Opinion Politics (warning, may contain political views you disagree with)

Remove this Banner Ad

salim malik said:
But this so called free speech doesn't apply to the print media .
Print lies and you are liable to be sued.
Only on the internet can you state as fact incredible fabrications with out recourse.
The print media is subject to legal implications, why shouldn't online bloggers be held to the same account?
Click to expand...

This is a key part of the problem isn't it? We have one set of very established rules for broadcasters and publishers (traditional "media") yet those rules treat social media as not "media" at all--instead the formal responsibilities of a social media platform are more akin to phone compny allowing people to have private conversations on a phone line.

What we need is a new set of public policy for social media that doesn't treat these platforms as formally "private" spaces and acknowledges/regulates the editorial and publishing role of social media owners that manipulate the content that appears on their platform.
 
Square Peg said:
They are totally separate issues. The reason there is no debate on here about whether Trump-enabled insurrectionists should be prosecuted is presumably because everyone agrees they should. And I haven't seen one person use the lunar argument on here that because BLM protests occurred, that excuses or is the moral equivalent to the Capitol protests.
Free speech is a far more universally important topic. In the future when Trump is ranting at clouds to an audience that will fit in a phone booth, we will be in much more danger as a liberal society by the creeping restriction on expression of opinion and debate that his permaban on twitter represents.
BTW you seem keen on assuming those opposing the permaban are right wingers. Interesting view since classical libertarianism was once the purvey of the left. It's the left that have changed to become the main censorious influence in society, when a generation ago they were the least. I still happen to see myself as a classical left libertarian, read the late great Christopher Hitchens if you want to know how you can be left and support free speech.
Click to expand...
I personally don't see that there is a 'creeping restriction on expression'. Expression, although generally free, has always had caveats. There are many regulators for film/media etc in Australia and there always has been. The big change is that in the last 20 years (the invention of social media) we have seen an explosion in unregulated public media forums. It's most definitely caught governments unprepared and so I would suggest that governments around the world have to a point allowed this unregulated forum to exists for the purpose of simply 'seeing how it goes'. It takes an event such as we've just seen to force the hand of regulators to do something. Now my point above was that social media companies would rather do without government regulation so currently would prefer to be seen as doing something on their own accord so as to avoid this situation.
I don't believe that the left is now 'the main censorious influence in society', more that it is the left (who would be regarded as more socially aware, how my actions effect others etc.) who are trying to apply rules that have existed for centuries around censorship of hate speech etc. to social media. If someone wrote a letter to the editor inciting violence or to hang someone, I doubt it would be published as it likely wouldn't pass the newspapers own codes of conduct as much as the laws around printing such things. This is a form of censorship but has almost never been questioned. Now people have their letters/thoughts 'published' on line without (until now) any of these editorial restrictions and this has clearly created a problem. Social Media has shown why we needed censorship to some degree in the 1st place. I think of social media in a similar way to a private hwy being built that has no speed restrictions. It's all well and good until we get a fully laden B-Double doing 200km/h (because they can) and having an accident, cleaning up 20 cars and killing all of the other drivers. That private Hwy will pretty soon become regulated to fall in line with other, similar hwy's.
The nett effect 'could' be that social media companies are held to editorial account in the same way that the print media is. This would require much more staff to vet all posts, raising the business costs of the companies, meaning that we likely have to pay to access the sites. Would people pay to use Facebook and Twitter?? It's an interesting question I think.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Bicco said:
I personally don't see that there is a 'creeping restriction on expression'. Expression, although generally free, has always had caveats. There are many regulators for film/media etc in Australia and there always has been. The big change is that in the last 20 years (the invention of social media) we have seen an explosion in unregulated public media forums. It's most definitely caught governments unprepared and so I would suggest that governments around the world have to a point allowed this unregulated forum to exists for the purpose of simply 'seeing how it goes'. It takes an event such as we've just seen to force the hand of regulators to do something. Now my point above was that social media companies would rather do without government regulation so currently would prefer to be seen as doing something on their own accord so as to avoid this situation.
I don't believe that the left is now 'the main censorious influence in society', more that it is the left (who would be regarded as more socially aware, how my actions effect others etc.) who are trying to apply rules that have existed for centuries around censorship of hate speech etc. to social media. If someone wrote a letter to the editor inciting violence or to hang someone, I doubt it would be published as it likely wouldn't pass the newspapers own codes of conduct as much as the laws around printing such things. This is a form of censorship but has almost never been questioned. Now people have their letters/thoughts 'published' on line without (until now) any of these editorial restrictions and this has clearly created a problem. Social Media has shown why we needed censorship to some degree in the 1st place. I think of social media in a similar way to a private hwy being built that has no speed restrictions. It's all well and good until we get a fully laden B-Double doing 200km/h (because they can) and having an accident, cleaning up 20 cars and killing all of the other drivers. That private Hwy will pretty soon become regulated to fall in line with other, similar hwy's.
The nett effect 'could' be that social media companies are held to editorial account in the same way that the print media is. This would require much more staff to vet all posts, raising the business costs of the companies, meaning that we likely have to pay to access the sites. Would people pay to use Facebook and Twitter?? It's an interesting question I think.
Click to expand...
Well said
 
Unique Name said:
if you don't like a private companies terms and conditions don't use their service.

Amazing that right wingers can't follow what they preach about personal responsibility.

The law is above and separate to a private companies t&c's.
Click to expand...
The issue is that social media is an integral part of the social fabric, between 50 and 90% of the population have the majority of their social connections through the online social media websites and apps.

They are utilities that serve a social function, we are the product being sold by their business though, except they enforce a political agenda when it suits them.

It would be like the power utility, private company, cutting off your electricity because you supported the wrong football team.
 
DeanS said:
" It would be like the power utility, private company, cutting off your electricity because you supported the wrong football team. "

It's nothing like that. I don't support everything you say but your arguments are usually sensible and clearly thought out. You missed the target this time.
Click to expand...
I'm suggesting that when something forms part of social expectations and a required part of our modern lives then the removal of people for political reasons from using that public utility is obscene and should be addressed.

I'm not usually big on government intervention but I am in favor of public utilities being publicly owned for the reason above.
 
Taylor said:
I'm suggesting that when something forms part of social expectations and a required part of our modern lives then the removal of people for political reasons from using that public utility is obscene and should be addressed.

I'm not usually big on government intervention but I am in favor of public utilities being publicly owned for the reason above.
Click to expand...

That's garbage.

Political reasons would be advocating for a new tax, new laws or changing social beliefs...

What Trump was doing was inciting people to violent insurrection based on lies and propaganda
 
But hey keep up the “outrage” over some mythical movement trumps Twitter ban supposedly represents curtailing free speech righties....you people sound like , dare I say it snowflakes!!! 🤦‍♂️
 
Lach72 said:
That's garbage.

Political reasons would be advocating for a new tax, new laws or changing social beliefs...

What Trump was doing was inciting people to violent insurrection based on lies and propaganda
Click to expand...

Has Twitter banned biologists for saying there are two genders? Yes.

That makes them political.

My comments aren't about Trump, they are about a serious consideration, every time we allow lines drawn on value of human life, who gets an opinion etc etc it will introduce the ability to move that line.

It's fine when we are one side of that line, until it goes beyond you and now you're on the outer.

Unfortuantley principles means extending them to people you don't like too.
 
I am so glad I grew up in the 70s. I did and said so many dumb things and there is no record of it ANYWHERE! :)

Unfortunately social media gives people who often don't deserve it a public forum for their views. This allows them to incite hatred and violence. It allows them to vilify anyone who is different from them or expresses a view they disagree with. This applies to people from all sides of politics - from the lunatic fringes on the right to the holier than thou preachers on the left.

It's why social media is so poisonous and sadly most of our kids live in this vile universe.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Taylor said:
Has Twitter banned biologists for saying there are two genders? Yes.

That makes them political.

My comments aren't about Trump, they are about a serious consideration, every time we allow lines drawn on value of human life, who gets an opinion etc etc it will introduce the ability to move that line.

It's fine when we are one side of that line, until it goes beyond you and now you're on the outer.

Unfortuantley principles means extending them to people you don't like too.
Click to expand...
Taylor said:
I'm suggesting that when something forms part of social expectations and a required part of our modern lives then the removal of people for political reasons from using that public utility is obscene and should be addressed.
Click to expand...

The US constitution and I'm guessing ours too, have clauses that explicitly prevent political speech such that Trump expressed, that of over throwing a government with violence. This is nothing new. It's not shocking and it definitely isn't obscene. It's the way society's have functioned since laws began.
There's a cold reality that if social media disappeared tomorrow, it would almost make no difference to the running of our lives after perhaps the 1st 3 months as we (society) readjusted.
Losing the internet would be a problem (to put things lightly) but if Twitter, Facebook, Instagram etc. just disappeared over night the world wouldn't skip a beat.
But back to your points, political messaging has always been censored when it purports to overthrow a government. The issue is that Social Media hasn't been censoring for the past 15 years and now it seems people think that that is the way 'it's always been'. It's the exception rather than the norm.
 
Trump wasn't all bad, if you look into some stuff he did was quite positive. I think Trump has just brought to the surface the huge amount of psychopath, inbred nutjobs there are bubbling under the surface in American society. They took some of his ideas and put there own extreme twists on it, realising it was the masses he embraced it for future votes. It just went South really really fast..
 
Bicco said:
I don't believe that the left is now 'the main censorious influence in society', more that it is the left (who would be regarded as more socially aware, how my actions effect others etc.) who are trying to apply rules that have existed for centuries around censorship of hate speech etc. to social media.
Click to expand...

If we are going to have a debate at least let's debate truths. Are you suggesting that politicians/artists/philosophers/academics of the centre- to far- left face the same calls for deplatforming and censoring of their views as those from the centre- to far- right? If so let's play a little game of ping pong - I'll name one right person subject to those calls, you name one left person, and we keep going until we run out of names. I'm not saying that both sides don't engage in it, but it is far more likely for these calls to come from the left.
And note I'm not talking here about speech that has always been illegal, but speech that expresses an opinion for the purpose of political/social/economic/cultural etc debate.
And this is the opposite to what it once was. As Salman Rushdie has observed, if he wrote The Satanic Verses today, the mainstream intellectual left wouldn't be defending him they'd be joining in the calls for his punishment for 'hate speech' (your term) against a cultural minority. That's assuming he could even find a publisher.
 
Last edited:
Lach72 said:
That's garbage.

Political reasons would be advocating for a new tax, new laws or changing social beliefs...

What Trump was doing was inciting people to violent insurrection based on lies and propaganda
Click to expand...

What did Ron Paul do?

www.newsweek.com

Ron Paul Facebook Access Blocked for Violating 'Community Standards'

"Never have we received notice of violating community standards in the past and nowhere is the offending post identified," the former GOP congresssman tweeted.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
 
Bicco said:
The US constitution and I'm guessing ours too, have clauses that explicitly prevent political speech such that Trump expressed, that of over throwing a government with violence. This is nothing new. It's not shocking and it definitely isn't obscene. It's the way society's have functioned since laws began.
There's a cold reality that if social media disappeared tomorrow, it would almost make no difference to the running of our lives after perhaps the 1st 3 months as we (society) readjusted.
Losing the internet would be a problem (to put things lightly) but if Twitter, Facebook, Instagram etc. just disappeared over night the world wouldn't skip a beat.
But back to your points, political messaging has always been censored when it purports to overthrow a government. The issue is that Social Media hasn't been censoring for the past 15 years and now it seems people think that that is the way 'it's always been'. It's the exception rather than the norm.
Click to expand...
Sure seditious talk has generally been sanctioned -- by the state.

The growth of social media is resulting in the privatisation of public conversation. Which should be very worrying to all us.
 
Anyone outraged Deutsche Bank are refusing to do future business with Trump or his business?

At this rate if Dominion sue Donald they might owe Deutsche $320 million and probably quite a few fingers to the Russian mob.

Twitter, PGA and now the banks in less than a week... Fast food chains seem the logical next step to refuse Trump service.
 
wayToGo_ said:
Anyone outraged Deutsche Bank are refusing to do future business with Trump or his business?

At this rate if Dominion sue Donald they might owe Deutsche $320 million and probably quite a few fingers to the Russian mob.

Twitter, PGA and now the banks in less than a week... Fast food chains seem the logical next step to refuse Trump service.
Click to expand...

Deutsche Bank is in deep trouble for banking and turning the other way over Epstein's little sex parties, so good to see them taking a stand for what they know is right.

And I'm being genuine here. Everyone should be congratulated for standing up for their principles.
 
Taylor said:
Deutsche Bank is in deep trouble for banking and turning the other way over Epstein's little sex parties, so good to see them taking a stand for what they know is right.

And I'm being genuine here. Everyone should be congratulated for standing up for their principles.
Click to expand...
Yep. Things must be going pretty bad for you if the dodgy bastards at Deutsche Bank are refusing to do business with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top