Trump Blasts Social Media ‘Censorship': ‘Discriminating Against Republican/Conservative Voices’

In your asinine opinion. Some of us tend to think that discrimination is wrong whether for race or sexual orientation. I know Republicans and religious bigots tend to have a different opinion but that is societies problem not mine.

 

The Bill of Rights protects citizens against government overreach and abuse of power.

 

Define " content of their properties" and " access of their properties"

 

First - Brewskier is tent

First off - In terms of the 'free speech' and 'censorship' arguments - https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech_2x.png

Second - The internet isn't just 'facebook/youtube/reddit/google'. There is a vast internet that exists beyond the 5-10 biggest sites on earth.

Third - The cream always rises. If your message was powerful enough to grab the majority of folks, then you wouldn't have to worry about finding a platform. Platforms would come to you. Maybe you and others should think about the fact that maybe the majority of folks simply don't agree with you?

 

A reasoned person would make a reasoned assumption on what that definition is. If you are unable to do that, then that would be your problem, not mine.

 

Actually, we have a deeper understanding than the Left. You're arguing for an exclusion clause. That private persons are not held to the same restrictions as the government. But if that's the case, then any perceived violation of the government's is doable by the person. And in which case, the bill of rights is for all intents and purposes mute. After all, we as individuals can inflict harm onto our fellow citizens without lawful reprecussions(as long as there isn't anything in stature against it.)

 

ʕ ͡° ʖ̯ ͡°ʔ You asked me for right-leaning outlets and I gave you a few. You don't have to follow them as they aren't the only ones out there. All this matters because some conservative are pretending persecution when they still have their own venues.

Running off pretty much everyone means that if you don't follow the conservative thought (in some cases absolutely) put forth by those who set the agenda for their site, you will be personally attacked and your point of view will be addressed with very little, if any, substance. If one can't get an honest discussion going or even get others to address their actual position, they'll eventually stop bothering and the site will end up a hostile echo chamber.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense in what you requested and what I provided, so I'm ignoring it.

 

Wasn't argueing anything of the sort. Your deeper understanding is only in your mind.

 

The left is trying to silence opposing viewpoints, just like the commies in China.

 

Because their 'platforms'(and that includes PF as well in a sense) are on the open-space known as the internet. Basically, we can equate the internet to some mecca park or something where everyone gathers. The only reason we're having this argument(as your article illustrates) is that the government didn't move to ensure bill of right protections in the Net.

Otherwise, there is absolutely no difference. None. Zip. Nada. So, when it comes to a public service, you obviously can't discriminate against race, age, sex, orientation, etc(or even a belief system). This is the consistent argument not only held by the government, but at one point by the Democratic Party. But that was before Trump came to power.

If you want the right to exclude or discriminate, then you have to become a private association. Again, this is the consistent argument before Trump came to power. So being brutally consistent, if FB, Twitter, etc want these rights you want to claim them to have, they need to start charging for the users of the accounts. Or forgo that altogether and just make it a private website.

But the idea that you can participate in the public sphere with private rights is hypocritical. Or would be hypocritical, before Trump came to power.

 

No privately funded newspaper, website, radio station, should be required by law to voice political views they do not support.

such would be Fascism

 

(An extension of my post but should probably stand alone):

The difference between the major social media platforms and Conservative sites is how they are driven and how they are driven contributes to the size in user base/traffic. The content for Twitter, FaceBook, Google, etcetera can be set by virtually anyone. Because of this setup, there is almost no limit in interests for others to post and comment on. Therefore, the user base will be far larger than content specific sites.

Conversely, conservative sites are not set by the users. They are usually managed in a way to promote conservative ideas meaning the content is narrow in scope. Naturally, content-limited sites will not be as big as any platform that caters to almost every type of topic or user in the world. Moreover, good or bad, it makes sense that conservative sites would drive off users who promote anything too far off from conservatism.

 

If a public company has a stock(Facebook) and lobbies the government, how can it possibly call itself a private entity? It can't. We're not talking the old gentleman's club here lol.

 

So you can't even define your imaginary terms. You used them and yet cannot even explain what they mean. Don't think your lack of language ability is my problem.

 

Facebook has 2.23 billion monthly users. Add in Twitter and Instagram and you've got a massive liberal monopoly using it's power to stifle the free speech of conservatives. It's the scale of the monopoly that makes it a problem; a problem that needs to be reigned in by government intervention.

It was the same problem we had when Standard Oil controlled the oil industry, or Henry Ford the automobile industry, or AT&T the nation's phone service, or Microsoft monopolizing most of the software industry. If free enterprise was a worthy goal in attempting to break up those monopolies, surely free speech is a worthy goal in attempting to break up the monopoly of liberal media outlets.

You either believe in free speech, or you don't. Which is it for you?

 

Democrats have long been in favor of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. Do I understand your comment correctly that you would oppose that?

 

Or as defined by Investopedia:

Going public refers to a private company's initial public offering (IPO), thus becoming a publicly traded and owned entity.

 

It’s true. Here I am in Yellowstone last year

We aren’t just talking about those. The actual web hosting companies and domain registrars are also involved. Your web address can simply be taken from you, which means you can’t go to a competitor and re-register, if a company like Google doesn’t like your content. Look at what happened to the Daily Stormer.

If that’s true why the need to violently suppress these views? Why so many “hate speech laws?” Why are 90 year old grandmothers being sent to prison for questioning the details of a historical event? It seems like these views are threatening enough to the powers that be that they don’t want people to have the freedom to discuss them.

 

That's not the topic of the thread. None of these examples are service providers.

The topic is on service providers, like social media companies or Internet domain registrars, engaging in political discrimination and refusing service to views they don't like.

As I've said before, the right comparison is your phone company cutting your line because they don't like your political views.

 

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/protected-classes-under-anti-discrimination-laws.html

In some states, conservatives are protected from discrimination.

 

Well said. I’ve used the gas company example in the past but phone company might be better.

 

ROFL.
"You can't run through a campsite. You can only ran...because it's past tents."
forgot to hit delete

While the Daily Stormer seems to be the vast exception to the general discourse online, I actually get where your coming from on this and it raises a lot of questions, both material and philosophical.

Should 'alternative' views be given a platform? And how does that jive with the Ideologically Conservative viewpoint that businesses should be allowed to decide who to do business with on their own, without outside/Govt intervention?
It's easy to answer when the topic is something like holocaust denial because only the most ardent of Nazi Supporters/Anti-Semites would believe it to be false.

But what happens when it's not so clear cut? Pro/Anti Abortion. Islam. Immigration. Etc. Topics without easy answers. These companies are run by people who are susceptible to ideas, politics, etc.. When the internet is such a driving force in society, who has the keys to the car, so to speak?

One thing I do believe is that if there is a Market, then there will be those who will serve that market. If your ideas are so unmarketable, then maybe you should reexamine them.

Also, to Note, that the DailyStormer is still up and running under https://dailystormer.name so they have obviously found a company willing to host them (for now).

Well lets use the Holocaust and your 90 year old grandma as an example.

First off, this is a perfect encapsulation of why it's bad to allow these ideas to propagate. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.

30 years ago if you were a holocaust denier then you were generally ostracized from society (and rightly so IMO). Now that the internet exists, anti-Semites the world over can discuss together their ideas, and find support in them. This creates confidence in that idea within the group. Now you have people willingly going outside, and being on tv wearing swastikas and Seig-Heiling down the streets. Where does that go in another 30 years? What happens if a group like that gains political power? Do we have to worry about another Hitler Figure? Heck, with the way things are going with Islam, do we get an anti-islam holocaust this time?

I know these are (at the moment) fantastical notions for the far future, but these are the reasons many fight against 'hate speech' because they don't want it become normalized to the point where such actions become considerable.

Personally I believe that people should be given freedom to speak their mind (without advocating for things like genocide or violence against others) because it shows me the character of the individual allowing me to dismiss them. But I also recognize that this critical thinking skill isn't a widespread thing, and many are susceptible to such influences if their lives lack such things (it's why most Terrorists started out as poor/ostracized/disaffected youths looking for somewhere to belong/hatred for someone/somegroup (kids in the middle east who's families are killed by stray military weapons, or poor kids looking to belong hooking up with Nationalist Militias and the like).

 

why dont Conservatives set up servers that will host their websites?

 

If you can't get a DNS company to provide you their services, then you can't get a 'name url'. Instead you have to try and promote an IP address for people to join.

 

Free speech is free speech--the government has no legal power to tell a private business who they can and cannot promote. Free speech is when its the government deciding who can and cannot speak.

“Censorship” is a term pertaining only to governmental action. No private action is censorship. No private individual or agency can silence a man or suppress a publication; only the government can do so. The freedom of speech of private individuals includes the right not to agree, not to listen and not to finance one’s own antagonists

[This collectivist notion] means that the ability to provide the material tools for the expression of ideas deprives a man of the right to hold any ideas. It means that a publisher has to publish books he considers worthless, false or evil—that a TV sponsor has to finance commentators who choose to affront his convictions—that the owner of a newspaper must turn his editorial pages over to any young hooligan who clamors for the enslavement of the press. It means that one group of men acquires the “right” to unlimited license—while another group is reduced to helpless irresponsibility.

--Ayn Rand
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/censorship.html

It is quite disquieting that in the 21st century that many Americans are unable to distinguish between free speech and censorship.