Spot the threat to free speech
-
@jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:
The need for it was diminished with cable, and died with the internet.
I think that is the question, has Twitter gotten to the size that once again raises the need?
Ironically Mr. Trump has probably influenced it's size.
wrote on 27 May 2020, 15:35 last edited by@Copper said in Spot the threat to free speech:
@jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:
The need for it was diminished with cable, and died with the internet.
I think that is the question, has Twitter gotten to the size that once again raises the need?
Ironically Mr. Trump has probably influenced it's size.
Twitter is like 7th largest social media site, excluding the foreign ones that aren't in use here.
If twitter is too large and needs the government to control its content surely Fox News does too.
-
When someone does something to hinder free speech (Twitter) a person who speaks up about it and vows to stop them from doing it again (Trump) that person is not guilty of hindering free speech, but of taking action against the blocking of free speech. It's just like man A walks up to man B and hits him in the face with his fist, man B then hits him back, and you're trying to accuse man B of starting a fight.
wrote on 27 May 2020, 15:39 last edited by jon-nyc@Larry said in Spot the threat to free speech:
When someone does something to hinder free speech (Twitter) a person who speaks up about it and vows to stop them from doing it again (Trump) that person is not guilty of hindering free speech, but of taking action against the blocking of free speech. It's just like man A walks up to man B and hits him in the face with his fist, man B then hits him back, and you're trying to accuse man B of starting a fight.
Man A vs Man B analogy fails. This is Government vs Man.
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 15:42 last edited by
I didn't know Twitter was a government agency... because you see, it was Twitter that made the first punch.
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 15:44 last edited by
The seventh largest social media site adding commentary to someone's unedited post isn't a threat to free speech.
The men with guns, or the rules enforced my men in suits with the implied power of the men with guns behind them, is the threat to free speech.
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 15:44 last edited by
We’ve created social platforms that are a perfect host for outside influences to polarize our society. Much of twitter and Facebook is not Americans expressing their right to free speech but meddling and manipulating. The evidence for this in bots is quite clear.
Second the right to free speech as a person is not the right of anonymous entity to spew polarizing garbage to millions of people. I don’t think the Constitution provides protection for that.
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 15:47 last edited by jon-nyc
@Loki To be serious I'm dead-dog certain there have been court cases on whether you lose your right to free speech if publishing anonymously and there's no way the courts would have ever allowed that. I think if you reflected on it for a while you wouldn't be for it either.
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 15:48 last edited by
Nope. I'm saying that Twitter tried to limit Trumps free speech, and he has a right to strike back. No, he has an obligation to strike back. We all have the same obligation. If you don't fight against attempts to limit freedom of speech, you will lose it.
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 15:52 last edited by
Free speech means free speech. In my way of seeing that, it's none of the courts' business.
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 15:53 last edited by xenon
Right - but there's a more basic issue at play here first.
Twitter is more akin to a bar.
The barkeep reigns supreme in the bar and can tell you to GTFO whenever they want. That's not a first amendment issue.
Do we want government to regulate social media as a first step?
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 15:55 last edited by
@Larry said in Spot the threat to free speech:
Free speech means free speech. In my way of seeing that, it's none of the courts' business.
Well, the courts only get involved when the government tries to limit it. So, if you believe in free speech the courts are your friend.
-
Right - but there's a more basic issue at play here first.
Twitter is more akin to a bar.
The barkeep reigns supreme in the bar and can tell you to GTFO whenever they want. That's not a first amendment issue.
Do we want government to regulate social media as a first step?
wrote on 27 May 2020, 15:59 last edited by@xenon said in Spot the threat to free speech:
Right - but there's a more basic issue at play here first.
Twitter is more akin to a bar.
The barkeep reigns supreme in the bar and can tell you to GTFO whenever they want. That's not a first amendment issue.
Do we want government to regulate social media as a first step?
The bar analogy doesn't work for me because of the size and reach of Twitter.
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 16:19 last edited by
For the record I think Twitter was idiotic for doing this, best case it will achieve the opposite of what they hoped. That’s the best case.
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 16:25 last edited by
I agree.
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 16:37 last edited by
Oh, if only Trump would boycott Twitter.
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 16:40 last edited by
He would still get reelected, because the democrats have embraced a failed ideology and are running a moron for president.
-
We’ve created social platforms that are a perfect host for outside influences to polarize our society. Much of twitter and Facebook is not Americans expressing their right to free speech but meddling and manipulating. The evidence for this in bots is quite clear.
Second the right to free speech as a person is not the right of anonymous entity to spew polarizing garbage to millions of people. I don’t think the Constitution provides protection for that.
wrote on 27 May 2020, 16:43 last edited by@Loki said in Spot the threat to free speech:
We’ve created social platforms that are a perfect host for outside influences to polarize our society. Much of twitter and Facebook is not Americans expressing their right to free speech but meddling and manipulating. The evidence for this in bots is quite clear.
And the thing being exploited here is each individual's eagerness to pounce when the other tribe is seen to be crazy or stupid or evil. The best way to immunize ourselves against those trolls is to stop being so eager to do that.
-
@Loki To be serious I'm dead-dog certain there have been court cases on whether you lose your right to free speech if publishing anonymously and there's no way the courts would have ever allowed that. I think if you reflected on it for a while you wouldn't be for it either.
wrote on 27 May 2020, 16:45 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:
@Loki To be serious I'm dead-dog certain there have been court cases on whether you lose your right to free speech if publishing anonymously and there's no way the courts would have ever allowed that. I think if you reflected on it for a while you wouldn't be for it either.
Well it’s not the anonymous person that I was thinking about in general but does that North Korean operative in Pyongyang have the right to free speech on Twitter and Facebook?
-
@Loki said in Spot the threat to free speech:
We’ve created social platforms that are a perfect host for outside influences to polarize our society. Much of twitter and Facebook is not Americans expressing their right to free speech but meddling and manipulating. The evidence for this in bots is quite clear.
And the thing being exploited here is each individual's eagerness to pounce when the other tribe is seen to be crazy or stupid or evil. The best way to immunize ourselves against those trolls is to stop being so eager to do that.
wrote on 27 May 2020, 16:49 last edited by@Horace said in Spot the threat to free speech:
@Loki said in Spot the threat to free speech:
We’ve created social platforms that are a perfect host for outside influences to polarize our society. Much of twitter and Facebook is not Americans expressing their right to free speech but meddling and manipulating. The evidence for this in bots is quite clear.
And the thing being exploited here is each individual's eagerness to pounce when the other tribe is seen to be crazy or stupid or evil. The best way to immunize ourselves against those trolls is to stop being so eager to do that.
Let’s assume for a second that certain other countries have a vested interest in polarizing our country, which ones are targeting liberals?
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 17:28 last edited by
@Larry said in Spot the threat to free speech:
Free speech means free speech. In my way of seeing that, it's none of the courts' business.
But there are limits to free speech. I will admit that I am not a constitution expert, but I do know that "free speech" is not 100% free.
I cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater.
If untrue, I cannot posting everywhere that my neighbor is a sex molestor.(I guess I could, but there would be consequences.)