FIGHT BACK In opposition to Evil Based on Dredge https://youtu.be/h9Qtyt1t9FQ The Supreme Courtroom is weighing a number of circumstances associated …
source
FIGHT BACK In opposition to Evil Based on Dredge https://youtu.be/h9Qtyt1t9FQ The Supreme Courtroom is weighing a number of circumstances associated …
source
FIGHT BACK Against Evil According to Dredge https://youtu.be/h9Qtyt1t9FQ
There's nothing wrong with this. Often feel targeted? Are you kidding? It's so obvious that the right is targeted
Social media is like a telephone. It is the public square and a carrier. We already know that AI can understand voices. How about telephone lines banning you if AI trawlers notice that you are speaking about the "wrong" subject over the phone? How about email? Can companies fail to send your email if you write the "wrong" things? They sure would like to, and eventually will if the Supreme Court does not uphold the FL and TX laws. It's really sad that citizens are fighting to retain the essence of rights that they had already enjoyed by the year 1800…
Those who want safety over freedom deserve neither!
Benjamin Franklin
Enough said!
Nothing like banning free speech! We are losing our freedoms and our country!
You clearly get censured if I did not see your videos on recommended for some timeā¦
The government is the only one strong enough to step in on something like this because the media is abusing their censorship. However I agree anything the government steps in on they screw up.
The laws should say "censorship of any kind on the internet is illegal".
I doubt anything good will come from the rulings. The Justices already voiced skepticism to the Florida and Texas Lawyers.
Remember this is all about section 230. Either social media is treated as a platform, which means they get the protections but cannot censor, or they're publishers. This means they can be held accountable for the lies they tell but can decide who gets published and who doesn't.
Platforms which is what they are, in my opinion, should focus only on very harmful content like posts from drug cartels, classified terrorist groups and downright bad people by law, there needs to be a well defined line in the sand and sadly someone has to watch that that line stands
Google/YouTube is pretty great at censoring right leaning comments that they disagree with. I tend to agree with the "its a town square". Because otherwise things will become further polarizing. Echo chambers are prevalent enough online. This will pour gas on the issue. Although i don't think the government should have any authority on peoples free speech either, they should merely defend it.
If they're a platform, they shouldn't be allowed to censor their users, if they're a publisher, then they should be held accountable for all the illegal content that gets posted on their site, like CP and other grave offences. These squirrelly little companies bounce between platform and publisher when it suits them. Personally, I'm of the opinion that they're common carriers, platforms that can't be held responsible for illegal shit users do (the individual users need to be held accountable for that), but also can't censor their users for their political opinions in moderation actions.
If these sites had it their way, they wouldn't be held accountable for illegal shit posted to their site, but they would also be allowed to censor their user's political opinions that don't align with the company.
A platform and a news outlet are two completely different things and should be held to two completely different standards. If South Western Bell only allowed certain people or classes to recieve their phone products then that would go against the ppl's constitutional rights. Just because you founded a social MEDIA platform does not give you GOD LIKE bias powers. You must set STANDARDS and follow them in a non-bias way. Even if you do NOT AGREE! It's called BEING AN ADULT!
LOL those ads of sexy women in underwear is based on your search results outside of the appā¦
My Man of Culture.
What a difficult interesting topic this is chris
People do not have the right to censor the speech of others, nor can a company providing a service (such as electricity, internet, phone or social media) censor the speech of others. People are free to not engage with that which they don't like or support, but companies are not people. Companies providing a service are not responsible for what those using their service do or say, and as such they have no authority to control what others do or say. They can only control what their products (like newspapers, games, shows, movies, magazines or the like) contain (IE, the things they pay for).
I do see a way companies could have a legitimate claim to censor however – while they can't deny service to others, these social media service-providing companies could argue that anyone using their product for free IS under their jurisdiction to police, since they are actually shouldering the "cost" on their sight. In other words, you'd have to pay money (subscription) for the service in order to maintain your freedom of speech and not be subject to a company's censorship. A flawed idea, but one that could be argued.
When I leave messages with the YouTube site crossroads I've been blocked from leaving post for like a month and something of that channel there's a new channel that I ran into the very first time I left a comment that was just a couple days I'll go that's why I was blocked for 24 hours the guy seems to be playing both sides. Not like that has anything to do with a sexual preference i that's not what I'm talking about.
Yeah just a couple days ago I got banded for hate speech I don't know what I said that was hate speech but they labeled it under hate speech they usually do and I wasn't able to come in on any videos or anything like that for 24 hours I've had it for way longer time than that but Facebook they used to get me I don't know how many times but I think they just gave up
Algorithms are a way of controlling the content of what people see yes they can see this yes they can see this nope I don't want them seeing that nope I don't want to see that they'll never see that here give me some butterflies give him some eggs will let them see this but never this just like communist China does.
Again the problem with their ideology is is that it is not their content they are censoring and sticking their nose into it is somebody else's content. It's not the social tech doesn't own their content! It is literally against a free press if I wanted to report something to people and they don't like it so they take it down that's my content they just took down they have no right to do that. People seem to forget about what Liberty is one of the great things about having a right to Liberty is a right to be told the truth not all right to be lied to. Why because that hinders us in our pursuit of happiness and that is absolutely the foundation of what being an American is being free and going on with my life in the way I want to as I see fit when nobody getting in my way or stopping me and I ain't getting in anybody else's way and I ain't stopping them I know right to get in their way of happiness and they have no right to get in the way of mine. That's the American way. But to be able to do that you have to be a free people. We are born property of the government that's the definition of a national born citizen go look it up my fellow slaves. Oh where it says that is in the 14th amendment everybody thinks the 14th amendment so cool and they enslaved us all and people can't understand that go look it up people.
Our freedom of speech is protected by the first amendment and guess what where are the Americans we are not their slaves and they need to learn that. Whatever goes against our fundamental freedoms like I am alive so I have a right to live therefore I have a right to defend myself and defend myself with equal or greater force with whatever I can get my hands on and happening to defend my life or someone else's for that matter does the second amendment you second amendment haters I've never even owned a gun I still do not! I might someday. I shot him I went hunt I've gone hunting and tiger practice and shut all kinds of different rifles.
That's exactly what they are their carriers just like telephone companies just like the cable company just like the internet company.
The media content is not theirs so no they don't have a right to say that they can take your content off of your media channel it's your content not theirs.
No Censorship. Release P Hub
Very simple, if you want to be editors and block content, then you pay for the content that gives you engagement. Slap strict labor laws to benefit their "user content generation" contributors and watch the buffoons crumble ….
Ive been watching China Uncensored for over a year how am I just now find this channel. š
Come on Chris, you like secretly like those undies adds š š š š š
Social media's for all intents and purposes behave as, act as, perform the role of government. As such, US social medias, or social medias available in the US should be federally forced to abide the US constitution and respect your right to free speech. If you can accept loving speech you are obligated to accept ugly speech; that's how freedom works.
Remember in the 1990s when President Clinton wanted to force radio stations to have liberals to be given shows or put on show like Rush Limbaugh?
Whatever, whenever, however the government does anything it is always wrong.
That is why we have a constitution.
Social media is getting the protection of a publisher without the liability. This is obviously wrong. The rest is hot air devised to distract and confuse. It is working apparently. THIS IS THE TIME FOR FINE DISCERNMENT. Truth is not transferrable. ONE MUST KNOW IT WHEN IT REVEALS. And it's our job to be Prepared. Through self discipline and self control. Zen.
Either they are required to permit all legal content or they are responsible for all content and therefore liable for that content, including slanderous and defamatory content. You can't have it both ways. You're a platform or a publisher. One or the other.
There is another case to be considered here and that is the case against CompusServe that held them liable for the content on their platforms once they began to exercise heavy censorship. It's a very similar issue.
Wrong its used as a public platform
Iād rather that the government does this than private companies do it. Since government has and are empowered to do anyway if needed.
People had been arguing this free speech apparent dilemma wrong. It's always about social media companies deceptive practices and betrayal of expectations, aka bait and switch. If all social media companies are upfront about their dictatorial tyranny in the first place, they would not have gathered a critical mass that gave them the leverage.
I was kicked off off face…. for questioning if the bug might have come from the Wuhan Lab
Well they can censor, but then it's "curated content", and they're libel for the impact any of that content has.
Or… they can passively transmit speech, and not be libel for any content on their platform.
The problem, is that big tech has been trying to have that cake, and eat it too.
The Supreme Justices have to side with Florida and Texas on this one. The Internet is the future and will continue to be the primary host of communication between people for the foreseeable future. We cannot have massive corporations deciding what is and isn't allowed to be said by the masses.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of these big tech companies, we will have effectively lost the First Amendment and become a corporatocratic dictatorship overnight.
These companies hold way too much power, as they currently control almost all public communication, and will have their power to suppress anybody that they do not like solidified.
We shouldn't have to rely on altruistic billionaires to restore our free speech rights from tyrants. They should be assured from the get-go. That's why the First Amendment was created.
This is will likely be the most important legal battle of the century. This could affect the whole of our society for the next several generations. Pray that the Supreme Court rules in favor of Florida and Texas and that their laws become the new national norm.
Freedoms have limits when they harm others and harming others is not a automatic requirement to limit freedoms. There is a good path, we will figure this out.
YouTube taking away the amount of dislikes per video, was a horrible decision.
Justice Roberts is a disingenuous huge POS, and total disgrace. Worst thing to happen to SCOTUS in decades.
Be a platform, or publisher. Pick one.
Platforms are not newspapers or media entities.