Community >> View Post
·
Post By
bd2999 
Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To
Late Great Donald Blake 
Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,518
Subj: Re: An argument I'm having about free speech on the Thor board.
Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2022 at 08:16:25 pm EST (Viewed 288 times)
Reply Subj: An argument I'm having about free speech on the Thor board.
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2022 at 01:26:14 pm EST (Viewed 410 times)

Previous Post

It's going way out of the bounds of the Thor board, but I thought it would was still and interesting discussion and definitely worth having...

This is Norvell's last response, and I'll reply below.  It's worth noting most o his confusion here is thinking I'm a conservative and doesn't realize I AM on his left.  Anyway, the point isn't to try and dunk on him, but to illustrate the various freedom of speech positions here.



    Quote:
    LGDB: Well one, you're thinking of the 1st Amendment. The freedom of speech as a concept is a more basic philosophical precept, and I hate to tell you actually predates our Constitution.

So who enforces your freedom of speech? God?


    Quote:
    Secondly, classically more entities than just the State have historically abridged the freedom of speech, namely the church and the private sector, i.e. businesses and corporations.


You don't have any right to use the platform of a private business if you violate the terms of use, period. It's a privilege.


    Quote:
    This idea that somehow it's appropriate for us to outsource the abridgment of our rights to private companies, and especially liberals are okay with this, I think is probably not a good thing.


The increasing corporate control of America is a function of right-leaning policy, and statement of intent (not my opinion).


    Quote:
    Thirdly, I DO think Trump should be held to the same standard as everyone else. My point is Trump shouldn't be kicked of social media, because I see know reason why anyone should be kicked off of social media, unless they violate those exceptions that are pretty well observed at this point; direct threats of violence or force, fire in a crowded room, and so on. You could argue the latter is the case, but that's for a court to decide.


Incorrect. There is no applicable legal case that could be brought against Twitter, thus its not for a court to decide. In fact, the courts would overwhelmingly side with Twitter, hence why Trump hasn't brought one.


    Quote:
    Not some unaccountable billionaire. [b]Social media shouldn't be controlled by private companies who are only accountable to themselves and their stockholder, especially if they're going to monopolize the space.


So you're advocating for regulations of free speech and strict regulation of capitalism. You do realize that's what you're doing, right? If not, I got news for you.


    Quote:
    I'm not a Trump supporter, my position isn't informed by some interest or exceptional feeling (one way for another) for the ex president. It's informed by not wanted public discourse itself to be controlled by an oligarchy, instead of a democratic process of some kind.


So, again, you're advocating for more of a far-left (even further than me) approach to private companies. It actually seems like you're advocating for outright government control (the only thing accountable to a democratic process). Welcome, comrade!


    Quote:
    Fourthly, this is not to be confused with small associations like let's say this message board. The reason it's a problem with that kind of moderation on entities like Twitter and Facebook has everything to do with their monopolization of the PUBLIC.


It's public discourse on a private platform. Of course Twitter or Facebook have a right to control it. Just as someone else can start another platform and do the same thing (e.g. ban users, which the so-called free-speech right-wing platforms have already done).


    Quote:
    It doesn't matter that these companies exist as privately owned enterprises.


Um, yeah it does, since its foundational to what we're discussing.


    Quote:
    The fact that they have that much control of the market share means they have the capacity to control the lionshare of what's allowed to be said on line.


A much stronger case could be made against other sectors of the economy, such as energy production or health care.


    Quote:
    And it's an atrocious idea to cede this level of power and influence to any private nondemocratic entity much less a for profit company.


Well, I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but your making a purely ideological point that does not exist in American reality (or most other nation's).



    Quote:
    It would be like if one company owned 90% of the newspapers in the company and then decided what was allowed to be published.


Even that strained analogy has to be terribly skewed so that competing news papers cannot be created by virtue of the conditions of the argument.


    Quote:
    That's all together different than a small private group of people on a chat room or a message board, who want to decide how best to moderate their own group.


I have never visited a discussion forum that was run as a democracy. Ever.


    Quote:
    The veritable agora of political discourse isn't something private entities should have control over. The various fan club message board of the world can police themselves however they like.


Ultimately there is regulation about the content of these forums, either by the overseeing platform or even the Internet Service Provider.


    Quote:
    Fifthly, I didn't personally ban you from the Community Board and as moderators go I'm pretty lenient.


Ironically, I was banned for bickering, IIRC.


    Quote:
    But that doesn't mean I think for a moment Youtube, Twitter, or Facebook should have a comparable kind of moderation.


So privately owned platforms shouldn't have terms of service or content moderation. That seems diametrically opposed to your view that there should be strict regulation of the economy and the private sector (perhaps even moreso than my ideology would allow). Your ideological position has not been fully thought through.


    Quote:
    Sixthly, I don't think THIS moderator want us to have this discussion here.


Thankfully you've opened the window to this discussion, thus inviting me to respond. You're welcome to not respond in turn.



Not sure this is OK unless the other poster can respond. Indications were he could not.

Just my two cents though.

That said those posting to social media signed an agreement. If somebody is in violation they should be kicked off upon repeat. For that matter they were created by companies. If they were government owned it would be more complicated to me. Also potentially infighting violence is illegal

There is alot in the original thread to impact but I find I agree with Norvell on some points.

Even freedom of speech on a philosophical level or academic level is not absolute or mean what some want it to. Having taught for years myself not every students opinion is right. Nor free from consequence.

I am not hitting point by point.





Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 97.0.4692.70 on Linux
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software