| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
Or that Democratic group, the Klan. Individual rights are not group. There's some fundamental problems with Evil men and Group Identity. Specifically being assigned a group against your will. Corporations are groups of people, or legal fictions/structures for individuals. In either case it's one guy or a clique that make decisions. When I worked for a then major corporation, the choices of one or a hundred employees didn't create policy. Management did, and that power pyramid had a one man point and the lower layers had no say in his gutting the company for personal profit. Your Coke Delivery driver didn't mandate mental illness racism indoctrination. She might lose her job because of it. | ||
| Sami |
Corporations are "legal persons", but they are not people. People breathe, eat and drink, corporations don't do any of these. Does Facebook breathe air? Does Twitter eat food? | ||
| Whisperstealth |
Sami, I don't see it the same as you. A corporation should be able to tweet what it pleases, the same as an individual person. It's not the Government's job or right to intimidate and censor people or corporate entities. | ||
| Sami |
What's the job of the government, if not to protect the rights of the people? Big Tech Corporations are violating the rights of the people. Hungary is doing something about Big Tech Censorship. Other countries would be wise to do the same. Corporations are not people. Corporations are sharks with big teeth looking for something to eat. I'm exaggerating, but you get the point. | ||
| Sami |
 | ||
| Hootowl |
Like it or not, corporations have rights. Again, see citizens united. | ||
| Whisperstealth |
Last I was aware social media wasn't compulsory. And from what I know, most do not require a membership fee. It's a free platform, that you are free to use or not. If said platform is censoring people or putting out false information, it is up to the individual to leave that platform, not the Government's job to play the role of parents and tell the platform to 'Knock it off'. People. People chose to use things that are not good for them in a huge variety of ways. It's the Government's job to protect that right for them. If they fall, they fall, it's part and parcel with freedom and liberty. | ||
| Sami |
Jeff, I didn't say corporations don't have rights. The point is that there is no one who is "Facebook", there is no one who is "Twitter", these are legal constructs, not actual people. Gabriel, it is the government's job to protect the rights of the people such as the freedom of peaceful assembly. When Big Tech violates those rights they should be held accountable to the law. Big Tech is not above the law, they are not too big to fail, and Hungary has made that clear. | ||
| Sami |
"It's a free platform, that you are free to use or not." If it's free, you're the product. | ||
| Hootowl |
“there is no one who is "Twitter"” What is your point? “If it’s free, you’re the product” Fact. | ||
| Sami |
From previous year: The EU could break up big tech companies that violate stricter rules https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/the-eu-c ould-break-up-big-tech-companies-that-violate-stri cter-rules/ar-BB1bX5rx The government's job is to protect the people against violations of their rights by, for example, Big Tech companies. Big Tech companies do not have the right to violate your right to peaceful assembly. | ||
| Whisperstealth |
Yes, absolutely, anyone who uses fb, twitter, etc., is the product on that we agree. How has big tech violated people's right of peaceful assembly? I have yet to see fb show up to a live event and physically shut it down. How has big tech violated anyone's constitutional rights? When has big tech physically forced someone to use their platform? I look at fb like I look at someone's house. It's their house, their rules. It's their right to censor me if they want. There right to kick me out, their right to push their agenda. It's my right to leave. To take my person else where. Take me(the product), and kick rocks. | ||
| Whisperstealth |
Screw the EU. They are all about big government, and big brother. That they want to control big tech is absolutely no surprise. That you Sami, are espousing their rules is a surprise. I was under the impression you were about personal liberty and limited government overreach. | ||
| Hootowl |
“The government's job is to protect the people against violations of their rights” According to whom? Which founding document does that? | ||
| H0gwash |
A corporation does not have to be a person to have legal personhood. | ||
| Oldog |
It seems that perhaps taking a moment to consider, what the real use of the various platforms fb twit etc.. How many folks have wrecked their careers by making a heat of the moment comment that they come to regret later, BWB is my favorite "social media platform", great topics and great folks.. discussing Guns or politics else where will surely lead to grief. in a world that thinks Dr Sues is racist.. Motorcycles are safer.. | ||
| Aesquire |
Understand, this is about freedom of speech, and protection from libel. If I write a bunch of lies about you, you can sue me. But you can also sue me if I write a bunch of true stuff about you, & you don't like it. I have to prove I'm not deliberately lying to defend myself. And I can ask the Court to get you to pay my costs for defense, which discourages you from suing me dishonestly. It's a balance of accountability. If I'm a reporter for a paper, or broadcast news thing, the extra, extraordinary, protection against libel suits is needed to protect the entire idea of being able to speak truth to power. ( the real deal,not the SJW & Politician fake ) The crux is, if FB etc. Doesn't edit postings on their service then they can't be sued when D!kless59 posts that You are a Nazi murderer, and your children should be raped to death on tv to punish you. ( yes, that happens. A Lot ) But if they do selectively edit/moderate then they can be sued. And many foreign countries and Domestic Pols Demand they edit out "Hate Speech", claiming they want to stop terrorists from organizing murders and spreading terrorist ideology. But inevitably really want their political Enemies Silenced. Thus FB etc. have a unique protection that is highly problematic. Especially since they Choose to take the side of Evil in censorship and defamation. | ||
| Sami |
I am not espousing the EU. But I am also not espousing monopolies operating above the law. Big Tech is operating above the law with their censorship, this is why Hungary has come up with new legislation to prevent that from happening. The EU case is similar to that, preventing Big Tech from operating above the law. Big Tech has no right to kick you out if you have not broken any law. And no, Big Tech is not a house, it has to be clear whether they are publishers or platforms. If they censor you for no lawful reason, then they are operating outside the law and for that they need to be held legally accountable. Airports and banks cannot deny you their platform for no lawful reason, so why should Big Tech deny you their platform for no lawful reason? If airports and banks have to operate within the law, then so should Big Tech. | ||
| Sami |
Jeff: "According to whom? Which founding document does that?" The government has certain obligations, as established by any founding document since the dawn of time. For example, the government has the obligation to protect the border. The government has the obligation to protect the country from foreign aggressors. And, the government has the obligation to establish and protect people's rights. Without the government, who will protect the border? Without the government, who will protect the country from foreign aggressors? Without the government, who will establish and protect people's rights? | ||
| Hootowl |
You’re mistaken, Sami. Discounting all that other stuff that is not germane to this discussion, the constitution does not establish rights; it protects the rights granted by God. More specifically, the constitution forbids the government from violating those rights. It is a “we constitute this government with the following stipulations” document. It’s a “you shall not do this” document, and a “you shall do this” document. It speaks not of corporations. | ||
| Sami |
Jeff, the government safeguards people's rights against violations. Violations may come from elements within the government, or from corporations, or from the people themselves. Irrespective of who or what violates people's rights, the government is there to prevent such violations from happening, and when they do happen, to make sure that those who commit violations are brought to justice. By "establish rights" I mean that the government enacts rights into law. I don't mean that the government is the source of rights. | ||
| Sami |
University of Oxford considers scrapping sheet music for being 'too colonial' after staff raise concerns about music curriculums' 'complicity in white supremacy' after Black Lives Matter movement https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9410665/U niversity-Oxford-considers-scrapping-sheet-music-c olonial.html Math is racist. Music is racist. What's next? | ||
| H0gwash |
You have the right to call anything racist. Here in the US we kinda have the right to risk being wrong. Whether anyone will listen or whether that accusation sticks or whether everyone starts thinking you are crazy is a related, but different matter. Not sure if that's the case in Europe where I'm guessing you're from. (Message edited by h0gwash on March 28, 2021) | ||
| Sami |
Jeff, no one has the right to be wrong. Rather, you have the right to be right. | ||
| Hootowl |
If the government enacts rights into law, the source of that right is the government. The constitution does no such thing. Please cite the portion of the constitution that makes it illegal for facebook to delete someone’s post. | ||
| Hootowl |
“no one has the right to be wrong. Rather, you have the right to be right.” That made no sense. Of course you have a right to be wrong. That’s the core of freedom of speech. You’re doing it right now.  | ||
| Sami |
I didn't say that it is illegal for Facebook to delete someone's post. Facebook has to operate within the bounds of the law when deleting someone's post. They cannot simply delete someone's post for no lawful reason. As an example: Suppose you make a post on Facebook saying, "I'm going to have a steak for dinner!" Then someone at Facebook deletes your post, because your post was considered offensive to vegans. According to your logic, Facebook had the right to do so. But according to my logic, Facebook had no business to do so, because what you said was not unlawful. | ||
| Sami |
"That made no sense. Of course you have a right to be wrong. That’s the core of freedom of speech. You’re doing it right now." It makes perfect sense, Jeff. I have no right to be wrong. The core of freedom of speech is that you have the right to be right. | ||
| Sami |
 | ||
| Hootowl |
You’ve got it exactly wrong, Sami. “Right” speech requires no protection. It is wrong or unpopular speech that require protection. Freedom of speech, as enshrined in the first amendment is a guarantee that the government will not persecute you for saying things it doesn’t like, right or wrong, popular or unpopular. Facebook doesn’t come into it. |
