|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Social Media as Public Forums 1
#27141280 - 01/11/21 04:53 AM (3 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Social media is our modern form of communication, and I would like to posit that as such, it should be afforded the rights of Public Forums and afford 1st amendment rights to its users. (within reason) Moderation for spam and such is reasonable, censorship is not. I don't like Trump really, but i think he should have the right to communicate by modern means.
|
bodhisatta 
Smurf real estate agent


Registered: 04/30/13
Posts: 61,889
Loc: Milky way
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: teknix]
#27141285 - 01/11/21 05:04 AM (3 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Free speech doesn't mean you get to use any private microphone. If the government shut down twitter because they didn't like what we were saying that would be a violation of first amendment rights. If a bar kicks you out for saying something stupid that is not a violation of your rights. Being a big corporation doesn't change the rules
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: bodhisatta] 2
#27141289 - 01/11/21 05:09 AM (3 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
I can use what I pay for, and I'm paying for it by their ads :P
And their ads are using the bandwidth of the internet I do pay for.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,531
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: teknix]
#27141295 - 01/11/21 05:23 AM (3 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
obviously paying for the use of something after agreeing to an EULA, means you do not have any rights except those in the EULA which is designed to protect the platform not the user.
having observed the insurrection at the capitol, some responsibility has been injected into the system by muzzling the most dangerous liar at large.
expect more good conversations on this matter, and keep your own nose clean.
--------------------
_ π§ _
|
Sugabearcrisp
Not Your Average Bear



Registered: 10/14/19
Posts: 12,047
Loc: maybe I had too much, too fast
Last seen: 1 day, 1 hour
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: bodhisatta] 3
#27141300 - 01/11/21 05:34 AM (3 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
bodhisatta said: Free speech doesn't mean you get to use any private microphone. If the government shut down twitter because they didn't like what we were saying that would be a violation of first amendment rights. If a bar kicks you out for saying something stupid that is not a violation of your rights. Being a big corporation doesn't change the rules
The problem with this logic is that section 230 gives these private companies protections as a public forum, which renders them no longer private.
|
VP123
Strange



Registered: 06/27/19
Posts: 1,341
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 10 days, 2 hours
|
|
Quote:
Sugabearcrisp said:
The problem with this logic is that section 230 gives these private companies protections as a public forum, which renders them no longer private.
The means to create such public forums and accessing them (servers, software, etc) remains private.
|
bodhisatta 
Smurf real estate agent


Registered: 04/30/13
Posts: 61,889
Loc: Milky way
|
|
Quote:
Sugabearcrisp said:
Quote:
bodhisatta said: Free speech doesn't mean you get to use any private microphone. If the government shut down twitter because they didn't like what we were saying that would be a violation of first amendment rights. If a bar kicks you out for saying something stupid that is not a violation of your rights. Being a big corporation doesn't change the rules
The problem with this logic is that section 230 gives these private companies protections as a public forum, which renders them no longer private.
Wrong. It grants them protections from being sued for things their users say. That doesn't make them no longer private.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,531
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: bodhisatta]
#27141459 - 01/11/21 08:21 AM (3 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
that is what has to be sorted out. the first steps into the social media arena including all BBS systems and forums has flaws that we have to be willing to fix.
it is guaranteed that the creators of the web did not have pre-existing awareness of the arrival of Qanon, and 4chan etc.
We knew facebook was bad but everyone embraced it to some extent and must now reconsider that position.
--------------------
_ π§ _
|
bodhisatta 
Smurf real estate agent


Registered: 04/30/13
Posts: 61,889
Loc: Milky way
|
|
It's crazy to me conservatives want to socialize the private media platforms once they get banned or censored
|
bodhisatta 
Smurf real estate agent


Registered: 04/30/13
Posts: 61,889
Loc: Milky way
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: bodhisatta]
#27141469 - 01/11/21 08:26 AM (3 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Trump is just the gay wedding cake of social media
|
VP123
Strange



Registered: 06/27/19
Posts: 1,341
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 10 days, 2 hours
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
it is guaranteed that the creators of the web did not have pre-existing awareness of the arrival of Qanon, and 4chan etc.
But a parallel can be drawn to other public dissemination vehicles. Even before the internet existed there were radio and TV stations that allowed some people to expose their ideas. The thing is, I have not right to impose myself on those companies (ABC, CBS, etc) to use their channels to express my ideas. This can only happen with a mutual agreement with them. It is no different. The only difference it that it is a lot cheaper with the internet and this makes it more accessible.
Edited by VP123 (01/11/21 08:35 AM)
|
bodhisatta 
Smurf real estate agent


Registered: 04/30/13
Posts: 61,889
Loc: Milky way
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: VP123]
#27141502 - 01/11/21 08:43 AM (3 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
The post office sends drugs every day. They're not prosecuted for it the people who put the drugs in the mail are. Section 230 offered the same protections to online media platforms.
Same with TV and radio as said above. "These views don't represent us" but eventually even a network can yank the plug on programming they disagree with.
Free speech doesn't mean I can call up BET and demand they show footage of white supremacist rallies
|
Sugabearcrisp
Not Your Average Bear



Registered: 10/14/19
Posts: 12,047
Loc: maybe I had too much, too fast
Last seen: 1 day, 1 hour
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: bodhisatta] 1
#27141583 - 01/11/21 09:26 AM (3 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
bodhisatta said: Trump is just the gay wedding cake of social media
This has yet to be fully ruled on by the courts and has the added component of religous freedom. Social media is not claiming religious protection.
The parallels are there though, social media offers a platform as a product, baker offers a cake as a product, both want to be able to not provide their publicly offered service to an aribitrarily defined group.
The other difference is section 230, while I agree it doesn't make them public (poor wording on me) the intention was clearly to allow for platforms that facilitate content and communication, without holding providers to the rules a publisher would be subject to. The first question is at what point does a platform become a publisher and if still a platform how loose can it's rules be? Can a platform make arbitrary decisions based on subjective interpretations and not become and editor and therefore a publisher of the content?
|
bodhisatta 
Smurf real estate agent


Registered: 04/30/13
Posts: 61,889
Loc: Milky way
|
|
Section 230 doesn't take away a private companies ability to make arbitrary decisions. It's only protection from under-moderation.
|
yeah


Registered: 02/08/09
Posts: 3,729
Last seen: 1 month, 21 days
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: bodhisatta]
#27141784 - 01/11/21 11:05 AM (3 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
bodhisatta said: Free speech doesn't mean you get to use any private microphone. If the government shut down twitter because they didn't like what we were saying that would be a violation of first amendment rights. If a bar kicks you out for saying something stupid that is not a violation of your rights. Being a big corporation doesn't change the rules
shit like twitter and instagram is an integral part of modern life, dude sure you can go make your own, but no one will use it pretending otherwise is simply justification for using censorship to protect your ideology
also this
--------------------
Edited by yeah (01/11/21 11:08 AM)
|
yeah


Registered: 02/08/09
Posts: 3,729
Last seen: 1 month, 21 days
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: bodhisatta]
#27141799 - 01/11/21 11:10 AM (3 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
bodhisatta said: It's crazy to me conservatives want to socialize the private media platforms once they get banned or censored
well, some of us do want to take back socialism from the left 
I think I just called myself conservative which isn't totally true I definitely lean left on some ways but I do think there are immutable truths to existence which contradict leftism in general
--------------------
Edited by yeah (01/11/21 11:12 AM)
|
bodhisatta 
Smurf real estate agent


Registered: 04/30/13
Posts: 61,889
Loc: Milky way
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: yeah]
#27141809 - 01/11/21 11:13 AM (3 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Problem with that meme is social media never used to exist. it's not some right to get to post on the internet let alone media platforms hosted on the internet. You can go in your front yard with a megaphone if you wish.
|
Lion
Decadent Flower Magnate


Registered: 09/20/05
Posts: 8,775
Last seen: 3 days, 12 hours
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums *DELETED* [Re: redgreenvines] 1
#27141835 - 01/11/21 11:23 AM (3 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Post deleted by Lion
Reason for deletion: .
-------------------- βStrengthened by contemplation and study, I will not fear my passions like a coward. My body I will give to pleasures, to diversions that Iβve dreamed of, to the most daring erotic desires, to the lustful impulses of my blood, without any fear at all, for whenever I willβ and I will have the will, strengthened as Iβll be with contemplation and studyβ at the crucial moments Iβll recover my spirit as was before: ascetic.β
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,531
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: bodhisatta]
#27141944 - 01/11/21 12:33 PM (3 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
bodhisatta said: The post office sends drugs every day. They're not prosecuted for it the people who put the drugs in the mail are. Section 230 offered the same protections to online media platforms.
Same with TV and radio as said above. "These views don't represent us" but eventually even a network can yank the plug on programming they disagree with.
Free speech doesn't mean I can call up BET and demand they show footage of white supremacist rallies
We are little people. Big companies are made of little people. Countries are made of even more little people.
Free speech is an interesting privilege that has been termed a right with little clarification in some countries. When the megaphone expanded this privilege to enable speaking to larger gatherings, then we reached the epitome of free speech opportunities for the little people.
For superstars, however, and media darlings the wider exposure has always been due to the press, only now the press is entangled with Facebook etc. so it is wonky and not how legislators ever imagined.
The very idea of getting only the news you want to read, and not even seeing headlines that would broaden your mind is hostile to the future of human intelligence.
Free broadcasting, however, never existed, and it should not exist like free speech, in order to manage norms, propaganda, and abuse of this larger stage where one voice can speak simultaneously to millions of people. it is not a megaphone it is a gigaphone, and it has to be used responsibly or removed from the abusers.
The old laws never considered how unbalancing a lunatic with a gigaphone can be.
I hope Nancy and the new regime can bring some sanity to the situation.
--------------------
_ π§ _
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,531
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: Lion]
#27141946 - 01/11/21 12:34 PM (3 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Lion said:
Quote:
redgreenvines said: obviously paying for the use of something after agreeing to an EULA, means you do not have any rights except those in the EULA which is designed to protect the platform not the user.
having observed the insurrection at the capitol, some responsibility has been injected into the system by muzzling the most dangerous liar at large.
expect more good conversations on this matter, and keep your own nose clean.
Yet the Chinese Communist Party is allowed to freely propagandize regarding its genocide of Uighurs on Twitter. The dystopian theocracies of Iran and Saudi Arabia have unfettered access - Iran despite not even allowing its own citizens to use Twitter.
It isn't good that every major tech company has teamed up to de-platform the current sitting president and many individuals and platforms deemed sympathetic or remotely adjacent to his views. It's a sign of further descent into the mire of omnipresent digital surveillance and techno-authoritarianism.
you must clarify this with the big Tweet, straighten him out. mean time I never go to Twitter, the format is inane.
--------------------
_ π§ _
|
Sugabearcrisp
Not Your Average Bear



Registered: 10/14/19
Posts: 12,047
Loc: maybe I had too much, too fast
Last seen: 1 day, 1 hour
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: bodhisatta]
#27142178 - 01/11/21 02:45 PM (3 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Problem with the laws is they were written before social media was a thing and now social media has taken control of our political world so that they can prevent laws from being written.
|
bodhisatta 
Smurf real estate agent


Registered: 04/30/13
Posts: 61,889
Loc: Milky way
|
|
Yea i smoked weed today too. But i kept my weed thoughts to myself
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: obviously paying for the use of something after agreeing to an EULA, means you do not have any rights except those in the EULA which is designed to protect the platform not the user.
having observed the insurrection at the capitol, some responsibility has been injected into the system by muzzling the most dangerous liar at large.
expect more good conversations on this matter, and keep your own nose clean.
That's true, however EULA is generally "Void where prohibited". So legislation could prohibit denying rights of a public forums via social media. The entire premise of social media is as a communication platform, (it is assuming that role) and they are open to the public, and technically all the server costs and wages are payed for by the people using the forums, like a tax, via add revenue. Unlike Wal-Mart for example, which premise isn't communication.
So I think that considering that the premise of the business is a publicly accessible communications forum, that it should be beholden to citizens rights of communication using the most modern means. Even more-so considering that these companies are publicly owned and traded on the stock exchange. So the enforcement of rules (moderation) should be based on Laws rather than on whims.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
Free broadcasting, however, never existed, and it should not exist like free speech, in order to manage norms, propaganda, and abuse of this larger stage where one voice can speak simultaneously to millions of people. it is not a megaphone it is a gigaphone, and it has to be used responsibly or removed from the abusers.
The old laws never considered how unbalancing a lunatic with a gigaphone can be.
*FREE* ??????
Nah, it's being paid for, and inciting a riot is penal law "A person is guilty of inciting to riot when one urges ten or more persons to engage in tumultuous and violent conduct of a kind likely to create public alarm." So it would still be moderated if the forums were moderated by laws and rights.
The whole Trump fiasco just brought to light how much control social media has over our modern and most accessible forums.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
|
Quote:
Sugabearcrisp said:
The problem with this logic is that section 230 gives these private companies protections as a public forum, which renders them no longer private.
Also they are publicly traded, which even if you own a .00000000001 fractional share, you are an owner.
Maybe we buy 1 share of twitter and give a fraction of it to every person, , If literally every person was an owner, would it really be private?
|
bodhisatta 
Smurf real estate agent


Registered: 04/30/13
Posts: 61,889
Loc: Milky way
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: teknix]
#27142343 - 01/11/21 04:24 PM (3 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
State Action Requirement
Definition The state action requirement refers to the requirement that in order for a plaintiff to have standing to sue over a law being violated, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the government (local, state, or federal), was responsible for the violation, rather than a private actor.
Overview This requirement only applies when the law in question requires the government to have acted.
This state action requirement extends to a number of actions.
Quote:
First Amendment The First Amendment states that β[c]ongress shall make no lawβ infringing upon the freedoms of speech and religion. Because of this requirement, it is impossible for a purely private party to violate this Amendment.
Discrimination In Edmonson, the Supreme Court wrote that "discrimination, though invidious in all contexts, violates the Constitution only when it may be attributed to state action."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/state_action_requirement
|
bodhisatta 
Smurf real estate agent


Registered: 04/30/13
Posts: 61,889
Loc: Milky way
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: bodhisatta]
#27142350 - 01/11/21 04:28 PM (3 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Over the years, the Court has developed several technical tests for determining when the conduct of a nominally private person or entity constitutes state action: (1) the public function test, (2) the joint action/symbiotic relationship test and (3) the nexus test
Maybe enlil would be someone good to ask but I believe twitter isn't state action by any legal test, and thus it is quite literally impossible for them to violate your first amendment rights.
Quote:
This means that I personally, as a private person, cannot violate your constitutional rights, at least those based on the 14th Amendment. Some governmental involvement is required. For example, if I punch you because I disagree with your views, I may have violated state law but not the 1st Amendment. On the other hand, if a police officers arrests you because of what you said, that arrest is state action and may turn out to violate your 1st Amendment rights.
https://nahmodlaw.com/2015/02/19/know-your-constitution-8-what-is-state-action/
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: teknix]
#27142353 - 01/11/21 04:31 PM (3 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: Social media is our modern form of communication, and I would like to posit that as such, it should be afforded the rights of Public Forums and afford 1st amendment rights to its users. (within reason) Moderation for spam and such is reasonable, censorship is not. I don't like Trump really, but i think he should have the right to communicate by modern means.
Forums should have the right to their own rules and that means silencing speech. Why conservatives don't have their own internet I don't know. Nothing's stopping anyone from hosting their own servers. I think there was political opportunity. Perhaps there will be lawsuits. Trump's pretty good at that I hear. In a previous ruling the court decided Trump could not ban people from his twitter feed. He "engaged in viewpoint discrimination in a public forum, action that would violate the freedom of speech guarantee of the First Amendment".
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "Youβre not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." βAyishat Akanbi
|
bodhisatta 
Smurf real estate agent


Registered: 04/30/13
Posts: 61,889
Loc: Milky way
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: Rahz]
#27142359 - 01/11/21 04:36 PM (3 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Thought of the day
Calling the diverse group of very inclusive people that created and maintain the internet a group of Nazis because they are removing a group that actually does have nazi and white supremacist ideology is some 5d chess for sure.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: bodhisatta]
#27142389 - 01/11/21 04:50 PM (3 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
bodhisatta said:
Quote:
State Action Requirement
Definition The state action requirement refers to the requirement that in order for a plaintiff to have standing to sue over a law being violated, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the government (local, state, or federal), was responsible for the violation, rather than a private actor.
Overview This requirement only applies when the law in question requires the government to have acted.
This state action requirement extends to a number of actions.
Quote:
First Amendment The First Amendment states that β[c]ongress shall make no lawβ infringing upon the freedoms of speech and religion. Because of this requirement, it is impossible for a purely private party to violate this Amendment.
Discrimination In Edmonson, the Supreme Court wrote that "discrimination, though invidious in all contexts, violates the Constitution only when it may be attributed to state action."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/state_action_requirement
Yep, states can't make laws that violate the first amendment, but that doesn't say that legislation can't extend those rights to social media platforms, being that it is the most modern type of public forums. The State action is in regard to laws, not policies or whims. It's policies and whims that govern social media currently. It would be rights being violated rather than a law, in the case of unjust censorship. And if Social media was beholden to our first amendment rights we should be able to sue them for violating it.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,818
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: teknix]
#27142439 - 01/11/21 05:25 PM (3 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
What you're missing is that social media are under the purview of private companies. As Enlil has pointed out, it is the first amendment right of those companies to exclude whatever speech on their platforms that they wish. Facebook and Twitter's policies in silencing Trump are very much in accord with the first amendment. It is their right to restrict speech on their private platforms. In the case of those platforms, what goes out is essentially their speech.
There is really no conflict here.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: What you're missing is that social media are under the purview of private companies. As Enlil has pointed out, it is the first amendment right of those companies to exclude whatever speech on their platforms that they wish. Facebook and Twitter's policies in silencing Trump are very much in accord with the first amendment. It is their right to restrict speech on their private platforms. In the case of those platforms, what goes out is essentially their speech.
There is really no conflict here.
Wait what? Is Bodhi enlil?
Ok so the Supreme Court ruled in MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. ET AL. v. HALLECK ET AL. on June 17, 2019;
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1702_h315.pdf
Ruled that providing the platform in and of itself wasn't enough to constitute being considered a "government actor", that's not to say that if the sole purpose of the platform is to provide that service/forum, <- that that, isn't enough to be qualified as a government actor. It was also a split decision 5-4.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: teknix]
#27142499 - 01/11/21 06:01 PM (3 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
So really, the question is, what is "enough" to have them be qualified as state actors? (also it was the conservative's decision FYI)
Edited by teknix (01/11/21 06:35 PM)
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,818
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: teknix]
#27142516 - 01/11/21 06:18 PM (3 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Enlil is the Shroomery's resident law expert. You'll find him in the politics sub. I have no idea what would make a private company qualify as a government actor, but everything that has happened thus far, everything Facebook and Twitter are doing, is totally within the law.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
|
Yeah it is within the law, that's the problem. They are Public Forums and should be treated as such by the law.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,818
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: teknix]
#27142526 - 01/11/21 06:29 PM (3 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
That would only apply if it were government-run social media. So I recommend you start a campaign to create nationalized social media. Then censorship definitely would be illegal. Otherwise it's not.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
|
In United States law, a state actor is a person who is acting on behalf of a governmental body, and is therefore subject to regulation under the United States Bill of Rights, including the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
Corporate personhood makes the corporation a person, and that person is providing public forums for the people.
"The producers contend that the relevant function here is more generally the operation of a public forum for speech, which, they claim, is a traditional, exclusive public function. But that analysis mistakenly ignores the threshold state-action question. Providing some kind of forum for speech is not an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed. Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor. "
You realize this was lost by 1 vote right? It is definitely up for debate.
The Social Media are providing a *modern* FORUMS, because the government isn't. :P
The right wing basically squelched our rights on our most modern forums.
All the content on all these social media outlets are made by the people (user generated), the media is just hosting them and providing them a way to share it, because the government is failing to do so.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,818
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: teknix]
#27142545 - 01/11/21 06:53 PM (3 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Losing by one vote is still losing. I don't know what else to tell you. The law and its execution makes perfect sense to me in this case.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
|
You don't have to tell me anything 
I think that by providing the service of a public forum for profit they should also be liable to uphold the rights of a public forums. Especially if they are afforded those protections. They want their cake and eat it too. The above ruling isn't ruling out the possibility of making social media honor our rights at all.
" none of which converts a private entity into a state actorβunless the private entity is performing a traditional, exclusive public function. "
Edited by teknix (01/11/21 07:06 PM)
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: teknix]
#27143066 - 01/12/21 01:46 AM (3 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Any of these by themselves wouldn't constitute a state/government actor for a public forums, but when taken in totality I think it could/should/does;
1. Provides a platform for public communication. (Forums) (As main purpose/service)
2. User generated content
3. Generates Revenue through ads.
4. Publicly traded
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: Rahz]
#27143069 - 01/12/21 01:48 AM (3 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Why conservatives don't have their own internet I don't know. Nothing's stopping anyone from hosting their own servers.
Yes, there is. Parler was just quashed by Big Tech merely for hosting an open forum.
--------------------
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
|
That's fucked up OC, FOX needs to get their conservative justices on board if they wanna be advocates of free speech over corporate protections tho.
Power does what it wants..........
|
stubb
Dahg Rastubfari



Registered: 03/23/19
Posts: 1,310
Loc: Memory
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
Why conservatives don't have their own internet I don't know. Nothing's stopping anyone from hosting their own servers.
Yes, there is. Parler was just quashed by Big Tech merely for hosting an open forum.
They weren't hosted from their own servers, they were hosted from BigTechβ’'s servers. Nothing's stopping them from hosting their own servers.
Quote:
The pirate bay, the most censored website in the world, started by kids, run by people with problems with alcohol, drugs and money, still is up after almost 2 decades. Parlor and gab etc have all the money around but no skills or mindset. Embarrassing. - Peter Sunde
--------------------
ππ΄π
°πΌ π
²π»π
Έπ½π
Άπ
ππ°π
Ώ You wake up. The room is spinning very gently round your head. Or at least it would be if you could see it which you can't. It is pitch black. > TURN ON LIGHT
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: stubb]
#27143162 - 01/12/21 04:46 AM (3 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
There is nothing stopping them from setting up their own banks and their own infrastructure as well and on and on.
It saddens me that people think this is acceptable. Would you be cool if you could no longer use your phone, your credit cards, and your internet?
--------------------
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,531
|
|
what will they call the right wing internet?
Developed from scratch in a West Virginia Meth Lab by real blond Americans who use real drugs and guns at the same time using the new conspiratorial discovery unifying the Quantum and the Quanon universe: elecktrons.
In this really alternative web, secure private messages are transmitted by highly entangled elecktrons that have been trapped at a LOCKERUP rally wall, hopefully on the southern border.
they will call it the elePhone developed specifically for 3-G and people who care about symbols like elephants and elecktions in general.
they will get eletext, send DUMBO tweets, and they can repurpose pornhub to handle all their family updates like facebook.
this will be good for business, you'll see, no censorship at all. just say whatever comes to mind, nobody cares.
--------------------
_ π§ _
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
|
"when you throw shit you get it all over your hands."
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "Youβre not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." βAyishat Akanbi
|
Lion
Decadent Flower Magnate


Registered: 09/20/05
Posts: 8,775
Last seen: 3 days, 12 hours
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums *DELETED* [Re: redgreenvines]
#27143365 - 01/12/21 08:43 AM (3 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Post deleted by Lion
Reason for deletion: .
-------------------- βStrengthened by contemplation and study, I will not fear my passions like a coward. My body I will give to pleasures, to diversions that Iβve dreamed of, to the most daring erotic desires, to the lustful impulses of my blood, without any fear at all, for whenever I willβ and I will have the will, strengthened as Iβll be with contemplation and studyβ at the crucial moments Iβll recover my spirit as was before: ascetic.β
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,531
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: Lion]
#27143406 - 01/12/21 09:24 AM (3 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
it's true some people were bought off by trumpian treats. the right is so gauche.
good people on both sides
--------------------
_ π§ _
|
Ferdinando


Registered: 11/15/09
Posts: 3,664
|
|
what will it be? what will it become? about anything and totality so being caring would be an advantage
-------------------- with our love with our love we could save the world
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,531
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: Ferdinando]
#27143445 - 01/12/21 09:51 AM (3 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
stay and watch, I like to watch!
--------------------
_ π§ _
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Twitter says that Ugandans should not suppress free speech as that is antithetical to a democratic election.
Hypocrisy of the Year Award!
--------------------
|
bodhisatta 
Smurf real estate agent


Registered: 04/30/13
Posts: 61,889
Loc: Milky way
|
|
How so?
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: they can repurpose pornhub to handle all their family updates like facebook.

To be fair, it's hard for me to believe that what corporate media reports is the full truth. I don't know of any unbiased news source that doesn't reported slanted information in an attempt to control the narrative and manipulate the viewers in some way.
Conservative, Liberal, Right wing, Left wing, are basically isms to me, and isms are generally boxes to stifle free thought and critical thinking with conditions (which probably don't completely describe you as a free thinking individual) required to put yourself in any of the boxes. Then people accept those conditions, (even if it isn't completely accurate) because it is close enough for them to have a sense of belonging to something greater than themselves. Another thing to attach to the EGO that they can call themself.
For me personally, I take each individual position (which are all required of the whole) on it's own merit, rather than consider if the position conforms to the box I chose to pick, the label I chose to associate "myself" with.
Edited by teknix (01/12/21 08:02 PM)
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: teknix]
#27144628 - 01/12/21 08:25 PM (3 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
I think the actual narrative is that many people in general are unhappy with most of the government officials, rather than just right-wing trump supporters. Imagine if Antifa and the Proud boys worked together to effect change! I'm sure there is a common ground in our freedoms and rights in which they can all agree on, like police accountability (especially to the extent in which qualified immunity protects them, the level of education required, and their pay). However the isms put them in their individual boxes, creating an obstacle and division, (a hideous strawcrow) hindering the true power of the people by using division and controlling the narrative. The people in power love their power, so they don't mind giving some of their power to the ones that will help protect their power for the sake of retaining their power. The Media and the police, are the biggest protectors of that power, the media by controlling the narrative and creating division and deflecting any sort of unity, and the police through force.
You know, I think Bernie Sanders only runs to gauge the sentiment of the commoners, and never plans to be president. I mean he weeded out the angle (healthcare) that Biden needed to use to win the votes, and once he did that, the media propped up Biden. I think most of these official care about protecting their power more than anything else. (they all have that in common, and work together in that regard), and the people need to do the same (because individually they can't do shit, and the ones in power knows that only in the unity of the people will their power ever really be threatened).
Right wing and left wing are just guises the establishment set-up to create the illusion of conflict of those in power, and for those without much power to conform to, so they will be divided, (and without much power) while the ones in power aren't really divided in the first place.
Trump was trying the whole divide and conquer thing to retain is power, but all it did was create divides that helped to consolidate the stronger powers. (maybe that was his purpose all along)
People know there is something fucked up with the system, but they can't quite put their finger on it, (and generally settle for menial explanations presented) and that's because they are looking at the illusion created for them to look at, instead of the wizard behind the curtain.
TLDR: The Media, Politicians, and Law Enforcement all worship the establishment that gave them their power by doing what they can to protect their power, (using manipulation, illusions of division, and force) thereby protecting the establishment that gave them their power and consolidating the power of the establishment. However, in unity, the people still have more power.
Edited by teknix (01/12/21 09:16 PM)
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: teknix]
#27173280 - 01/27/21 05:00 PM (3 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Wow, Discord and Reddit both colluded to shut down WallStreet Bets. Whenre does it end :O
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: teknix]
#27217461 - 02/20/21 09:09 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: TLDR: The Media, Politicians, and Law Enforcement all worship the establishment that gave them their power by doing what they can to protect their power, (using manipulation, illusions of division, and force) thereby protecting the establishment that gave them their power and consolidating the power of the establishment. However, in unity, the people still have more power.
|
DoctorJ


Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: teknix]
#27235903 - 03/03/21 07:59 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I got spoiled by this place, and made comfortable expressing my opinions under my real name. If I don't get hired? Oh well. Guess I didn't want to work with those folks, anyway. I've been doxxed. It's whatever.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: DoctorJ]
#27258580 - 03/18/21 09:17 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,531
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: teknix]
#27258620 - 03/18/21 09:52 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
IOWA probably setting up an environment for fake news and a web of lies. TECH should leave the state entirely. Let the property values plummet.
--------------------
_ π§ _
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
|
Well, give and take.
Sheep are sheep regardless of where they get their fake news. But with a more "Open Forums", perhaps the critical thinkers and fact checkers can entice some of the sheep to look into the claims more :P
In the long run, I could see the sheep being turned into lions, if it's possible. Especially if they are allowed equal opportunities to tear their arguments to shreds.
But, I agree with ole Ben;
Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,531
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: teknix]
#27258793 - 03/18/21 11:55 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
unfortunately prevention of outright lies, that masquerade as friendly truths, is not the same as promoting free speech.
in the context of a man standing on a box 200 years ago in a market yelling out whatever, yes, he has the right. And those who hear him and see him can simply avoid him and tell their friends what a nut he is.
that is free speech.
publishing porn and releasing it as porn in porn stores also is free speech, although it may be connected to sex slavery and has clear moral issues, it is free speech.
Using social media, which is a targeted platform, in order to spread political lies, is not the same thing as the open market with a nut yelling about the end of the world, or an obscure adult only portal for porn.
social media insinuates itself as YOUR portal, your news stream about what you care about.
In this case messages with lies intentionally manifest as impersonation of an honest friend's conversation; the originators of these lies have paid (targeting costs money) for the privilege of filling your private in box, and spreading mental discord. It is paid advertising, often appearing as casual news.
This is very far from the realm of free speech protection which lets us read Allen Ginsburg if we want. Instead it is the whitewashing of expensive and critically manipulative information wars.
This needs to be laid bare and exposed for what it is - naked political bullying, and if you follow the money, it is greed and criminal intent.
I do not condone censorship, but neither do I tolerate propaganda.
--------------------
_ π§ _
|
Lion
Decadent Flower Magnate


Registered: 09/20/05
Posts: 8,775
Last seen: 3 days, 12 hours
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: redgreenvines] 1
#27259148 - 03/18/21 03:40 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
I do not condone censorship, but neither do I tolerate propaganda.
In that case, ban all social media platforms. They are all battlegrounds for propaganda and they always will be. The only question is whether a variety of propaganda will be tolerated and users, who use the platforms voluntarily, will be trusted to use their discernment; or whether all the propaganda will emanate from tightly regulated sources, i.e. from corporate media, central governments, and tech companies, an alliance of extremely powerful entities coming together to curate reality on behalf of the benighted plebians.
-------------------- βStrengthened by contemplation and study, I will not fear my passions like a coward. My body I will give to pleasures, to diversions that Iβve dreamed of, to the most daring erotic desires, to the lustful impulses of my blood, without any fear at all, for whenever I willβ and I will have the will, strengthened as Iβll be with contemplation and studyβ at the crucial moments Iβll recover my spirit as was before: ascetic.β
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,531
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: Lion]
#27259227 - 03/18/21 04:39 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I use this https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ at least once per day
--------------------
_ π§ _
|
Loaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist



Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 28 days, 3 hours
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: I use this https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ at least once per day
The government has investigated itself and has found its done nothing wrong!
--------------------
  "Real knowledge is to know the extent of oneβs ignorance." β Confucius
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
|
Lion really nailed it there. Also if it isn't Social Media, it's Mass Media, or Church, or School, or Super bowl Ads, or whatever else is available, but Social Media would sort of level the playing field to an extent if there is 1st amendment protections. We can't change that people susceptible to manipulation will be manipulated, it's happened for thousands of years, but we can protect our rights to voice our opinions by modern means, in a civil nature of course.
|
Loaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist



Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 28 days, 3 hours
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: Lion]
#27259726 - 03/18/21 11:41 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Lion said:
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
I do not condone censorship, but neither do I tolerate propaganda.
In that case, ban all social media platforms. They are all battlegrounds for propaganda and they always will be. The only question is whether a variety of propaganda will be tolerated and users, who use the platforms voluntarily, will be trusted to use their discernment; or whether all the propaganda will emanate from tightly regulated sources, i.e. from corporate media, central governments, and tech companies, an alliance of extremely powerful entities coming together to curate reality on behalf of the benighted plebians.
No idea how I missed this post. 10/10!
--------------------
  "Real knowledge is to know the extent of oneβs ignorance." β Confucius
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,531
|
|
you seem to be conspiracy theorists yourselves, I will have to keep that in mind, somehow, vaguely, perhaps.
--------------------
_ π§ _
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
|
I might be of sort, I don't discount a hypothesis that contains some evidence just because it's labeled as a "Conspiracy Theory". UFO cover-up was once a conspiracy theory too . . .
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/harry-reid-ufo-coverup_n_5f83eebcc5b62f97bac4c023
Here's something for the crawlers; Bilderberg Group, Illuminati, Deep State.
That being said:
Quote:
redgreenvines said: you seem to be conspiracy theorists yourselves, I will have to keep that in mind, somehow, vaguely, perhaps.
Does little to aid your argument is is more akin to an ad hominem.
(Remember to address the argument rather than making accusations against the person or people giving the argument)
:P
Edited by teknix (03/19/21 07:30 AM)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,531
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: teknix]
#27260142 - 03/19/21 09:40 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
not all conspiracies are equal. nor are they all deliberately placed to cause divisiveness. people collaborate all the time, and sometimes what they collaborate on is conspiratorial, and sometimes that is a good thing.
the worst is when you have outright fallacious dangerous conspiracies such as those that cause people to fear vaccines, or to follow a racist's dogma because they think the opponent eats babies.
--------------------
_ π§ _
|
Lion
Decadent Flower Magnate


Registered: 09/20/05
Posts: 8,775
Last seen: 3 days, 12 hours
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: not all conspiracies are equal. nor are they all deliberately placed to cause divisiveness. people collaborate all the time, and sometimes what they collaborate on is conspiratorial, and sometimes that is a good thing.
the worst is when you have outright fallacious dangerous conspiracies such as those that cause people to fear vaccines, or to follow a racist's dogma because they think the opponent eats babies.
I think that's a fair point, but I think you are envisioning that divisiveness is coming from one side, i.e. the Trump-adjacent right.
In reality, on these platforms people are subjected to the divide and conquer tactics of many powerful entities, including US intelligence agencies, foreign intelligence operations, corporate media who want to maintain a monopoly on the narrative, and many other bad actors - from radical, genocidal nationalists to sheer grifters who will propagandize in whatever direction the wind blows. Once you start addressing one group of bad actors with special measures, while allowing others to flourish, you increase paranoia and mistrust.
Things like QAnon are bad and damaging, but they're made worse by making people who are curious about QAnon and many related conspiracy theories feel they're being persecuted through the collaborative efforts of big tech and the US government. For example, there was lots of objective evidence for irregularity in US elections. That doesn't mean the election was stolen, but the heavy hand that tech and traditional media took to crush that narrative helps bring about a Jan. 6 event. They have taken the attitude - and this extends to covid as well, despite how many things mainstream institutions have gotten utterly and laughably wrong about it - that stakes are too high in every major policy area for plebs with dissident views, and figures and platforms that represent their views, to be allowed any platform to express their concerns.
It's also just factually true that lots of people are being purged from social media networks who are not conspiracy theorists, but who tend to focus on actually powerful entities - the US government and military-industrial complex, corporate media, Silicon Valley, and Wall Street - instead of on role playing fantasy culture war groups that have no power but make convenient excuses for broadening the surveillance state. I mean, Twitter literally purged hundreds of accounts for promoting narratives that undermine trust in NATO...
You can see also that traditional media has set its sights on platforms like Substack that don't filter every piece they allow to be published through the DC liberal-left orthodoxy. They want such platforms destroyed because it's in their interest to have a monopoly on the narrative. And they are also the servants of American imperial power. So there is reason to be alarmed by the direction things are heading with regards to censorship and attempts to monopolize propaganda.
-------------------- βStrengthened by contemplation and study, I will not fear my passions like a coward. My body I will give to pleasures, to diversions that Iβve dreamed of, to the most daring erotic desires, to the lustful impulses of my blood, without any fear at all, for whenever I willβ and I will have the will, strengthened as Iβll be with contemplation and studyβ at the crucial moments Iβll recover my spirit as was before: ascetic.β
Edited by Lion (03/19/21 10:21 AM)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,531
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: Lion]
#27260272 - 03/19/21 11:10 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
let's call the censorship moderation, because that is what it is in social media. it happens here too. if a poster becomes to zealous about a harmful idea, we notify the moderator. this works, and it often comes with a bit of a user flagging that could end up leading to suspension of the privileges that others enjoy sharing on the board.
this is sustainable. although this is a small board and specifically oriented to shrooms and related issues.
twitter and facebook are much larger scaled beasts, eclipsing the traditional press and a new model has to form which can flag posts and contain or suppress offenders of "the policy".
We have not yet settled on what policy is most appropriate for Twitter and Facebook, both of which I am not an active member, but also we have to be honest about what constitutes terrorism; what is insurrection; what is seriously dangerous health misinformation; and what constitutes hate speech.
I think that any health misinformation should be choked to the extreme, and perpetrators should be cut off of social media privileges for a year minimum and longer if they repeat.
insurrection - 5 years makes some sense
terrorism - 20 years
hate crimes - from 6 months to permanent banning depending on severity and intent.
all of them depends on severity and intent, but one must be aware that a joke, which may imply no intent, can lead to followers committing terrible crimes, so each case has to be considered individually.
We desperately need policies that permit free speech and therefore allow problems to arise, but we need to deal with problems swiftly and intelligently, and that is what has to be legislated. sooner than later.
--------------------
_ π§ _
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,531
|
|
by the way - I want to choke Gwyneth Paltrow off all platforms asap for bad medical activism.
--------------------
_ π§ _
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
|
What about the far reaching ramifications? Sure, for now you might call it moderation, but how would you know when the moderation extends to censorship (in your view) when there is no other source from which to receive that information? Without venturing into conspiracies, Mass Media News is non interactive and reports what it decides to report, and is pretty centralized.
I'm sure you are familiar with Orwell's dystopia.
Edited by teknix (03/19/21 12:12 PM)
|
Lion
Decadent Flower Magnate


Registered: 09/20/05
Posts: 8,775
Last seen: 3 days, 12 hours
|
|
This is probably too big a debate for me to approach here, but I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I think the problem of creeping oligarchic totalitarianism is bigger than the problem of conspiracy theories.
Also, if there were to be serious repercussions for covid health information, most of the US government, public health officials, Fauci, etc would all be banned from having a platform. They have gotten almost nothing right and caused untold damage, but that's for another thread. But look at this twitter page for an idea of how badly messaging was managed at the outset - this stuff is as responsible or more for less than ideal public response as any right wing propaganda:
https://mobile.twitter.com/YearCovid
-------------------- βStrengthened by contemplation and study, I will not fear my passions like a coward. My body I will give to pleasures, to diversions that Iβve dreamed of, to the most daring erotic desires, to the lustful impulses of my blood, without any fear at all, for whenever I willβ and I will have the will, strengthened as Iβll be with contemplation and studyβ at the crucial moments Iβll recover my spirit as was before: ascetic.β
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: Lion]
#27260350 - 03/19/21 11:59 AM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
It's easy, Give them all Darwin awards. And humanity evolved . . . .
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,531
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: teknix]
#27260387 - 03/19/21 12:30 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: What about the far reaching ramifications? Sure, for now you might call it moderation, but how would you know when the moderation extends to censorship (in your view) when there is no other source from which to receive that information? Without venturing into conspiracies, Mass Media News is non interactive and reports what it decides to report, and is pretty centralized.
I'm sure you are familiar with Orwell's dystopia.
I don't want you to be overwhelmed by having to defend your positions from many angles at the same time tho, so I'll take a break for abit from this thread.
when we can no longer find and read books from other places and times. - some books however should be released with guidance bound to it such as "Mein Kampf" - which should remain available but bound with the holocaust history, and fake science books should remain available bound with disclaimers and recommended references that clarify how the ideas are wrong. when we have thought control devices attached to our bodies - that punish us for bad thinking (which is at least 1/4 of all thinking) when we are prevented from recording our own thoughts and ideas for our own memory (in app censorship for diarists and authors) when we are prevented from voting for any reason (I don't see democrats doing this) when we are not allowed to photograph what is happening around us.
there are extremes that are completely wrong, and some galling half way measures that almost make sense eg. I had a building on a laneway, and it was constantly being covered by graffiti and the city kept sending me notices that they would remove it and charge me if I did not clean it off. I repainted that wall 3 times a year for 13 years. At one point I painted large figures of women modeling fashion to go with the store on the ground floor. still they sent me notices. Later the spot was hit by a famous graffiteur ANSER - https://torontoist.com/2009/02/tall_poppy_interview_anser/
I got the city to accept it as art - so as long as I kept the rest of the wall clear no problem - and that lasted for a couple of years but then it was totally graffitied over by people of no respect.
so there you have it, a no-graffiti policy that can have appeals that work for a while.
sorry for the digression. it is a matter of enforcing policies of expression that make sense in public, and that is the thing, we are individuals but we together are the public. it is a dynamic not a flat mechanism.
--------------------
_ π§ _
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: let's call the censorship moderation, because that is what it is in social media. it happens here too.
I disagree that censorship is moderation in social media. Moderation should be used only to facilitate civil discourse. (Not for suppression) Making social media accountable for their actions would go a long ways, as of now, they can pretty much do what they see fit, and that is probably whatever will be most profitable for the time being. If users use it to break the law, well, they have to deal with the law enforcement. The Social Media platforms are already not accountable (by law, but perhaps to investors) for what people say on their platform.
Quote:
redgreenvines said: if a poster becomes to zealous about a harmful idea, we notify the moderator. this works, and it often comes with a bit of a user flagging that could end up leading to suspension of the privileges that others enjoy sharing on the board.
Sure no problem, doesn't do much to aid civil discourse nor does it effect it really. Shroomery moderates, and facilitates free speech, within reason, (most of the time) but I think that is what is intended, but I'm sure moderation powers have been abused in the past. Also the shroomery isn't publicly traded so it wouldn't fit into my definition in what qualifies as a "Social Media Public Forums"
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
twitter and facebook are much larger scaled beasts, eclipsing the traditional press and a new model has to form which can flag posts and contain or suppress offenders of "the policy".
It has been settled if the existing LAWS that govern and protect speech rather then policy or whims. Users have the ability to block other users, so they can moderate it themselves. Give them an option to only accept replies from verified accounts if they are worried about people circumventing blocks. If they want to extend their fact checking, that's fine too! If Trump is staging an insurrection, let law enforcement officials deal with it rather than the Social Media outlet.
If people want to challenge the status quo, well, that's why we have our rights. To do so if necessary.
Quote:
redgreenvines said: when we can no longer find and read books from other places and times. - some books however should be released with guidance bound to it such as "Mein Kampf" - which should remain available but bound with the holocaust history, and fake science books should remain available bound with disclaimers and recommended references that clarify how the ideas are wrong. when we have thought control devices attached to our bodies - that punish us for bad thinking (which is at least 1/4 of all thinking) when we are prevented from recording our own thoughts and ideas for our own memory (in app censorship for diarists and authors) when we are prevented from voting for any reason (I don't see democrats doing this) when we are not allowed to photograph what is happening around us.
By the time you would get assimilated into that dystopia it will be far too late to do anything about it. But, still, if humanity was being assimilated into that dystopia, and none was reporting it, and everything about it was being censored, how would you know it was happening? (Perhaps a small town in Missouri was just assimilated!) There is technically nothing stopping any social or mass media from censoring or failing to report whatever they want. (aside from competition, which monopolization would circumvent) (I know it is a silly hypothetical, but it does follow the premise and alludes to what could stem from failing to fight for our rights)
Quote:
redgreenvines said: As far as speech goes,
there are extremes that are completely wrong, and some galling half way measures that almost make sense eg. I had a building on a laneway, and it was constantly being covered by graffiti and the city kept sending me notices that they would remove it and charge me if I did not clean it off. I repainted that wall 3 times a year for 13 years. At one point I painted large figures of women modeling fashion to go with the store on the ground floor. still they sent me notices. Later the spot was hit by a famous graffiteur ANSER - https://torontoist.com/2009/02/tall_poppy_interview_anser/
I got the city to accept it as art - so as long as I kept the rest of the wall clear no problem - and that lasted for a couple of years but then it was totally graffitied over by people of no respect.
so there you have it, a no-graffiti policy that can have appeals that work for a while.
sorry for the digression. it is a matter of enforcing policies of expression that make sense in public, and that is the thing, we are individuals but we together are the public. it is a dynamic not a flat mechanism.
Well, that is technically vandalism and against the law. Did you think about putting in a security camera?
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,531
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: teknix]
#27260550 - 03/19/21 02:11 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
the security camera would contravene the subsection of the law that states we cannot record video of the laneway which is public space (but we can record our own space, and though the wall was mine, the place to put the camera and the 3-d space that the graffiteur occupies is public - so no go).
I spoke to the police about it and although I can be fined for leaving the wall "dirty" or "unsightly" the vandals would never go to jail or even be fined the amount that repainting the wall would cost. I opted for more paint and brushes and rollers, and saved the electronics and legal costs for a net gain in satisfaction.
even though graffiti is not called free speech, it is an activity that is hardly suppressed, and it really causes no harm, unless it is hateful, and it is quickly remediated with paint.
Taking away Trump's Megaphone however is totally the right thing, and I do hope he never gets it back.
in any case that case is much closer to the moderation we have here, even though the scale is wider.
TRUMP had been warned after valid complaints were made (and people died because of him) and his posting privileges have been withheld. This story is not over yet and it is not one of free speech, it is about abusing the system, and making the system better at self correction.
it is the very essence of moderation, and what is the future of moderation.
--------------------
_ π§ _
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
|
Well, I'd prefer it being a legal matter to be settled in court personally, if what he is doing is wrong then there should be laws against it which he would be prosecuted for. If the FCC wants to limit his speech, like the SEC did to Elon, that would be something different than the actual platform having the power to do what it wants.
RGV, have you tried to bring your plight to the city council? It does seem like there should be a way to resolve the issue in a reasonable manner. There isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy in public, and given the circumstances, you have the right to protect your property, so they need to make an exception to protect your right to do so, I would think. But according to the image link; you are in Canada?
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,531
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: teknix]
#27260628 - 03/19/21 02:54 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, Pity! I was actually involved as an official of the government (president of the B.I.A which is tax funded and supervised - kind of like a ratepayers group but for a main street (business oriented)), and, thankfully there are limits to the strong arm of the law.
People have to want to be good, you cannot force them to want to respect you or your property.
you can repaint the bad graffiti off, and you can get permission to keep good graffiti. I loved that place but it was too expensive for me to stay there without regular work. We built it from scratch 14 years ago, even had to demolish the previous crappy building, so I was very familiar with the laws and regulations.
Owners & tenants have to pay, graffiti people not so much.
One famous (Trump like person) Mayor of ours, Rob Ford (his brother is now Premier of Ontario - in high school they were dope dealers), even had shares in a graffiti removal company. It was a professional high priced racket with undesirable results. Painting over was better.
Anyway after 13 years we sold it. goodby graffiti.
--------------------
_ π§ _
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
|
Well about this part: "when we are prevented from voting for any reason (I don't see democrats doing this)"
Without transparency it is difficult to know if your vote is actually counted correctly. Does Canada have any way its citizens can check that their vote was counted as it was cast?
I think a blockchain for voting is the way of the future.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,531
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: teknix]
#27260657 - 03/19/21 03:20 PM (2 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
great idea!
--------------------
_ π§ _
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Social Media as Public Forums [Re: teknix]
#27771445 - 05/10/22 04:25 PM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Elon is actually doing it! OMG!
The universal maxim; you don't have to agree with someones opinion to respect their right to have and express it, hehe.
|
|