liberals who support banning conservatives on twitter... do you also support those who ban books?

Author: n8nrgim

Posts

Total: 72
#31
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Best.Korea
If free speech is going to be sacrificed for profit, then profit is more valued than free speech.
you seem to be confused. Free speech only applies to the government. It has nothing to do with private corporations. A company can ban you from talking about whatever they want inside their business. That's capitalism. 

Since social media is the main communication place, it makes sense to desire free speech over profit in the main communication place.
I can see where you are coming from, but no you are wrong. If you had truly free speech on social media, they would go bankrupt. Virtually no one actually wants truly free speech on there. I don't want to see/hear some KKK member or anti-semite spew hate. I wouldn't use a platform that made me see that. And no advertiser wants their add popping up next to a call for genocide. Twitter is a good example of this. They cut their moderation, allowed hate to spread further and faster than ever, and their revenue is down like 60%. 
#32
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,130
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
So then I agree that similarly, porno books should be banned for 3rd graders.
#33
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,130
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
and their revenue is down like 60%. 
Maybe, but their stock valuation today is near the same as when Musk bought it for a pretty high price. Near 54 dollars a share.

Can't exactly do a victory lap over this. Cutting useless worker liabilities can counter the loss in revenue.
#34
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 272
Posts: 7,869
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
I can see where you are coming from, but no you are wrong. If you had truly free speech on social media, they would go bankrupt. Virtually no one actually wants truly free speech on there. I don't want to see/hear some KKK member or anti-semite spew hate. I wouldn't use a platform that made me see that. And no advertiser wants their add popping up next to a call for genocide. Twitter is a good example of this. They cut their moderation, allowed hate to spread further and faster than ever, and their revenue is down like 60%.
I disagree that they would go bankrupt, since there are plenty of people who value free speech. People who value free speech would be on the sites that value free speech. Plenty of people would be on sites that value free speech. Sites that value free speech would not go bankrupt.

If all sites were forced to respect free speech, then all people on the internet would have to use sites that respect freedom of speech. Therefore, those sites would still have users.

While I do agree that some profit might be lost, freedom of speech is more valuable than some profit.
#35
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@n8nrgim
i know a lot of liberals on here support twitter banning conservatives. do you also support those who ban books? if you oppose them banning books, why do you not also oppose twitter banning conservatives? 
When someone starts banning conservatives from a place they have a right to be (and not just a privilege) I'll be on their side. Until then, I'll laugh at the ignorant complaints.
#36
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,321
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
"Dangerous misinformation" was a term the corporate media made up to justify censorship of talk that threatened their stock prices.
It's also a term used to describe misinformation... That is dangerous. Like the idea that COVID vaccines were a global hoax meant to control us by microchipping us, or something. Or the idea that the election was stolen.

There is such a thing as reality. I support legitimate efforts to keep society living within it.
#37
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe, but their stock valuation today is near the same as when Musk bought it for a pretty high price. Near 54 dollars a share.
umm, what are you talking about? Twitter isn't listed on a stock exchange. So it has no publicly available stock price. I think you are looking at the stock price from when Elon bought it. 

The reported value of twitter shares has fallen massively since elon bought it. 

Can't exactly do a victory lap over this. Cutting useless worker liabilities can counter the loss in revenue.
not even close. They have lost the majority of their revenue. The firings can't come close to making up for that.
#38
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,130
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
 They have lost the majority of their revenue. The firings can't come close to making up for that.
Maybe, but they still have a ton of users, around 350 million, although that number is declining a few percentage points a year.
#39
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,115
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
A hot mic moment between Zuckerberg and German Chancellor Merkel:

“The Facebook CEO was overheard responding that “we need to do some work” on curtailing anti-immigrant posts about the refugee crisis. “Are you working on this?” Merkel asked in English, to which Zuckerberg replied in the affirmative before the transmission was disrupted.”


It shows that there exists ideological bias on the part of Facebook’s (now Meta) CEO— a bias that he wishes to see reflected in his product offering. It isn’t such a big stretch that a similar bias might exist on other platforms as well.

The term “platform” is pivotal. It distinguishes a forum for speech from a publisher, which has total control over what is… published. With that control comes the liability for libel. Unmoderated forums have no such liability, as they don’t exert any control. Here’s the rub:  many platforms are a mostly open forum as long as the terms of service are obeyed. If they are not, censorship is warranted. They would then be open to liability for libel except for what is known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act:

“‘No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.’

Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the good faith removal or moderation of third-party material they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."


With this, private companies are allowed to operate a moderated forum free from the liability that publishers have. It is the “good faith” aspect that has been in dispute with platforms such as Meta and Twitter.



#40
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,213
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Slainte
Who?  The thought police?  The Ministry of Truth.  Some pencil pusher who takes a quote out of context?  What about the media who spin everything to a particular voice?
Are you saying facts and the truth are unknowable? How do you know that? 

How do you know who was the first President of the United States? You weren’t there. Is it impossible to know?

#41
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Best.Korea
I disagree that they would go bankrupt, since there are plenty of people who value free speech. People who value free speech would be on the sites that value free speech. Plenty of people would be on sites that value free speech. Sites that value free speech would not go bankrupt.
sources for that? There are a whole bunch of "free speech" social media sites and they are not very popular. They basically just cater to right assholes and/or criminals. All the actual popular social media sites have lots of rules on what you can and can't say. Twitter recently cut alot of it's moderation and it's revenue is down like 60%. They are probably headed for bankruptcy unless they change course. 

If all sites were forced to respect free speech, then all people on the internet would have to use sites that respect freedom of speech. Therefore, those sites would still have users.
no, you'd probably just see those sites die. People would move on to something else. If you just want to share photos of your kids, you don't want to have to see someone posting about murdering government officials. If you did have to see that, you wouldn't post things there. 

It always makes me laugh how right wing people love capitalism, right up to the moment it doesn't benefit them. Then they want the government to step in and regulate those evil companies. lol. 
#42
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe, but they still have a ton of users, around 350 million, although that number is declining a few percentage points a year.
and? their user base is declining, and it is no longer a safe place to advertise. That is a dying brand. If you can't make enough money to turn a profit, your company is dying. 

#43
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,213
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@SkepticalOne
When someone starts banning conservatives 
Not conservatives, conservative liars. And they don’t have a right to social media anymore than you have a right to get service from a private business.

#44
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 272
Posts: 7,869
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
As I said, plenty of people value free speech, therefore sites that allow free speech would have plenty of people, as people who value free speech go to sites that have free speech.

Twitter has lots of users, by the way.

no, you'd probably just see those sites die. People would move on to something else. 
I suggest you read the argument. I said "If all sites were forced to respect free speech". There, I had to repeat myself there because you didnt read my argument properly.
#45
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Best.Korea
As I said, plenty of people value free speech, therefore sites that allow free speech would have plenty of people, as people who value free speech go to sites that have free speech.
there are lots of those sites. Truth social, frank speech etc. They have tiny user bases because they only appeal to right wing loons. 

Twitter has lots of users, by the way.
absolutely true. And when did it get those users? When it had a robust moderation team. They are now losing users as musk strips away that moderation and allowing the crazies to spread their nonsense. 

I suggest you read the argument. I said "If all sites were forced to respect free speech". There, I had to repeat myself there because you didnt read my argument properly.
oh no, i read it. But that would kill traditional social media sites. "normal" people would leave them because they'd be toxic shit holes. And then they'd lose all their revenue because no advertiser is going to pay to advertise on some toxic shithole.

Some new website would presumably pop up that does something similar but isn't a "social media website" to get around the laws. Bottom line, no one but right wing loons, assholes and criminals want to be on a social media platform full of nazis, anti-semites and right wing loons.
#46
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 272
Posts: 7,869
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
there are lots of those sites. Truth social, frank speech etc. They have tiny user bases because they only appeal to right wing loons.
First you said they would all bankrupt, now you say there is lots of them. Please, make up your mind in the next comment.


They are now losing users
Twitter has over 300 million users.


Some new website would presumably pop up that does something similar but isn't a "social media website" to get around the laws. 
This is an assumption, since you assume that it would be possible to get around the law.


But that would kill traditional social media sites. "normal" people would leave them because they'd be toxic shit holes.
Twitter has over 300 million users. Besides, judging by comments on YouTube, Quora... they are all toxic abusive sites. The only difference is that allowing free speech increases a variety of opinions where not allowing free speech decreases a variety of opinions. If you believe that variety of opinions is good, then you believe that free speech is good. If not, then you prefer profit over free speech. Besides, free speech wouldnt include call to violence.
#47
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Best.Korea
First you said they would all bankrupt, now you say there is lots of them. Please, make up your mind in the next comment.
There are, and they will. The current batch of them are not the 1st. They probably wont be the last. Every time some right wing prick with money gets butt hurt they think that they need their own social media site. They all end up the same way. But with enough money behind it they can last a few years. 

Twitter has over 300 million users.
and pretty much every one of those users signed up while they were still a normal social media site. Now that they are becoming a cesspool, they are bleeding users and especially money. 

This is an assumption, since you assume that it would be possible to get around the law.
I also assume the sun will rise tomorrow. It has a similar level of certainty. No law is perfect. There are always flaws, there are always loopholes. People will find them. 

If you believe that variety of opinions is good, then you believe that free speech is good.
lol are you 12? If I like free speech I have to be ok with nazi's calling for mass murder? What a childish argument. 

If not, then you prefer profit over free speech.
no, I prefer a functioning society. And all freedoms have limits. Every. single. one. without exception.

Besides, free speech wouldnt include call to violence.
ok, you must be 12. Because anyone older than that would know that right wing loons calls for violence every couple of seconds.
#48
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 1,035
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@HistoryBuff
Since these are private companies, they can moderate their platform however they want.
Except they aren't actually private companies. They claim to be public utilities, too.

You can't be both, so they have to choose one.

I think that the Comstitution's greatest flaw was stopping at government for the declaration of rights. The Bill of Rights should have applied to citizens in their private affairs, too.

We have ESG groups with their Climate pact that include all the biggest corporations, investment firms, and most of the world's richest people, and they basically have created their own shadow government here in America. But all of that is perfectly legal according to the Constitution.

This is why I'm a voluntaryist. Nobody should be forced against their will to live by someone else's rules.
#49
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Public-Choice
You can't be both, so they have to choose one.
what? most utilities are private companies. 


This is why I'm a voluntaryist. Nobody should be forced against their will to live by someone else's rules.
how does this make any sense in this context? You are arguing that platforms shouldn't be allowed to censor speech. But I don't want to have to interact with nazis etc. So you either restrict nazi's "right" to spread hate and violence, or you restrict my rights. 

and no one is forcing anyone to "live by" social media rules. If you don't like them, go to a social media platform that allows that bullshit. There are mutliple at this point. at least until they go bankrupt. but new ones will pop up. 

do I think there should be better rules for what kind of restrictions they can put in place? sure I would be fine with that. But there absolutely have to restrictions, or any social media platform is doomed. 
#50
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 272
Posts: 7,869
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
There are, and they will. The current batch of them are not the 1st. They probably wont be the last. Every time some right wing prick with money gets butt hurt they think that they need their own social media site. They all end up the same way. But with enough money behind it they can last a few years. 
Sorry, you are not making any sense. First you conceded that there is lots of them, that lots of people value free speech. Now you say that such sites can only last few years at best. I could give you countless examples of sites that have free speech and that have lasted for much more than few years, but given that you reject evidence in favor of making drama, I will just remind you that twitter still has 300 million users.


and pretty much every one of those users signed up while they were still a normal social media site. Now that they are becoming a cesspool, they are bleeding users and especially money
What is this rambling? Twitter is a free speech site. Twitter has 300 million users. Therefore, free speech site has 300 million users.


I also assume the sun will rise tomorrow. It has a similar level of certainty. No law is perfect. There are always flaws, there are always loopholes. People will find them.
Your first assumption is correct because you have an assumption that Sun will rise tommorow?
Also, any law can be improved if too many sites dodge it. Maybe some small, unnoticable site would be able to dodge it, but such site would be reported by citizen report. Therefore, Any site violating the law would be punished. Law would take place. If law takes place, any site violating such law would be punished.


lol are you 12? If I like free speech I have to be ok with nazi's calling for mass murder? What a childish argument.
I believe we already explained that caling for violence isnt free speech.


no, I prefer a functioning society. And all freedoms have limits. Every. single. one. without exception.
Well, then go to North Korea. North Korea has lots of limits on freedom, if limits on freedom is what you prefer. The only limit to freedom of speech should be call to violence.


ok, you must be 12. Because anyone older than that would know that right wing loons calls for violence every couple of seconds
Ah, refutation without refutation. Usually, when you make a counter argument, you should make it about the argument you are trying to refute. I didnt make the argument you are refuting. You are refuting an argument that I didnt make. If I didnt make the argument you are refuting, you are refuting an argument I didnt make. Its complicated, I know. Besides, every site: youtube, quora... is full of calls to violence. However, the leftists call everything they disagree with a call to violence, so I am guessing you get your information from leftist source. However, I urge you not to make such irrelevant arguments anymore.
#51
Slainte
Slainte's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 131
1
5
9
Slainte's avatar
Slainte
1
5
9
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
When something is not clearly objective, sure we have a fact.  1+1 = 2.    Ok Fact.   Lets look at what was labelled as truth or misinformation, just around COVID, that we now know is either false, or a legitimate part of an unresolved debate.

Vaccines stopped Covid transmission — wrong.  If you said they didn't stop transmission, that was labelled misinformation.   We know the vaccines do not reduce the spread.

COVID origins, if you said it was a lableak, that got your struck from Twitter, Youtube, META.  We now know that patient zero WUHAN lab, and we know that the genetics of the virus have no traceable natural origin.  So another example of the truth being labelled misinformation.

Two examples of "facts" that were absolutely wrong, and any discussion about their accuracy was banned.  
#52
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Best.Korea
Sorry, you are not making any sense. First you conceded that there is lots of them, that lots of people value free speech. 
you misunderstand. there are lots of them because lots of rightwing losers need a safe place to go and cry after they get removed from (or just made fun of on) mainstream social media. So they go and make their own. But they are not poplar. They appeal to a small group of people, but then they get bored of sitting in a right wing echo chamber and the site dies. so there are lots of them, but not because they are popular. Just because rightwing losers get hurt feelings and need a safe space. 

What is this rambling? Twitter is a free speech site. Twitter has 300 million users. Therefore, free speech site has 300 million users.
are you being willfully ignorant? Twitter is not a free speech site, it never has been. The current owner claims it is, but how and why that is a lie is a separate conversation. But until Musk bought it, it had rigorous moderation. And under the previous owners it built up hundreds of millions of users. Then musk bought and started it's slide into a cesspool and the users are dropping. so it becoming "a free speech site" has only hurt it's popularity. 

Also, any law can be improved if too many sites dodge it. Maybe some small, unnoticable site would be able to dodge it, but such site would be reported by citizen report. Therefore, Any site violating the law would be punished.
I don't think you are thinking this through. Are you claiming that a law would be passed that requires all websites to remove all content moderation? Because if so, that is laughably stupid. And probably wildly illegal. And if it is not going to target all websites, than it will always be possible for a website to say it is something else. Ex we aren't a social media site, we are site to share recipes, we just also have social aspects.

I believe we already explained that caling for violence isnt free speech.
ok. now we are getting somewhere. you just admitted you don't want free speech. You want to limit what people can say. Free speech would be being allowed to say anything you want. If you are putting limits on what they can say, that isn't completely free speech. So you objection isn't that you want free speech, you just want to be able to control what the limits to free speech should be. 

Well, then go to North Korea. North Korea has lots of limits on freedom, if limits on freedom is what you prefer. The only limit to freedom of speech should be call to violence.
lol all societies have limits to literally every freedom. There is no such thing as a freedom without limits in any country on the planet. 
#53
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 272
Posts: 7,869
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
You are just rambling at this point. I dont see any arguments in your text. I have already reminded you that twitter has 300 million users. I have already explained to you what free speech is. You already admitted multiple times that sites can respect free speech and still exist. You just answered with bunch of assumptions, ignored citizen report argument, ignored that freedom of speech is more important than profit... So yeah, if you feel the need to respond with bunch of insults like a 4 year old, I wont be playing that game. You felt the need to respond with bunch of insults like a 4 year old. I wont be playing that game.
#54
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,213
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Slainte
Vaccines stopped Covid transmission 
Smart people know that understanding a new virus takes time to be evaluated by the experts in this field. The experts don’t lie, they give us the best answer they can at the time with the information they have. This is how science works. 

The vaccines did cause a less virulent form of COVID from being transferred. So people could get a virus from a vaccinated person but it would be weak. And if that person was vaccinated then they would not have severe symptoms or risk death. So why would you object to that? Because you’re an idiot?

#55
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,213
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Slainte
COVID origins, if you said it was a lableak, that got your struck from Twitter, 
That’s a lie. Twitter never banned someone for saying COVID originated from a lab leak.

#56
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Best.Korea
I have already reminded you that twitter has 300 million users.
and since becoming a "free speech" site, it has been losing users. It gained those users while it hard lots of speech moderators. Thus proving you wrong that "Free speech is popular" on social media sites. Most people don't want that. 

You already admitted multiple times that sites can respect free speech and still exist.
sure. they don't get many users and get propped up by right wing billionaires. But failed businesses can be propped up by rich people for as long as they are willing to lose money. It doesn't mean they are popular or a good idea. 

You felt the need to respond with bunch of insults like a 4 year old. I wont be playing that game.
I didn't insult you. I honestly question how old you are. Several of your answers have made statements that are just silly on the face of them. The kind of thing a 12 year old might think. 
#57
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 272
Posts: 7,869
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
and since becoming a "free speech" site, it has been losing users.
300 million users stayed.


It gained those users while it hard lots of speech moderators.Thus proving you wrong that "Free speech is popular" on social media sites. Most people don't want that. 
Most people want free speech. Most people stayed on Twitter. If most people stayed on twitter, then most people want free speech.

Please think of actual arguments next time.
#58
Slainte
Slainte's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 131
1
5
9
Slainte's avatar
Slainte
1
5
9
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The vaccines did cause a less virulent form of COVID from being transferred. 
An absolute complete and utter falsity.

That’s a lie. Twitter never banned someone for saying COVID originated from a lab leak.
Let me rephrase this.  As part of Twitters COVID's misinformation policy, lableak theory was included.


You completely missed the point.  The attribution of fact vs misinformation has clear problemsI.  On a side note  have asked you repeatedly to not insult. Yet you continue to do so.  I will not be engaging with you anymore, absent an apology,
#59
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,213
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Slainte
An absolute complete and utter falsity.
Ok genius. The vaccine was distributed. Deaths from Covid proceeded to rapidly decline. What do you attribute this to? A coincidence? If you say herd immunity you would be an idiot.

#60
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,213
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Slainte
  I will not be engaging with you anymore,
You’ve said that before. You always come back. Because you fear you are ignorant and want to find out. You want to try to prove you are not a moron, but you can’t.