Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Trump sues Twitter and Facebook in class action

Page 2 of 5 [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

07 Jul 2021, 5:53 pm

Mikah wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Free speech laws protect you from government censorship.


Why is that important in the first place? Make the argument from first principles. Why do we want free speech? Why is it good? If we do want free speech, should a few tech companies really have the power that they currently have? - A power to censor far greater than anything that could ever have been envisioned by the writers of the First Amendment.


But tech companies don't prevent you from speaking. They just prevent you from speaking on their own platforms. Trump can have his own social media platform, his can publish a book, he can start a TV or radio company, he can go on Fox news, he can hold rallies. Facebook has not censored him at all. In fact, the only reason you know about this story was he was able to speak--and to the free press that the first amendment protects. The idea he has been censored is just silly: he just had his words published around the world to the biggest audiences the press has!

The problem with your argument is what you are claiming, that Trump has been censored, is simply not true. He has many channels and can in fact speak. What it seems you are really upset about is you believe people should not be held accountable for their speech. You can say what you want, you just can't force others to listen.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,800
Location: Stendec

07 Jul 2021, 6:03 pm

Free Speech
(XKCD #1357)

Image

Mouseover: "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you are saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."


_________________
 
I have no love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,800
Location: Stendec

07 Jul 2021, 6:15 pm

↑ So, what Mikah seems to be implying is that the most compelling reason for allowing Mr. Trump to post on Facebook and Twitter is that it is not literally illegal for him to do so.

:roll:


_________________
 
I have no love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

07 Jul 2021, 6:22 pm

Always amusing to see progressively minded people go full on "state's rights" when they think it suits their interests.

Jiheisho wrote:
But tech companies don't prevent you from speaking. They just prevent you from speaking on their own platforms. Trump can have his own social media platform, his can publish a book, he can start a TV or radio company, he can go on Fox news, he can hold rallies. Facebook has not censored him at all. In fact, the only reason you know about this story was he was able to speak--and to the free press that the first amendment protects. The idea he has been censored is just silly: he just had his words published around the world to the biggest audiences the press has!

The problem with your argument is what you are claiming, that Trump has been censored, is simply not true. He has many channels and can in fact speak. What it seems you are really upset about is you believe people should not be held accountable for their speech. You can say what you want, you just can't force others to listen.


It is de facto censorship. Being deplatformed by the big players has a huge effect on a person's ability to reach an audience and get their message heard:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjbp9d/ ... -bans-work
https://www.hopenothate.org.uk/2019/10/ ... n-with-it/

Writing a book in a post-literate society is not going to fill the gap and "starting a platform" is a gamble that is likely to fail even with Trump's resources. What about people who aren't zillionaires? Again I ask you to recite the free speech argument from first principles. Do you even know what it is?

Fnord wrote:
↑ So, what Mikah seems to be implying is that the most compelling reason for allowing Mr. Trump to post on Facebook and Twitter is that it is not literally illegal for him to do so.


You too Fnord, what is the argument in favour of free speech? Do you agree with it? Why shouldn't the government interfere with free speech?


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,800
Location: Stendec

07 Jul 2021, 6:27 pm

Mikah wrote:
[...] what is the argument in favour of free speech? Do you agree with it? Why shouldn't the government interfere with free speech?
Why derails threads with irrelevant debates?


_________________
 
I have no love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

07 Jul 2021, 6:31 pm

Fnord wrote:
Mikah wrote:
[...] what is the argument in favour of free speech? Do you agree with it? Why shouldn't the government interfere with free speech?
Why derails threads with irrelevant debates?


Irrelevant? Hah!


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

07 Jul 2021, 6:59 pm

Mikah wrote:
Always amusing to see progressively minded people go full on "state's rights" when they think it suits their interests.

Jiheisho wrote:
But tech companies don't prevent you from speaking. They just prevent you from speaking on their own platforms. Trump can have his own social media platform, his can publish a book, he can start a TV or radio company, he can go on Fox news, he can hold rallies. Facebook has not censored him at all. In fact, the only reason you know about this story was he was able to speak--and to the free press that the first amendment protects. The idea he has been censored is just silly: he just had his words published around the world to the biggest audiences the press has!

The problem with your argument is what you are claiming, that Trump has been censored, is simply not true. He has many channels and can in fact speak. What it seems you are really upset about is you believe people should not be held accountable for their speech. You can say what you want, you just can't force others to listen.


It is de facto censorship. Being deplatformed by the big players has a huge effect on a person's ability to reach an audience and get their message heard:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjbp9d/ ... -bans-work
https://www.hopenothate.org.uk/2019/10/ ... n-with-it/

Writing a book in a post-literate society is not going to fill the gap and "starting a platform" is a gamble that is likely to fail even with Trump's resources. What about people who aren't zillionaires? Again I ask you to recite the free speech argument from first principles. Do you even know what it is?

Fnord wrote:
↑ So, what Mikah seems to be implying is that the most compelling reason for allowing Mr. Trump to post on Facebook and Twitter is that it is not literally illegal for him to do so.


You too Fnord, what is the argument in favour of free speech? Do you agree with it? Why shouldn't the government interfere with free speech?


You don't have a right to compel a company to publish your work or promote your speech. Don't these private companies have a right to speech as well or do you think they should be compelled by the government? You are simply deciding that one person has a greater right than another. That is not how the freedom of speech works. There is no right to an audience in the concept of freedom of speech. If you can't build one because no one wants to listen, then that is your problem, nothing to do with freedom of speech.



Last edited by Jiheisho on 07 Jul 2021, 7:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 29,100
Location: Right over your left shoulder

07 Jul 2021, 7:10 pm

Mikah wrote:
Fnord wrote:
↑ So, what Mikah seems to be implying is that the most compelling reason for allowing Mr. Trump to post on Facebook and Twitter is that it is not literally illegal for him to do so.


You too Fnord, what is the argument in favour of free speech? Do you agree with it? Why shouldn't the government interfere with free speech?


When did Facebook and Twitter become the government? That's an alarming development.


_________________
When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become king, the palace becomes a circus.
"Many of us like to ask ourselves, What would I do if I was alive during slavery? Or the Jim Crow South? Or apartheid? What would I do if my country was committing genocide?' The answer is, you're doing it. Right now." —Former U.S. Airman (Air Force) Aaron Bushnell


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

07 Jul 2021, 7:30 pm

Jiheisho wrote:
You don't have a right to compel a company to publish your work or promote your speech. Don't these private companies have a right to speech as well or do you think they should be compelled by the government? You are simply deciding that one person has a greater right than another. That is not how the freedom of speech works. There is no right to an audience in the concept of freedom of speech.


I'm suggesting that perhaps there should be such a right in the internet age where enormous tech oligopolies, arguably more powerful than many governments, are gatekeeping speech and information in this fashion.

Jiheisho wrote:
But your argument simply falls flat as Trump has just had his message published around the world. Where is the censorship?


As I said, it's de facto censorship. Trump is not technically silenced, but his ability to message his supporters and reach potential new ones has been severely curtailed, as many anti-Trumpers have gleefully acknowledged.

funeralxempire wrote:
When did Facebook and Twitter become the government? That's an alarming development.


They aren't. I ask because once you answer "why is free speech valuable?" and "why shouldn't the government interfere with free speech?" it is very difficult to argue that Facebook and Twitter should be allowed a free hand. Unsurprisingly, those questions are being dodged like the plague.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

07 Jul 2021, 7:35 pm

Mikah wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
You don't have a right to compel a company to publish your work or promote your speech. Don't these private companies have a right to speech as well or do you think they should be compelled by the government? You are simply deciding that one person has a greater right than another. That is not how the freedom of speech works. There is no right to an audience in the concept of freedom of speech.


I'm suggesting that perhaps there should be such a right in the internet age where enormous tech oligopolies, arguably more powerful than many governments, are gatekeeping speech and information in this fashion.


So you are suggesting the government should be the gatekeeper and control what can be said or not said. I am not sure you understand freedom of speech at all.



Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

07 Jul 2021, 7:42 pm

Mikah wrote:
They aren't. I ask because once you answer "why is free speech valuable?" and "why shouldn't the government interfere with free speech?" it is very difficult to argue that Facebook and Twitter should be allowed a free hand. Unsurprisingly, those questions are being dodged like the plague.


Why should Trump have a free hand? You are just taking one side over the other. But you are happy to compel Facebook, but not willing to have Trump accountable for his speech. There is nothing in free speech that insulates you from accountability.

BTW, we are not dodging anything. We just understand this better than you.



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

07 Jul 2021, 8:03 pm

Jiheisho wrote:
So you are suggesting the government should be the gatekeeper and control what can be said or not said.


A government considering some form of anti-censorship, pro-free speech legislation is not anti-free speech.

Jiheisho wrote:
Why should Trump have a free hand? You are just taking one side over the other.


No I think it should apply generally, not just to Trump. I think mad socialists should be able to call for the end of capitalism and the dismantling or nationalisation of tech companies on their own platforms.

Jiheisho wrote:
But you are happy to compel Facebook, but not willing to have Trump accountable for his speech. There is nothing in free speech that insulates you from accountability.


I am happy to compel Facebook, it isn't like a regular publishing house, where printing and publicising books actually costs a great deal of time, effort and money. It costs them nothing to host people they disagree with, and with figures like Trump his presence would almost certainly make them money.

Accountable, that lovely new buzzword. Accountable to a court of law? Sure. Accountable as in - denied a platform because the tech oligarchs and lobby groups don't like what he is saying? No.

Jiheisho wrote:
BTW, we are not dodging anything. We just understand this better than you.


Then answer the questions. You'll surely blow me out of the water with your superior arguments.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

07 Jul 2021, 8:30 pm

Mikah wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
So you are suggesting the government should be the gatekeeper and control what can be said or not said.


A government considering some form of anti-censorship, pro-free speech legislation is not anti-free speech.

Jiheisho wrote:
Why should Trump have a free hand? You are just taking one side over the other.


No I think it should apply generally, not just to Trump. I think mad socialists should be able to call for the end of capitalism and the dismantling or nationalisation of tech companies on their own platforms.

Jiheisho wrote:
But you are happy to compel Facebook, but not willing to have Trump accountable for his speech. There is nothing in free speech that insulates you from accountability.


I am happy to compel Facebook, it isn't like a regular publishing house, where printing and publicising books actually costs a great deal of time, effort and money. It costs them nothing to host people they disagree with, and with figures like Trump his presence would almost certainly make them money.

Accountable, that lovely new buzzword. Accountable to a court of law? Sure. Accountable as in - denied a platform because the tech oligarchs and lobby groups don't like what he is saying? No.

Jiheisho wrote:
BTW, we are not dodging anything. We just understand this better than you.


Then answer the questions. You'll surely blow me out of the water with your superior arguments.


I already have "blown" your arguments "out of the water."

So, how would this government run anti-censorship work? How does the government protect the right of private organizations to control the speech on their own platforms? Are you going to nationalize the platform to make it a public entity, but then you are not going to have any controls on the that speech on the nationalized platform? (How socialist of you.) How do you then control that government when it uses it for its own purposes? Detail the plan where it is not biasing one person's rights over another.

Of course this is about Trump. There are already people calling for the end of capitalism quite freely. There are white supremacist sites as well. Seems freedom of speech is working fine. You just don't like the ban on Trump. Well, Trump can use a whole bunch of social media services if he wants, just not Facebook or Twitter. (I notice you have not shown any concern that Facebook has been clamping down on misinformation on their platform.)

No, my use of accountability is far more straightforward: be accountable for your speech. If you want to say something, that is fine. But if, for example, that gets you banned from WP, own it. People don't have to tolerate your speech. You don't have a right to an audience and you have no right to compel WP to give you one. (I notice you keep dodging that small inconvenient fact.)



Mountain Goat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 May 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,738
Location: .

07 Jul 2021, 8:38 pm

For all of you out there who don't like Mr Trump, take a step back for a moment because this lawsuit is about principle here....

Does a private company has the right to ban someone in a site that is known as a public domain when the individual is extremely popular. While in this regards, I think as the site is privately owned, they should have the right...

But this internet goes beyond this because when a company makes its site the main platform by far, so if an individual is banned they are at a major dissadvantage compared to others who are not banned, then I strongly believe that if one politicial is banned, then every politician should be banned for using it or we will have a situation where Biden will have a major political advantage to keep in touch with his followers because he has not been banned... So one can say that the sites have in effect launched a conspiracy against Donald Trump which could have cost him the election (Stand back from your own political views and feelings and look at the case here because one can't exactly say that one politician broke the rules and say that the others from other parties didn't if one really looks at everything said from an all party perspective and looking at all the politicians out there).

So this case will be interesting in how the courts decide, as the courts have to be neutral in this so they can make a decision... The only way to be really neutral is to hold the court outside of the USA in a country that does not mind which leader is on power within the USA.


_________________
https://everything2.com/user/Zifendorf/writeups/shutdow


Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

07 Jul 2021, 8:40 pm

Mikah wrote:
A government considering some form of anti-censorship, pro-free speech legislation is not anti-free speech.


BTW, when you tell us about your law, please do it in relation to the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Sorry, it just occurred to me you might never have read it.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 29,100
Location: Right over your left shoulder

07 Jul 2021, 8:41 pm

Mountain Goat wrote:
For all of you out there who don't like Mr Trump, take a step back for a moment because this lawsuit is about principle here....

Does a private company has the right to ban someone in a site that is known as a public domain when the individual is extremely popular. While in this regards, I think as the site is privately owned, they should have the right...

But this internet goes beyond this because when a company makes its site the main platform by far, so if an individual is banned they are at a major dissadvantage compared to others who are not banned, then I strongly believe that if one politicial is banned, then every politician should be banned for using it or we will have a situation where Biden will have a major political advantage to keep in touch with his followers because he has not been banned... So one can say that the sites have in effect launched a conspiracy against Donald Trump which could have cost him the election (Stand back from your own political views and feelings and look at the case here because one can't exactly say that one politician broke the rules and say that the others from other parties didn't if one really looks at everything said from an all party perspective and looking at all the politicians out there).

So this case will be interesting in how the courts decide, as the courts have to be neutral in this so they can make a decision... The only way to be really neutral is to hold the court outside of the USA in a country that does not mind which leader is on power within the USA.


Should it be relevant to the courts whether or not a poster is popular? Would you prefer this site allow trolling if only done by the most popular posters?


_________________
When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become king, the palace becomes a circus.
"Many of us like to ask ourselves, What would I do if I was alive during slavery? Or the Jim Crow South? Or apartheid? What would I do if my country was committing genocide?' The answer is, you're doing it. Right now." —Former U.S. Airman (Air Force) Aaron Bushnell