Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
He actually seems to be mellowing with age. He is also 100% correct about this censoring.
You can add twitter to that. Twitter may be the worst of the bunch actually. Just look at a Jemele Hill tweet, its almost a race issue, and the lynch mob comes shortly after. You really need a ghost account to post on there.
Disagree, social media couldn’t ban posts fast enough of the Covid coming from a Chinese lab.
That doesn’t have anything to do with what I wrote. If you’re asking me if they should have banned those posts, I will say no, of course not. You’re right, Bill Maher is right, @Joe Bryantis right.
Actually it was censorship. Why would they ban those posts, outside of it was a Trump deal?
There is an argument to be made that social media has gotten so large and so important that government can regulate it like we do the FCC with television and radio.
I agree with you. It’s something I believe will end up under FCC control I have a feeling down the road
Dude - you're playing word game salad. It's censorship plain and simple cut and dried. They DON'T want you to hear information they don't approve of. government has ZERO to do with it:
You need government to suppress it. Otherwise it’s just freedom of speech. It’s a private business, not sure how many times I need to say this.
Tim, I think we have a problem:
Then you're just arguing semantics. Let's call it Tuna Fish. And then let's actually talk about Facebook, Twitter and Google restricting stories (Or Tuna Fishing stories) that now may have actual truth to them.
It’s not just semantics. It’s a very important distinction. This is a form of free speech, not censorship.
I’m not going to argue all of your assertions about me, many of which are not accurate at all. I will say this only: based on my understanding of this forum, your post is not what the mods here want.
It is not Free speech. It is publishing. They acted as a publisher in these instances. They should lose their section 230 protections--and the next time some pedophile posts child porn--they should be shut down for allowing child porn.
It’s not a game. With regard to the decision I already wrote that I agreed with Bill Maher and @Joe Bryant and I assume, yourself as well. Not sure what else there is to be said about that.
You're intentionally ignoring the actual point of the article and the problem to argue a definition. You're really too smart to play the "this is why I won't talk about the main point" game.
I stopped using Facebook six months ago, somehow I am still able to find and read articles.
You're so great man. I hope one day to be half the man that you are.
My point is there are many other places to find and read news articles. I personally don't find Facebook to be a very good place to find news. I apologize if you think my posts are condescending. I just think that Facebook (and most other social media) is terrible. I'd be happy to see people stop using them and reducing their power to influence our lives.
Sorry if I took you the wrong way.
As a corollary, in the cancel culture thread we have people essentially saying "well I expect to be canceled if I share my thoughts on the internet, not sure why that's a question".
And yet another "understanding" you don't understand at all.
You are conflating "whats good" and "what the government should do". It feels similar to arguing over the definition of censorship.
They have a very unique power by virtue of being so big. They have become a major way news and information is spread. And in restricting certain things--things that may later to prove to be true even--they're acting as a publisher. They are not a publisher under section 230. And if they are a publisher--they suddenly have all kinds of problems.
I guess before we can get to your points I need to better understand how these SM platforms and the Government are in cahoots? Government vs Private business make it a very different conversation.
I think the section 230 debate creates a clear role for government to intervene. And I think restricting certain stories that may be harmful or favorable to 1 side seems to be very much in line with acting as a publisher instead of a platform.
So you’re arguing they are a victim of their own success so the rules should be different for them?
You most definitely censor posts here, as is your right. Tim’s the only one arguing it’s a government only term.
No, I think you're using it correctly. What is generally implied from the word "censorship" is that the government is practicing prior restraint to prevent the publication of a thing. "Censor" means simply that any official or person in authority makes a decision about what is permissible to publish. The first example from Merriam-Webster online uses the adjectival phrase "government censorship" in the sentence as its example for the word. If an act of "censorship" was necessarily a government action, then that phrase would be redundant. But it isn't redundant. So proper usage is in your corner.
