Please describe how a private company deciding not to host another company's website after terms of service were violated is censorship again? How is that not simple capitalism?
TOS's are so vague that anything can be used by the company against you, but the same doesn't work in the reverse.
Yes, you are correct. Parler's TOS [parler.com] is so vague they can kick you off for any reason. They have no obligation to allow you access to their service.
Any invitation made by Parler to you to use the Services or submit content to the Services, or the fact that Parler may receive a benefit from your use of the Services or provision of content to the Services, will not obligate Parler to maintain any content or maintain your access to the Services. Parler will have no liability to you for removing any content, for terminating your access to the Services, or for modifying or terminating the Services.
Oh, so you want government to step in and force private entities to stop their censorship. If a customer at a restaurant threatens a member of the staff, you want to make it illegal for the restaurant owner to throw the customer out.
You're the one who said the only thing to counter speech is more speech. So it's very clear you think private companies should not be allowed to control what their property gets used for. Otherwise, why complain?
Saying "people should not do X" is not the same as saying "government should prevent X", however popular the idea seems that government should be a helicopter parent to everyone, making sure that no feelings are hurt and the children make no mistakes.
Apparently, acting like a troll is a core part of being an evil atheist.
No I think what he means is that he wants the government to step in if say a cake shop refused to bake a cake for a gay couple and would want the government to force them to make it under threat of being bankrupted and sent to jail.
They only refused to make a wedding cake. They did state they would make any other kind of cake. The ruling was about not forcing someone to participate in an event that was against their religious values. It was not about being able to refuse service to someone for being gay. But it sounds so much better to call the bakers gay hating bigots than to actually discuss the very narrow objection covered by the case/ruling. The gay couple should have just moved on and found another baker that was happy to t
Sadly, you partly make a good argument, and then you resort to rhetoric such that you won't convince anybody. I absolutely agree with you that, if I were this couple, I would *not* want that baker making my cake. But what works at a small scale does not work at a large scale. The issue at hand wasn't really about cakes. What about life-saving stomach ulcer medication? Should a pharmacist have a right to deny that to a patient because it is against his/her religious beliefs? If I had a stomach ulcer, I
Oh, so you want government to step in and force private entities to stop their censorship.
Actually, no, I'd just like people to stop being bullies. There are two situations people are drawing an equivalency for:
1. A small bakery refuses to make a cake for a gay couple. The gay couple sue the bakery.
2. Parler is trying to be a free speech "open square" kind of platform. AWS and others are dropping them as customers.
In both of these situations it is a company (or several) deciding not to do business with another entity. Okay, fine. But there's an important distinction people are missing...
>Oh, so you want government to step in and force private entities to stop their censorship.
I would like the US government to not provide a specific and direct legal protection for this censorship through section 230. Removing that would level the playing field - at present it is far from level, to stay the least. The US government, through section 230, is directly enabling this censorship of speech.
We need to take this beyond merely "censorship bad".
Sometimes censorship is good, e.g. when protecting the victims of crime or state secrets. Sometimes censorship is bad. Is this good or bad?
There is certainly a powerful argument that making it harder to attack democracy is a good thing. I'm not really seeing many arguments as to why it's a bad thing, just "censorship bad".
We need to take this beyond merely "censorship bad".
We have 200 years of case law and analysis moving beyond merely "censorship bad." I'll forgive you for not knowing since you are not American. A good place to start reading is the Federalist Papers, if you are actually interested in improving your intellect.
It's still censorship, it's not government censorship.
Please send me the password to your account ASAP, so that I can use it to express my opinion. After all, your failure to express my opinion is censorship of my opinion.
Thanks, Guy who you're unjustly preventing from using "phantomfive."
Please send me the password to your account ASAP, so that I can use it to express my opinion. After all, your failure to express my opinion is censorship of my opinion.
I think this comment is close to winning the "dumbest analogy of all time" award.
It's so dumb I can't even believe it's real. Do people really think this explains the actual situation at all?
None, the legal definition is the only one which matters since you're using a legal word. Just because you can't say what you want in my house doesn't mean you're being censored. You're free to stand outside and say what you want. Now if I prevent you from speaking outside as well then you can have your little cry.
I agree with that censorship is a perfectly cromulent way of describing what is happening. It's just not governmental censorship. But, if the message is promoting or planning a coup, insurrection, kidnapping or murder, it is appropriate that they are censored, as it is criminal.
Presumably they had a business relationship which has operated for as long as it has under the same modus operendi, and now all of a sudden one party decides to terminate its service, maximally impacting the livelihoods of all those involved with marketing parler, and there is supposedly "no harm, no foul?" How long has this been going on, and why couldn't the site been given 90 days to decide whether they could or would or how they might satisfy the provider? Amazon should probably
Well, just ask Google for a definition of censorship.
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
AWS are suppressing something that they find politically unacceptable (although they're using the excuse of a threat to security).
In what way is Amazon suppressing or prohibiting what Parler does? All Parker has to do is find another host site. That’s like saying I’m suppressing you if I do not allow you to host a speech on my front lawn. Find someone else's lawn.
Right, so, if a bunch of near monopolies collude to censor free speech, it's actually not censorship. In a similar vein, if a government hires mobsters to shoot and beat people up, it's not actually state violence.
Right, so, if a bunch of near monopolies collude to censor free speech, it's actually not censorship. In a similar vein, if a government hires mobsters to shoot and beat people up, it's not actually state violence.
If the government hires them to, it is actually state violence. If the mobsters do it on their own, it's not. This really isn't complicated.
I find it entertaining that the same side that accuses Trump of inciting something on the basis that "some people might have interpreted it like that, and he must have known that some will do so it's the same as a direct order" also pretends that everything in an incestuous relationship between the state and private business need to be explicitly spelled out.
Forcing a private company to host content they don't wish to host would in fact be a far far bigger threat to free speech.
Your free to say what you want and the government can't put you in jail for it.
You aren't free to force others to support your speech with their resources, property or attention.
True free speech has consequences, if you say things people don't like they have the freedom to speak back, ignore or even throw you off their property.
Please describe how a private company deciding not to host another company's website after terms of service were violated is censorship again?
Because it's a dead certainty that sometime in the next four years Joe Biden - or some other Democrat - is going to say something that Twitter finds objectionable, such as defending the Sci-Hub site or criticizing China's treatment of the Uighurs. You can bet that when (not if) this happens, you will not be seeing "capitalism" be defended.
Because it's a dead certainty that sometime in the next four years Joe Biden - or some other Democrat - is going to say something that Twitter finds objectionable, such as defending the Sci-Hub site or criticizing China's treatment of the Uighurs. You can bet that when (not if) this happens, you will not be seeing "capitalism" be defended.
First, you need some better examples. Neither defending SciHub nor criticizing China violate Twitter's terms of service, unlike people inciting riots and/or insurrection.
Second, I'll defend Twitter's right to set and enforce its own terms of service when they take something down that the left likes. But I'm not a member of the red tribe or the blue tribe.
First, you need some better examples. Neither defending SciHub nor criticizing China violate Twitter's terms of service, unlike people inciting riots and/or insurrection.
I chose these examples not just because they are very recent but because in both cases Twitter banned the accounts involved.
I don't care about Donald Trump. Ten days from now, he will be a fading purple bruise on the nation's consciousness. But Twitter's ability to crimp off public debate continues.
Which means the US government has removed the other companies right to sue the hosting company (win or lose..) over this.
So, the US government has protected the hosting company from any legal recourse, hence it is a 1st amendment violation by the Us government by providing section 230..
slippery slope (Score:0, Troll)
Re:slippery slope (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
TOS's are so vague that anything can be used by the company against you, but the same doesn't work in the reverse.
Re: (Score:2)
TOS's are so vague that anything can be used by the company against you, but the same doesn't work in the reverse.
Yes, you are correct. Parler's TOS [parler.com] is so vague they can kick you off for any reason. They have no obligation to allow you access to their service.
Any invitation made by Parler to you to use the Services or submit
content to the Services, or the fact that Parler may receive a benefit from your use of the Services or provision of content to the Services, will not obligate Parler to maintain any content or maintain your access to the Services. Parler will have no liability to you for removing any content, for terminating your access to the Services, or for modifying or terminating the Services.
Re:slippery slope (Score:5, Insightful)
Please describe how a private company deciding not to host another company's website after terms of service were violated is censorship again?
It's still censorship, it's not government censorship.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, so you want government to step in and force private entities to stop their censorship.
Did I say that? I did not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think censorship is bad, and I criticize AWS for doing it, but that's my freedom of speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You should work on your reading comprehension, it sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Saying "people should not do X" is not the same as saying "government should prevent X", however popular the idea seems that government should be a helicopter parent to everyone, making sure that no feelings are hurt and the children make no mistakes.
Apparently, acting like a troll is a core part of being an evil atheist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They only refused to make a wedding cake. They did state they would make any other kind of cake. The ruling was about not forcing someone to participate in an event that was against their religious values. It was not about being able to refuse service to someone for being gay. But it sounds so much better to call the bakers gay hating bigots than to actually discuss the very narrow objection covered by the case/ruling. The gay couple should have just moved on and found another baker that was happy to t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Liberals believe everyone should acquiesce all freedom to big government
You discredit anything you say with such ridiculously stupid mouth farts.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so you want government to step in and force private entities to stop their censorship.
Actually, no, I'd just like people to stop being bullies. There are two situations people are drawing an equivalency for:
1. A small bakery refuses to make a cake for a gay couple. The gay couple sue the bakery.
2. Parler is trying to be a free speech "open square" kind of platform. AWS and others are dropping them as customers.
In both of these situations it is a company (or several) deciding not to do business with another entity. Okay, fine. But there's an important distinction people are missing...
Re: (Score:2)
>Oh, so you want government to step in and force private entities to stop their censorship.
I would like the US government to not provide a specific and direct legal protection for this censorship through section 230.
Removing that would level the playing field - at present it is far from level, to stay the least.
The US government, through section 230, is directly enabling this censorship of speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Please describe how a private company deciding not to host another company's website after terms of service were violated is censorship again?
It's still censorship, it's not government censorship.
Moderation is censorship, deal with it.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to take this beyond merely "censorship bad".
Sometimes censorship is good, e.g. when protecting the victims of crime or state secrets. Sometimes censorship is bad. Is this good or bad?
There is certainly a powerful argument that making it harder to attack democracy is a good thing. I'm not really seeing many arguments as to why it's a bad thing, just "censorship bad".
Re: (Score:2)
We need to take this beyond merely "censorship bad".
We have 200 years of case law and analysis moving beyond merely "censorship bad." I'll forgive you for not knowing since you are not American. A good place to start reading is the Federalist Papers, if you are actually interested in improving your intellect.
Re: (Score:3)
Please send me the password to your account ASAP, so that I can use it to express my opinion. After all, your failure to express my opinion is censorship of my opinion.
Thanks,
Guy who you're unjustly preventing from using "phantomfive."
Re: (Score:2)
Please send me the password to your account ASAP, so that I can use it to express my opinion. After all, your failure to express my opinion is censorship of my opinion.
I think this comment is close to winning the "dumbest analogy of all time" award.
It's so dumb I can't even believe it's real. Do people really think this explains the actual situation at all?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to censor you from using my account.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: slippery slope (Score:2)
No, censorship includes using group power to silence people : http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/... [wiktionary.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It's still censorship, it's not government censorship.
Not letting someone speak on your platform is not censorship. Censorship is preventing someone from speaking in general.
Re: (Score:2)
Which dictionary's definition of censorship are you going with there?
Re: (Score:2)
None, the legal definition is the only one which matters since you're using a legal word. Just because you can't say what you want in my house doesn't mean you're being censored. You're free to stand outside and say what you want. Now if I prevent you from speaking outside as well then you can have your little cry.
Words have meanings. Use them correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Incitement to violence has always been illegal in the US. Even with the 1st Amendment.
Re: slippery slope (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AWS doesn't have to host the Teamsters web site if they don't want to. I don't see your point.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree.
Now do it with a cake.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree.
Now do it with a cake.
Insurrectionists aren't a protected class.
government is saying who to censor, that's why (Score:2)
Think tanks like the Atlantic Council, primarily funded by the USG, is telling tech companies whom to censor:
https://about.fb.com/news/2018... [fb.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Well, just ask Google for a definition of censorship.
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
AWS are suppressing something that they find politically unacceptable (although they're using the excuse of a threat to security).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Your name is sadly apt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, so, if a bunch of near monopolies collude to censor free speech, it's actually not censorship. In a similar vein, if a government hires mobsters to shoot and beat people up, it's not actually state violence.
If the government hires them to, it is actually state violence. If the mobsters do it on their own, it's not. This really isn't complicated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Forcing a private company to host content they don't wish to host would in fact be a far far bigger threat to free speech.
Your free to say what you want and the government can't put you in jail for it.
You aren't free to force others to support your speech with their resources, property or attention.
True free speech has consequences, if you say things people don't like they have the freedom to speak back, ignore or even throw you off their property.
Re: (Score:2)
Please describe how a private company deciding not to host another company's website after terms of service were violated is censorship again?
Because it's a dead certainty that sometime in the next four years Joe Biden - or some other Democrat - is going to say something that Twitter finds objectionable, such as defending the Sci-Hub site or criticizing China's treatment of the Uighurs. You can bet that when (not if) this happens, you will not be seeing "capitalism" be defended.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's a dead certainty that sometime in the next four years Joe Biden - or some other Democrat - is going to say something that Twitter finds objectionable, such as defending the Sci-Hub site or criticizing China's treatment of the Uighurs. You can bet that when (not if) this happens, you will not be seeing "capitalism" be defended.
First, you need some better examples. Neither defending SciHub nor criticizing China violate Twitter's terms of service, unlike people inciting riots and/or insurrection.
Second, I'll defend Twitter's right to set and enforce its own terms of service when they take something down that the left likes. But I'm not a member of the red tribe or the blue tribe.
Re: (Score:2)
First, you need some better examples. Neither defending SciHub nor criticizing China violate Twitter's terms of service, unlike people inciting riots and/or insurrection.
I chose these examples not just because they are very recent but because in both cases Twitter banned the accounts involved.
I don't care about Donald Trump. Ten days from now, he will be a fading purple bruise on the nation's consciousness. But Twitter's ability to crimp off public debate continues.
because of section 230.. (Score:2)
Which means the US government has removed the other companies right to sue the hosting company (win or lose..) over this.
So, the US government has protected the hosting company from any legal recourse, hence it is a 1st amendment violation by the Us government by providing section 230..
Simple, really.