• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Is Big Tech being 1984'd?

I think the first step is making everyone responsible for their comments, so people can’t do the equivalent of post anonymous hate mail. By all means have an opinion but you have to own it.

with regards to Trump, although it strikes me as helpful to society, how do we decide who can make that decision? I guess the owner of the platform can make rules about what can be classed as hate speech or inciting others to commit crimes, but does there then open the risk that other comment that the platform owners disagree with gets censored. With the nature of Fox News I guess Pandora’s box has been opened and it’s too late to close the lid.
 
It's all just ridiculous. People claiming being banned from social media is a breach of the freedom of speech.
Those that think that, does not know what freedom of speech actually constitutes.

As I said in another thread, freedom of speech means a right to think and believe whatever you want, without being punished for it. It's not about a right to say whatever you want at any time or place.

In addition, claiming that freedom of speech is taken away, with being banned from social media, would mean that before the arrival of social media, no one had freedom of speech.
In addition, saying whatever you want, has to come with consequences.

It's ridiculous, and people are talking out of their ass, as most do on social media.
 
LutonSpurs said:
Here's a thread

https://twitter.com/x/status/1347969772177264644

Personally I'm fine with twitter banning whoever they want. Since Gay wedding cakes drama it is what it is. But is it the right thing to do and even more so is it consistent considering what he has said in the past?
Click to expand...
I touched on this in the US politics thread.

I don't think Twitter has any obligation to offer free speech as a private company. But I do think they're on dodgy moral ground (and possibly legal) if they want to simultaneously block those whose opinions they disagree with and not be responsible for what those on their platform do say.

They're either a publisher or a vehicle. I don't care which they are but they shouldn't be able to pick and choose.
 
Last edited:
scaramanga said:
I touched on this in the US politics thread.

I don't think Twitter has any obligation to offer free speech as a private company. But I do think they're on dodgy moral ground (and possibly legal) if they want to simultaneously blocked those whose opinions they disagree with and not be responsible for what those on their platform do say.

They're either a publisher or a vehicle. I don't care which they are but they shouldn't be able to pick and choose.
Click to expand...

Isn't this outlook just a form of political correctness? Imo we should not worry so much about 'doing the fair thing' being politically correct, instead just 'do the right' thing. Twitter will have their community rules. Pick from: inciting civil unrest, leading to 5 dead, undermining US democracy...need any more? Each to their own.
 
Last edited:
scaramanga said:
I touched on this in the US politics thread.

I don't think Twitter has any obligation to offer free speech as a private company. But I do think they're on dodgy moral ground (and possibly legal) if they want to simultaneously blocked those whose opinions they disagree with and not be responsible for what those on their platform do say.

They're either a publisher or a vehicle. I don't care which they are but they shouldn't be able to pick and choose.
Click to expand...

This is precisely my view.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Isn't this outlook just a form of political correctness? Imo we should not worry so much about 'doing the fair thing' being politically correct. But each to their own.
Click to expand...
It's an important point of responsibility.

If they're going to be a publisher and have editorial control of what's posted, then they have a responsibility for all that's posted. They want to be able to get off the hook when challenged on that, but edit out the content they don't like.
 
scaramanga said:
It's an important point of responsibility.

If they're going to be a publisher and have editorial control of what's posted, then they have a responsibility for all that's posted. They want to be able to get off the hook when challenged on that, but edit out the content they don't like.
Click to expand...

Inciting civil unrest leading to 5 deaths and undermining a nations democratic system are not enough reason for Twitter to act? They have their social guidelines, I am sure Trump's conduct falls foul of them.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Inciting civil unrest leading to 5 deaths and undermining a nations democratic system are not enough reason for Twitter to act? They have their social guidelines, I am sure Trump's conduct falls foul of them.
Click to expand...
They can act if they choose to, they absolutely have that right as a private entity.

What they can't then do is simultaneously claim that they are just a vehicle for other people's content and not a publisher as they previously have.
 
scaramanga said:
They can act if they choose to, they absolutely have that right as a private entity.

What they can't then do is simultaneously claim that they are just a vehicle for other people's content and not a publisher as they previously have.
Click to expand...

No one is going to read every tweet are they? However, if a high profile account is inciting violence and contravenes their community guidelines, then they act. If the content does not infringe on their guidelines (or if the content is obscure) then they are simply a platform.
 
SpurMeUp said:
No one is going to read every tweet are they? However, if a high profile account is inciting violence and contravenes their community guidelines, then they act. If the content does not infringe on their guidelines (or if the content is obscure) then they are simply a platform.
Click to expand...
They can't be just a platform andale editorial decisions (as they have).

There's countless really good reasons why publishers (whether that's in print, screen or web format) are held to very particular standards. Twitter isn't private, it's a very public forum so it doesn't matter whether anyone reads all tweets - the fact that they could is the issue.
 
Kandi1977 said:
freedom of speech means a right to think and believe whatever you want, without being punished for it. It's not about a right to say whatever you want at any time or place.
Click to expand...
But what you describe is "freedom of think". People have always been able to think what they want, as that is undetectable. Please can you clarify?
 
scaramanga said:
They can't be just a platform andale editorial decisions (as they have).

There's countless really good reasons why publishers (whether that's in print, screen or web format) are held to very particular standards. Twitter isn't private, it's a very public forum so it doesn't matter whether anyone reads all tweets - the fact that they could is the issue.
Click to expand...

I clicked on the "report" button below your post because it offended me. You and whoever else would assess the post and see if there was something untoward, would you not? If there was something which breached the spirit of what we are - something heinous like being pro arsenil - you'd sanction the post and if repeatedly in breach, ban the poster. What has Twitter done differently?
 
SpurMeUp said:
I clicked on the "report" button below your post because it offended me. You and whoever else would assess the post and see if there was something untoward, would you not? If there was something which breached the spirit of what we are - something heinous like being pro arsenil - you'd sanction the post and if repeatedly in breach, ban the poster. What has Twitter done differently?
Click to expand...
I'm a publisher. I'm bound by the legal standards that all publishers are.

I'm liable for the content on this forum - that's why we censor links to live streams, for example.

Twitter (as a company) doesn't want to be bound by those regulations but wants the advantages of being able to editorialise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back