by minimus 55 Replies latest jw friends
I think that for the most part, dissenting views should be allowed to exist because of free speech principles. One person may strongly feel that something is true while someone else may present “facts” that support the opposing view. When that is the case, healthy discussion is mostly productive.
Do you think discussions should be barred because we don’t like a certain personality or viewpoint??
Companies that have effectively become public utilities should not be able to kick people off. If they force individual business owners to bake cakes, then they should hold large corporates to the same account.
Also, it's one thing to kick off some bot or troll, but to limit the communication of the President of the United States is a level of political interference and control that should not be tolerated by either side, certainly not after removing content and then deliberately misrepresenting what that content was.
They should have had their section 230 immunity removed a long time ago, and their political bias is tantamount to a massive campaign contribution which should be limited.
There was a reason there were limits on how many newspapers someone could own back in the day, the technology and media has changed and the rules need to be updated to account for it.
Alternatively, allow them to remove high-profile violators of their rules, but it has to be applied equally surely? Shouldn't people making death threats also be removed? Shouldn't people running concentration camps be removed? I think the faux claims that we're supposed to believe they did this for moral reasons and not purely for political power and reward is what will be so galling to many.
Also, extreme measure should be limited for the truly extreme. People who merely have conservative political views should not face having their lives ruined simply for their views. It's a very dangerous and damaging thing to do.
How much freedom of speech do you really have if you face extreme retaliation even for voicing centrist opinions or questioning fake news and propaganda? Which is more damaging, the speech or the extreme reaction to it?
They are a town square and dominate the exchange of info.. I just read a reference to burning the reichstag on another site--followed by censoring
IDK. I guess I will have to ask twatter and fakebook if differences of opinion should be allowed on "social" media platforms.
Seriously though, as long as it isn't overly illegal opinions, think of some of the lefts calls for Trump to be punched in the face or many other video clips of overt calls to violence from the left, then no there should be no stifling of dissenting speech.
Threatening the Republican President of the United States is ok.
This says it well
GregGutfeld
@greggutfeld
·
3h
CNN tries to get FNC banned.
Apple targets Parler.
Publishers dump writers. music labels drop artists.
twitter bans/removes thousands.
tech companies join hands.
this redefines who the true rebels are.
if you like the purge, you're the servant.
The left and right now have less in common than the north and south. It’s time for a peaceful divorce.
Now anyone that has a view contrary to Facebook, Apple or Twitter can find themselves banned! This is getting ridiculous!! They have way too much power.
Add to that Spotify removing the artists from their service which they decided to be 'non-BLM compliant'.
Wikipedia ruled by biased jerks pushing the Kremlin/leftist propaganda, banning the opponents in a blink of an eye.
Etc, etc.
Now anyone that has a view contrary to Facebook, Apple or Twitter can find themselves banned! This is getting ridiculous!! They have way too much power.
Look at the reality of what the Country is like NOW compared to last year on this same month.
Last year everyone had to freedom to start any business, to post any idea on social media, to chose where to buy, where to sell, to go to School, to go to College and start a career, to go to a hospital and get Chemo, important surgery, cancer screening, ect.
As of today, these platforms have removed literally hundreds of thousands of posters and have ban them for life.
For example; Reddit has removed the subgroup, “The donald.”
Twitch has removed Trumps Channels and all his accounts.
Shopify has removed his account so he can no longer sell his paraphernalia,
twitter has removed him permanently.
google is removing parlor. (This is important because it affects every citizen’s freedom)
YouTube is accelerating its enforcement of what they consider misinformation and closing down and banning thousands of channels of anyone who is considered a threat to their rules.
Facebook has removed the President permanently.
Instagram has removed the President permanently.
Snapchat has disabled the President account permanently.
Tik tok has removed anything and anyone dealing with anything positive the President has done for the Country.
Discord has taken down the server for the donald.
Pinterest is removing hashtags and posters who post pro-trump topics.
Spotify has also removed Trump’s account so that Trump can’t even listen to music.
These same platforms are removing ANYONE who says ANYTHING positive about trump or negative about the coming administration.
There is talk about Bills being introduced, that will allow the government to track down owners of websites that talk negative about the new administration and cancel not only their website but also their means of living.
Remember Trump is still President of the most powerful Country in the world.
AND YET HE'S BEEN CANCELLED.
If the Leader of the Free World can be Removed from all of these websites, actually from accessing the internet, and cancel his ability to basic services, like music, food, utilities, etc.
What makes anyone thing that they and their family can't be cancelled from all internet access and basic services.
