A good video by David Stewart, thought I'd share.
The Dangers of Social Media in 2020
- Thread starter Corbic
- Start date
On point and well said.
Rule 1: Social Media platforms are private infrastructures open to the public. You DO NOT have a right to it and can be removed from it by its owners for any reason or no reason at all.
Rule 2: See Rule 1
Rule 2: See Rule 1
well they didnt take long to ban his ass, didnt get to see it
It's still there...
damn thing didnt load first time I clicked on it, just got the user is banned screen
If you think free speech is real, go to a crowded place and scream "gun"! Better yet, flame some of the svtperformance.com sponsors and see what happens. Not complaints, but FLAME. I dare you to.
Again, it is a private business and you have no legal rights to it.
Huh?
Wrong. They gave up that right when they accepted protections against legal action under section 230. It's just a matter of time until they're treated like private businesses again.
230 protects them from the content posted on their infrastructure by outside entites. That has nothing to do with them being a private business. Want proof? People that violates Twitter's TOS have had their content removed or edited, at Twitter's discretion because it is a private company.
Because its part of our culture and what is going on is against our culture.
The other problem is Social Media was sold to us as this great public forum for everyone to connect, share ideas, create businesses etc.
Let the rules of "capitalism" control the flow of ideas. If people disapprove they will down vote, block, unfollow, etc.
Except now we see Social Media curating and controlling people against what these companies feel is "wrong think".
Hell, we see financial institutions banning people.
It's all part of one never ending moving goal post.
It has everything to do with it. They can't do what they want and censor who they want and still seek those protections. They can be a publisher or a platform but not both.
If you don't like the TOS of a platform, stay off of it, or abid by their rules.
Since you seem to have a hard time understanding this, let's use svtp as an example. If I bypass the profanity filter (which is against the terms of service) and I am removed from the site, does that mean I have the right to sue svtp for censorship?
It is you who does not get it. They get special privileges due to that 230 protection. They do not have to take responsibility for crazy stuff posted in their platform but there is a caveat. The protection was created so the platforms could grow and allow diversity of thought and prevent suppression of knowledge. That is the intent.
If you can't see how banning, moderating, or editing only certain points of view is a violation of 230, then you are either completely blind at best or at worst, a liar and hypocrite.
They block violent liberal content less often than conservative peaceful content. They simply claim something is hateful with no objective evidence and then it is.
Every business discriminates. Is this new information to you?
If they don't like their legal protections and want to exercise their freedom they're welcome to give up that status. It works both ways.
Svt isn't protected by section 230 so I could take legal action against them for what's posted here. That's the difference and it's why social media CEOs have testified in front of Congress.
Last edited:
That's why Parler exists. If there's a market, someone will offer a product.
Did you even bother to watch the video?
Users who are viewing this thread
