Nobina
Posts: 4,653 +5,756
Bet Google, Apple, Twitter and Facebook would execute people in the name of "supressing hate" if they were allowed by the law.
Funny, that was the same argument used by companies to avoid hiring/servicing black people. And the same people who use "but muh private company" have 0 issue calling for regulation on industries over other topics, like pay, minority quotas, ece.#1: “CONGRESS shall not...”
Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter... even Techspot, are all private.
Learn the Constitution.
there is no guarantee of “free speech”.
there is only a negative right for Congress (the government) to censor citizens.
#2. The violent insurrection/sedition and terrorism gave Social Media the perfect excuse to do what they should have done 3 years ago.
It’s called a “pretext”.
Thankfully android can just install .apks. Google's censorship arm can suck it.
Funny, that was the same argument used by companies to avoid hiring/servicing black people. And the same people who use "but muh private company" have 0 issue calling for regulation on industries over other topics, like pay, minority quotas, ece.
Wrong, those kind of comments do get removed. You just refuse to believe so. I personally had my youtube account terminated (with no warning and prior offence) because I got into an argument with some trumpards and all I did was throw some insults at people who were saying that people should take up arms because of "fraud". I have proof that both sides are being moderated, you don't.Then the tech giants are not following their own guidelines. Violent threats against politicians? Conspiracy theories about stolen elections? De-humanizing language? Organizing "peaceful protests" that result in looted stores, beaten people, or entire city blocks being taken over and occupied?
Takes me about 60 seconds to find multiple examples on twitter, facebook, and other websites that host on Amazon or google, or thru apps that are on iTunes store or Google Play. Yet they remain.
It takes only some reading skills to understand when someone is inciting violence in a comment. But it seems that some people are refusing to actually read and just like to write.What gives Apple or Google the right to ban Parler? Who the hell makes the decision about what is 'inciting violence'?
BLM leaders have repeatedly stated that they would BURN THE COUNTRY DOWN if they don't get what they want. They then showed they were serious by killing over 40 people and causing over 2 billion dollars of damage during George Floyd riots.
Antifa has been involved in MANY very violent encounters. They make it a point to show up at conservative rallies and attack people. They're not there to protest, but to commit violence. Everybody knows this.
Why doesn't Apple, Google, Cnn, Twitter, ban everyone in BLM and Antifa? The double standard is beyond hypocrisy. It's so lopsided that you can't even wrap your brain around it.
Existing precedent - as defined from past SCOTUS rulings - says that 1st Amendment rights do not include inciting violence.
Wrong, those kind of comments do get removed. You just refuse to believe so. I personally had my youtube account terminated (with no warning and prior offence) because I got into an argument with some trumpards and all I did was throw some insults at people who were saying that people should take up arms because of "fraud". I have proof that both sides are being moderated, you don't.
and look which one is third. LOL
Banning Parler is irrational because Right Wingers rarely, if ever, commit violent crimes.
Inciting violence requires that (1) that the person is directly being encouraged or incited to commit some act of violence, (2) there is a clear and present danger that the person will commit the act, and (3) that the person actually commits the act.
Absolutely disgusting behaviour from the big tech corpos. I can understand how Google and Facebook want to sensor their own platforms but banning competitors because they don’t match their censorship criteria isn’t on.
The problem is they do have a duopoly. If a user doesn’t agree with these private moderation policies they don’t exactly have the option to go elsewhere.
I have now removed Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram. I will still use YouTube but in a container shell on my PC where they can’t get anything out of me. I urge others to do the same.
What a dumb comment. Clearly you have absolutely no idea how anything works. You’ve got it badly wrong. YouTube collects tonnes of metadata on your system. Look it up. It’s quite disgusting how much data they harvest.I don’t think you understand how YouTube works. As long as you view YouTube, your view is counted and even if they don’t have your personal information to send you ads your view alone is all the advertisers need to know where to place their advertisement revenue so that people like me (YouTube partners) get paid every month on the 21st of the month.
The constitution specifically says that Congress is not allowed to censor the individual. It in no way guarantees “free speech“ and in no way allows the government to censor private companies that have a product that the public decides that it wants to use for their own purposes. Big tech is actually within constitutional rights to do exactly what it’s doing.
Trump cannot censor people from his Twitter account which is the reason why he shouldn’t be on Twitter at all as a government official. If the government itself wants to host a social media system that allows US citizens or even the rest of the world to participate that’s one thing but he cannot force his way into Twitter and post seditious/treasonous actions anymore that he could come on tech spot and force them to give more Exposure to Apple, NVIDIA and Microsoft products.
It’s not his call whether you like it or not.
#1: “CONGRESS shall not...”
Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter... even Techspot, are all private.
Learn the Constitution.
there is no guarantee of “free speech”.
there is only a negative right for Congress (the government) to censor citizens.
#2. The violent insurrection/sedition and terrorism gave Social Media the perfect excuse to do what they should have done 3 years ago.
It’s called a “pretext”.
When I think about the number of Congress people who would have been attacked and killed by vees racist terrorists: AOC, Omar, Pelosi, Rasheed – I hope Congress puts these people in to jail for a decade or more. And that’s only because they won’t be able to simply executed for treason.
#1: “CONGRESS shall not...”
Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter... even Techspot, are all private.
Learn the Constitution.
there is no guarantee of “free speech”.
there is only a negative right for Congress (the government) to censor citizens.
#2. The violent insurrection/sedition and terrorism gave Social Media the perfect excuse to do what they should have done 3 years ago.
It’s called a “pretext”.
...every one of those politicians you mentioned are a cancer and a threat to the American way and values. Protesters were unarmed and yet were gunned down.
These company are not private. they are public company which mean they are answer to share holder. this mean people with enough money can buying influence in these matter. it also probably not coincidence these company are support incoming government side being they are in trouble with outgoing government for antitrust and other issues. they are also aggressively try to get their people into government boards and power jobs to gain favor in these matter. americans have blinders on to how their country operate.
What a dumb comment. Clearly you have absolutely no idea how anything works. You’ve got it badly wrong. YouTube collects tonnes of metadata on your system. Look it up. It’s quite disgusting how much data they harvest.
Also if you actually read my comment I stated that I’m fine with big tech censoring their own platforms. I have a problem with big tech preventing users who don’t want to use Facebook/Twitter etc from using other apps. For example, a social media platform called Parler.
Google and Facebook do NOT have the right to force their competitors out of the market. I pity your lack of intelligence if you feel otherwise.
Then they are upset for the wrong reason and they have misunderstood what is happening right now.You have fundamentally misunderstood what is going on here. No one is asking for Google, Apple, Facebook or Twitter to remove their censorship. They are upset as a competitor to these apps has been locked out..
How on Earth had this escaped you? Were you born last week?
I rest my case
Freedom of speech includes the right:
Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).
Freedom of speech does not include the right: (first one is real relevant trumptards)
To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).