have to say. All rules of regulation are limited and precisely specific and are customized by industry or company. Now you might have a point in that somehow these media "monopolies" might be brought more under control under anti-trust laws. This strikes me as very iffy, but I dunno. It would be hard to show monopolistic practices in an industry that has 3 or 4 major competitive players and a dozen smaller competitors.

 

Your so full of it -- I gave an example of a Ghetto - there are numerous other examples - never did I try to separate from the rest of the population .. and this has been stated to you a number of times ..yet you persist in this strawman.

get a valid argument -- and learn what statistically significant means - and let me know how many times you call some black dude in a bar the N-Word - before you get punched in the fact.

What a joke .. go away.

 

Go back and read ... perhaps you will figure it out Hint - of the entities out there - Private or Publicly Traded - there are only a few 0.00001% who are Monopolies - and that is what is being discussed .. not Private Joe -- or even Public Joe -

This distinction should help.

 

Do you want the govt to force private entities like Facebook to not have its own rules and be forced to allow people to post whatever they want no matter how potentially harmful it could be? Let’s see if you can actually give a direct answer this time.

 

The citizen has rights, not the state: The state is authorized by the citizens to act on their behalf within a narrowly-defined constitutional framework, having derived its just powers from the consent of the governed.

If I come to your house and call you a lying piece of **** who drinks out of the toilet bowl, are you violating my right to free speech by kicking me out of your house? I mean you just said we are the state and can't censor any of us...

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But unless you become a majority shareholder in Facebook -- or are able to put together a quorum of shareholders -- they can tell you to pound sand where the sun don't shine.

And?

In fact, you are wrong: Corporations are legal persons. They have the same rights as you or me.

Please reformulate this word salad into a cogent argument. Thank you.

If you believe it is the proper role of government to intervene in the lawful conduct of a private enterprise, then you are absolutely objecting to capitalism.

Censor. A sensor is a device that reads a value and returns a result, usually as a specified voltage impulse.

China is incapable of censoring me. They may require agreement with their terms of service should I wish to voluntarily use the service they are offering.

 

Of course. It is their right.

 

? what Ad hom fallacy .. What are you talking about .. please show just one ..

"Are you like seriously not able to figure out that forcing the SM Oligopolies not to engage in censorship - forces them not to engage in censorship - of content"

The above is not Ad Hom Fallacy - it is a question - an assumption really that you are able to figure out the above.

"or is it that you can not figure out how the abiity to manage the message -- via censorship of content - harms free speech .. nor that the desired outcome is "free speech" freedom of information .. freedom from state sponsored propaganda being forced on the masses - with no ability to respond - in a way that will impact the masses .. as that portal is closed to your nasty thoughts"

notice the or .. I am searching for what it is you are not understanding .. you do understand .. then

What is unclear to you my child ?

Condescending perhaps .. but - well .. you kind of deserve it .. but not Ad Hom fallacy.. Ad hom fallacy is when you attack the other person - in an attempt to refute their claim.. I have done no such thing .. no idea what your claim is .. other than .. you clearly missed a few of the obvious points to ask such simplistic questions about my claims ..

"What is the end goal" - Free speech of course -

"How is this achieved" - stop the censorship.

Clear as NY-Snow ? good ..

 

???????? Why would the political opinions of a Steel Monopoly be regulated ? Why the fck would you do this. Why would there be regulations on any monopoly . with respect to political speech -

UNLESS - that monopoly .. was one who had a monopoly on political speech.

 

I am not here to teach a class on the rules of logic. But I will happily point out where you are wrong and precisely how wrong you are. Argumentum ad hominem, literally: "argument to the man." It does not have to be a personal attack, but often it is -- like the little snide remarks and petty playground taunts that pervade most of your posts. Your fellow forum member -- potentially your adversary, the person taking a position contrary to yours -- is NOT THE TOPIC. Calling out your opinion of them, their intelligence, calling them a child, etc.. is exactly the logical fallacy we call the ad hominem. It not only serves as a distraction from any rational argument you might potentially make (which in your case is none), but it betrays your own lack of confidence in your own "argument." Your argument, and the facts you proffer to support it should be sufficient to make your point without resorting to logical fallacies and slander. A factual rebuttal that addresses the topic supports your argument. A logical fallacy that is not rationally-related to the topic detracts from it.

You already have free speech. You call me the minute the state imposes a penalty on your for expressing your ridiculous opinions.

LOL. You sound like AOC when someone asked it how it intended to pay for its proposed $17 trillion Green New Deal and it says "what do you mean? You just pay for it."

For **** sake: HOW will you "stop the (not actually censorship) censorship" ??? You answer that one and I'll grant you the privilege in continuing this fascinating discussion we are having.

 

Isn't it strange how a corporation that is owned by many thousands of persons can ban your free speech yet the Government can't?

 

If I or you can be banned by either of us, why would the Government not have the ability to ban?

Give you an example. Suppose it was Trump that banned Facebook and Google?