The beginning of the end for social media?

[bellisarius]

First there's this;

Warning shot

Read in the most narrow term it only applies to real estate advertisers. The reality is that the restrictions that will have to be applied to those algorithms is going to have to be across the board. Thus making FB advertising less valuable.

Then there's this;

Regulation

Yeah buddy, it's bad enough that FB and others are doing every thing they can to monetize my personal information, but now every law maker with a hard-on or a snatch itch is going to want to pass regulations?

The GB is a sign of what's in store for the internet. A sanitized Twitter with a higher character count overseen by hall monitors aided and abetted by whining tattle tales seeking to kiss the hall monitors ass.

Free speech my ass.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The GB is a sign of what's in store for the internet. A sanitized Twitter with a higher character count overseen by hall monitors aided and abetted by whining tattle tales seeking to kiss the hall monitors ass.

Free speech my ass.

Would you care for some cheese to go along your whine, n00b?


#ObeyForumRules
#ActionsHaveConsequences

 

[Luk]

News Flash - Good people don't like hate speech.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Free speech my ass.

Enjoy while it last.

The flourishing of the internet and the free exchange of information will not last long man.

It's already out the door in places like the UK, New Zealand and I'm sure others.

Just a matter of time before the (D)'s are in control and pass a "Freedom of Internet Commerce and Information Exchange Act " where they take over and restrict all commerce and information to be totally scrubbed through the social justice loony toonz filter.

Violators will be "re-educated" or have their social credit score destroyed.

That's PROGRESS!!!

 

[beew]

The GB is a sign of what's in store for the internet. A sanitized Twitter with a higher character count overseen by hall monitors aided and abetted by whining tattle tales seeking to kiss the hall monitors ass.

lol ..

 

[KimGordon67]

Enjoy while it last.

The flourishing of the internet and the free exchange of information will not last long man.

It's already out the door in places like the UK, New Zealand and I'm sure others.

Just a matter of time before the (D)'s are in control and pass a "Freedom of Internet Commerce and Information Exchange Act " where they take over and restrict all commerce and information to be totally scrubbed through the social justice loony toonz filter.

Violators will be "re-educated" or have their social credit score destroyed.

That's PROGRESS!!!

The internet is a platform. 'Free speech' doesn't encompass the requirement to provide a platform.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

The GB is a sign of what's in store for the internet.

https://media0.giphy.com/media/AgWQwLTByaABsBQ9Zf/giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/l0HlzHSUws5MryAve/giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/xT39D14ZQGal0UwS1G/giphy.gif

*flips over Ish's Saturday Night Franzia box*

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxpj6grFIe1qcaomb.gif

A sanitized Twitter with a higher character count overseen by hall monitors aided and abetted by whining tattle tales seeking to kiss the hall monitors ass.

Free speech my ass.

If there's a problem, you could always get bootstrappy like a conservative with a sack heavier than one marble and make your own online joint with your own rules to make you happy and last you until the end of your days, but...

https://media1.tenor.com/images/8410fc1f0e6e2a431be4a71ce0dd2dfc/tenor.gif?itemid=3486238

hey, I hear Alex Jones has a site or two to unload, you wouldn't even have to do any heavy lifting!

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxpj6grFIe1qcaomb.gif

 

[bellisarius]

The internet is a platform. 'Free speech' doesn't encompass the requirement to provide a platform.

Snail mail and soap boxes in Hyde Park. We've come a long way baby.

 

[beew]

I don't know what to say..
On one hand some cap on bullying and online radicalization was long overdue.
On the other hand: social media are more trustworthy than reporters. If you censor that last bastion...


It would be great if people also touched upon this:

The EU institutes new copyright regulations for social media
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/wha...ean-directive-on-copyright-explained-meme-ban

 

[BotanyBoy]

The internet is a platform. 'Free speech' doesn't encompass the requirement to provide a platform.

No but it does require the government not to restrict or censor it.


Which is what you and all the other authoritarian lefties are all about.

Hell last I checked you were all about locking anyone up who so much as posses information YOU deep too offensive to have much less share it weren't you?

That fucking white male who shared the live feed of the shooting, fuck him right??

Yea...thought so.

 

[KimGordon67]

No but it does require the government not to restrict or censor it.


Which is what you and all the other authoritarian lefties are all about.

Hell last I checked you were all about locking anyone up who so much as posses information YOU deep too offensive to have much less share it weren't you?

That fucking white male who shared the live feed of the shooting, fuck him right??

Yea...thought so.

While it's adorable that you think I have that power, I can't actually lock up anyone. (Well, maybe one person, but that would have to be consensual.)

 

[pointless]

https://media0.giphy.com/media/AgWQwLTByaABsBQ9Zf/giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/l0HlzHSUws5MryAve/giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/xT39D14ZQGal0UwS1G/giphy.gif

*flips over Ish's Saturday Night Franzia box*

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxpj6grFIe1qcaomb.gif



If there's a problem, you could always get bootstrappy like a conservative with a sack heavier than one marble and make your own online joint with your own rules to make you happy and last you until the end of your days, but...

https://media1.tenor.com/images/8410fc1f0e6e2a431be4a71ce0dd2dfc/tenor.gif?itemid=3486238

hey, I hear Alex Jones has a site or two to unload, you wouldn't even have to do any heavy lifting!

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxpj6grFIe1qcaomb.gif

rightwing knobjobs already have their own social media shithole. you don't want to go there, but i'm sure ish just loves it.

 

[Que]

The internet is a platform. 'Free speech' doesn't encompass the requirement to provide a platform.

Not the people of your ilk would know anything about or supports free speec, but that's absolute bullshit. The internet is the modern public square.

Nevermind individual providers on the internet, it has already been decided that POTUS cannot even squelch commentary associated with his individual account.

 

[Luk]

Not the people of your ilk would know anything about or supports free speec, but that's absolute bullshit. The internet is the modern public square.

Nevermind individual providers on the internet, it has already been decided that POTUS cannot even squelch commentary associated with his individual account.

lolwut

 

[KimGordon67]

Not the people of your ilk would know anything about or supports free speec, but that's absolute bullshit. The internet is the modern public square.

Nevermind individual providers on the internet, it has already been decided that POTUS cannot even squelch commentary associated with his individual account.

Actually, I think my original comment wasn't quite right - the internet is a network, not really a 'platform' as such. The individual sites are platforms, each of which is owned by someone. None of those someones have an obligation to provide anyone with space on their platform.

It's like when Molyneux and Southern tried to say they'd been 'banned' from speaking here. They weren't banned - it's just that every single venue the promoters approached said 'no'. Their freedom of speech wasn't compromised in any shape or form - but the businesses equally had the right to decide what would be done with their property.

 

[InsightRiot]

It's the beginning for new platforms, and the end for the old.

 

[Rightguide]

The internet is a platform. 'Free speech' doesn't encompass the requirement to provide a platform.

At least not in your country.

 

[BotanyBoy]

While it's adorable that you think I have that power, I can't actually lock up anyone. (Well, maybe one person, but that would have to be consensual.)

I don't think you have that power personally I think your country has that power and you support it's use against anyone you don't like to silence voices you don't want heard.

The left just CAN'T avoid the authoritarianism, it's the only way to get what you want.

 

[KimGordon67]

I don't think you have that power personally I think your country has that power and you support it's use against anyone you don't like to silence voices you don't want heard.

The left just CAN'T avoid the authoritarianism, it's the only way to get what you want.

You're welcome to think that as much as you want. It doesn't make it true.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You're welcome to think that as much as you want. It doesn't make it true.

No your open support for the state punishing the kid who shared the video of a shooting makes it true.

Your support for reactionary government intrusion onto individual rights makes it true.

Actually, I think my original comment wasn't quite right - the internet is a network, not really a 'platform' as such. The individual sites are platforms, each of which is owned by someone. None of those someones have an obligation to provide anyone with space on their platform.

Again....no they don't.

But that's not the beef, the beef is the government stepping in and telling those individual sites who they have to provide a platform for and how.

The US government has no business doing such things.

They are just trying to find ways into to take control of /manipulate information flow....all this freedom has them freaked the fuck out. Got control freaks jumping to censor/control it.

Comedy in the UK BANNED!

Videos in New Zealand BANNED!!

Super progressive.....maybe you can purge biologist next for saying gender isn't a social construct.

Uncle Joe likes that idea!!!
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/jojos-bi/images/e/eb/OMEGA_STALIN.png/revision/latest?cb=20170224230144

 

[KimGordon67]

No your open support for the state punishing the kid who shared the video of a shooting makes it true.



Again....no they don't.

But that's not the beef, the beef is the government stepping in and telling those individual sites who they have to provide a platform for and how.

The US government has no business doing such things.

They are just trying to find ways into to take control of /manipulate information flow....all this freedom has them freaked the fuck out. Got control freaks jumping to censor/control it.

Comedy in the UK BANNED!

Videos in New Zealand BANNED!!

Super progressive.....

A livestream video of people being killed is not 'anything I don't like' - it's an extremely specific thing. The video isn't a 'voice I want silenced' - it's fucking reprehensible. If you can't tell the difference between that and anything else that I 'don't like' (recipes that include celery for example, or neoliberal politics), then you need to really think it through a little bit more.

All contemporary societies have some form of censorship of media, for good reason. 'Videos' haven't been banned in NZ - one very specific video has been classified as objectionable by the Chief Censor, for good reason.

You might think that 'free speech' means that anyone should be able to broadcast anything at all with impunity and without concern for the wellbeing of others, but that's not a definition accepted by most.

 

[Que]

A livestream video of people being killed is not 'anything I don't like' - it's an extremely specific thing. The video isn't a 'voice I want silenced' - it's fucking reprehensible. If you can't tell the difference between that and anything else that I 'don't like' (recipes that include celery for example, or neoliberal politics), then you need to really think it through a little bit more.

All contemporary societies have some form of censorship of media, for good reason. 'Videos' haven't been banned in NZ - one very specific video has been classified as objectionable by the Chief Censor, for good reason.

You might think that 'free speech' means that anyone should be able to broadcast anything at all with impunity and without concern for the wellbeing of others, but that's not a definition accepted by most.

Called it.

You see? This is why America has put free speech in writing as a guarantee for all citizens; Inoffensive speech needs no protection.

It's a liberty thing predicated on the idea of inalienable, intrinsic human rights. You wouldn't understand.

 

[KimGordon67]

Called it.

You see? This is why America has put free speech in writing as a guarantee for all citizens; Inoffensive speech needs no protection.

It's a liberty thing predicated on the idea of inalienable, intrinsic human rights. You wouldn't understand.

So there's absolutely no censorship in America?

 

[Que]

Actually, I think my original comment wasn't quite right - the internet is a network, not really a 'platform' as such. The individual sites are platforms, each of which is owned by someone. None of those someones have an obligation to provide anyone with space on their platform.

It's like when Molyneux and Southern tried to say they'd been 'banned' from speaking here. They weren't banned - it's just that every single venue the promoters approached said 'no'. Their freedom of speech wasn't compromised in any shape or form - but the businesses equally had the right to decide what would be done with their property.

Free speech isn't of much value if your society insists you do all of your singing in your own shower.

The concept of free speech which clearly is anathema to the sort of society that you prefer means quite specifically that (assuming you engage in it during acceptable hours and maybe give civil authorities a heads up through a permitting process so that they can plan for those that would deny you your inalienable right) you can do so at a volume that means you are speaking to and at people that have no desire to be confronted with the offensive things you have to say.

It is not a concept that is likely to flourish amongst the faint of heart. It requires balls to permit that sort of freedom in society, which is why America is the only country in the history of the world to attempt it.

Every society can and does decide to what extent they are going to support human beings natural human right to express themselves. What you cannot do is pretend that you're doing anything but autocratic suppression of human rights when you restrict that right to any extent.

There's a reason that the indoctrination centers that supposedly educated you deny the existence of natural human rights. Collectivism does not work if the individual's rights can Trump the will of the majority.

This country was founded by traitors that believed as I do and seized for themselves through armed insurrection the rights that they understood were theirs for the taking, so they took them and attempted to codify, in writing, protections from their suppression in the future by those, such as yourselves that would deny their validity.

I would not presume to suggest an outside force presume to force liberty upon populations unwilling to seize it for themselves. Your people can and will chart their own course. Just don't call submission to the whims of the mob freedom.

 

[von_Bismarck]

lolwut

I wonder if nitwit realizes he's arguing for big government.