Capitol riots to set pretext for more internet censorship

ShatterAlan

Already the MSM are calling for the strangling of freedom of speech n the US.


Anyone can be silenced purely if it is deemed that their words might deem them to be construed as fomenting violence.



Parler has already been targeted:


https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55598887


People will of course continue to agree with these measures because they love Big Brother. O'Brien has made sure of that.

What, precisely, is problematic or even "conspiracy theory" about the consequences of online behaviour being visited upon people?

ShatterAlan

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Already the MSM are calling for the strangling of freedom of speech n the US.


Anyone can be silenced purely if it is deemed that their words might deem them to be construed as fomenting violence.



Parler has already been targeted:


https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55598887


People will of course continue to agree with these measures because they love Big Brother. O'Brien has made sure of that.

Are you claiming that there have been no calls to violence on Parler?

And in what way have people been silenced by not having Parler availible in the google app store?

https://www.bitchute.com/video/1kJPJNb5q6C3/ via bitslide


Video of the cops opening the doors and inviting protesters in..

What's the conspiracy? That the people who stormed the Capitol did so in order to bring forward internet "censorship"?

Ted_YNWA

Is this a rant about Twitter et al clamping down on people using their services to instigate violence, or is there a conspiracy in all this?

silliussoddius

It’s not censorship or restrictions on freedom of speech. It’s private companies enforcing their rules.

Being banned from Twitter isn’t curtailing freedom of speech.

Smacruairi

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Being banned from Twitter isn’t curtailing freedom of speech.

It is when announcements are only made on twitter. Take our dept of education, they release everything on twitter now and it could be days before you get an email from them. So it becomes something you have yo have.

Smee_Again

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Already the MSM are calling for the strangling of freedom of speech n the US.


Anyone can be silenced purely if it is deemed that their words might deem them to be construed as fomenting violence.



Parler has already been targeted:


https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55598887


People will of course continue to agree with these measures because they love Big Brother. O'Brien has made sure of that.

Surely you realise that in any analogy with 1984 Trump is the Big Brother character?

He’s the person trying to constantly rewrite history to suit himself.

This is society standing up to and ridding itself of something trying to introduce a Big Brother type government.

Smacruairi

Smacruairi wrote: »

It is when announcements are only made on twitter. Take our dept of education, they release everything on twitter now and it could be days before you get an email from them. So it becomes something you have yo have.

Make them somewhere else then. Not being able to use one platform isn’t curtailing free speech.

Padre_Pio

Smacruairi wrote: »

It is when announcements are only made on twitter. Take our dept of education, they release everything on twitter now and it could be days before you get an email from them. So it becomes something you have yo have.

You can still look at tweets if you're banned on twitter.

No one's stopping anyone from recieving information, they're stopping them spreading hate and violence as is their right on a private platform

Fighting Tao

It sounds to me like the Republicans want to track everyone by posting anything that a reasonable person would deem controversial on certain apps/platforms and therefore for forcing their supporters to have mobile devices. That way they can track all their movements. If it is freedom of speech that is wanted, then they should arrive in towns and start giving speeches standing on soap boxes.

Smacruairi

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Make them somewhere else then. Not being able to use one platform isn’t curtailing free speech.

It is if the platform adopts a slant. Imagine if those same announcements were only available in the The Sun, and not any other paper. I'm sure you would have people similarly irked.

Fighting Tao

Smacruairi wrote: »

It is if the platform adopts a slant. Imagine if those same announcements were only available in the The Sun, and not any other paper. I'm sure you would have people similarly irked.

So you don’t mind if I come by your house (if you own one) and spray paint the outside with my thoughts. Freedom of speech while using a private platform and all that.

Smacruairi

Fighting Tao wrote: »

So you don’t mind if I come by your house (if you own one) and spray paint the outside with my thoughts. Freedom of speech while using a private platform and all that.

That's defacement of private property. That is no way the same. The equivalent in that sense is me hacking the home page of twitter to make it say what I want... I think we both can forget the above post!

Fighting Tao

Smacruairi wrote: »

That's defacement of private property. That is no way the same. The equivalent in that sense is me hacking the home page of twitter to make it say what I want... I think we both can forget the above post!

Twitter is a business that owns a platform of the same name. Their platform their rules. They rightfully can ban people who don’t play by their rules. Maybe I should have explained it in such a way you’d have understood. Probably to be more exact, I should have said inside your house.

Ted_YNWA

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

Is this a rant about Twitter et al clamping down on people using their services to instigate violence, or is there a conspiracy in all this?

Closing as I am not alone in failing to see any semblance of conspiracy here

Ted_YNWA

Mod - Reopening after discussion with OP

Smacruairi

Smacruairi wrote: »

It is if the platform adopts a slant. Imagine if those same announcements were only available in the The Sun, and not any other paper. I'm sure you would have people similarly irked.

That's an utterly absurd "what if". If you're banned from twitter on one account you can always create another account to subscribe to the feeds you need.

Capitol riots to set in train companies sensibly deciding it might be a good time to distance themselves from hate mongers.

Some conspiracy.

Smacruairi

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's an utterly absurd "what if". If you're banned from twitter on one account you can always create another account to subscribe to the feeds you need.

Youre still missing the point. Why do I have to subscribe to any private company to see updates from an elected official is the point. I don't believe that it is appropriate for a govt to have its messages at the whim of a private company.

But by blocking Trump, twitter now has to qualify as a publisher, not a platform.they are perfectly within their right to do so, and should be afforded the privileges that come with it. However z the same responsibilities should also come with it. Just like boards has a moderation team that will nuke anything libelous, twitter now must take responsibility for all the alternative facts up there.

Eg the many anarchic groups spewing venom on there, white supremacists, our own journos who accused male teachers in Carlow of sexualising students etc.

Guy:Incognito

Your issue is with the elected official then if they are exclusively putting out updates through a single company on a single medium

Guy:Incognito

Smacruairi wrote: »

It is when announcements are only made on twitter. Take our dept of education, they release everything on twitter now and it could be days before you get an email from them. So it becomes something you have yo have.

They dont only make announcements on twitter.


Maybe we could invent some sort of delivery method for the goings on in the world. Maybe something that people could put on a stand in their houses and regular bulletins could be made with updates about important things going on through live and recorded videos. If it works out maybe we could have a part of it that just gives updates out world affairs 24 hours a day?


Since a lot of people have those fancy horseless carriages nowadays, we could have a version in all of those. We should probably limit that to mostly audio only though, might not be a great idea for people to watch videos while driving.



BTW, the dept of education literally have a section in the middle of their homepage called "announcements" with scrolling announcements and another section above it with "whats new"

Smacruairi

Smacruairi wrote: »

Youre still missing the point. Why do I have to subscribe to any private company to see updates from an elected official is the point. I don't believe that it is appropriate for a govt to have its messages at the whim of a private company.

But by blocking Trump, twitter now has to qualify as a publisher, not a platform.they are perfectly within their right to do so, and should be afforded the privileges that come with it. However z the same responsibilities should also come with it. Just like boards has a moderation team that will nuke anything libelous, twitter now must take responsibility for all the alternative facts up there.

Eg the many anarchic groups spewing venom on there, white supremacists, our own journos who accused male teachers in Carlow of sexualising students etc.

I'm not missing the point. I'm just replying to you regarding an absurd comparison you made.

Smacruairi

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm not missing the point. I'm just replying to you regarding an absurd comparison you made.

If you understood it why did your reply not make any sense in reference to mine? Odd.

Smacruairi

[<<Snip - deleted quote>>

Seeing as Twitter is now taking an editorial approach, do you not agree that they should be held liable for the things they leave in situ therefore?

Smacruairi

Smacruairi wrote: »

Misinterprets point, calls it absurd twice, then calls me a troll. Grand, cheers,good engagement.

Seeing as Twitter is now taking an editorial approach, do you not agree that they should be held liable for the things they leave in situ therefore?

You've shifted the goal posts a couple of times already - so I'll just leave it here with what I posted earlier.

Capitol riots to set in train companies sensibly deciding it might be a good time to distance themselves from hate mongers.

Have a good one.

Fighting Tao

If only there was an official channel for the use president to express himself through such as Whitehouse press conferences. I might patent the process on how they would word.

Instead Trump didn’t want to be held accountable for his words and so used private platforms.

Dohnjoe

The US president used social media to incite a violent mob who tried to overrun Congress. Several social media platforms have now dropped him or blocked him because of this and other prior violations. Whether they are right or wrong to do that is a separate debate, but can someone explain what the actual conspiracy is?

ShatterAlan

What I was attempting to suggest is that a pretext or even a precedent will have been set with regards to this Capitol "insurrection"


When I mentioned that it would portend to increased internet censorship, many immediately screeched "if you incite a riot then you should be shut down"


Except, that's not what I said. I said that increased consorship is imminent.


Thank you to Ted-YNWA for allowing the discussion to continue.


As I mentioned earlier, now anything can be classified as seditious, regardless of whether you or I deem it to be inciteful.


In conclusion, a law that can be used to quash free speech, even if that free speech is inflammatory, will be used for other purposes.

"Anyone can be silenced purely if it is deemed that their words might deem them to be construed as fomenting violence."

Seems reasonable. Do go on. You may need a shovel.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

What I was attempting to suggest is that a pretext or even a precedent will have been set with regards to this Capitol "insurrection"


When I mentioned that it would portend to increased internet censorship, many immediately screeched "if you incite a riot then you should be shut down"


Except, that's not what I said. I said that increased consorship is imminent.


Thank you to Ted-YNWA for allowing the discussion to continue.


As I mentioned earlier, now anything can be classified as seditious, regardless of whether you or I deem it to be inciteful.


In conclusion, a law that can be used to quash free speech, even if that free speech is inflammatory, will be used for other purposes.

Okay, and what is the conspiracy theory?

ShatterAlan

Deleted User wrote: »

"Anyone can be silenced purely if it is deemed that their words might deem them to be construed as fomenting violence."

Seems reasonable. Do go on. You may need a shovel.

By your logic a trad band in a bar can be shut down and hauled off for singing


"Come out ye Black & Tans"
"Highland Paddy"


These songs speak of violence and maybe you might find them innocuous but there's always some stuffed shirt stick in the mud who might classify them as inciteful.


Tom Jones' "Delilah" speaks of a tormented man knifing his partner because he couldn't take her abuse.


How many Heavy Metal and rap songs glorify violence.



Anything can be construed as inciteful if you do enough verbal hoop-jumping.


There's a big difference between standing up and urging people to go out and commit acts of violence, and simply telling stories. But therein lies the rub. Most people with half a brain know the difference. If it is deigned and deemed that what you say "could" be inciteful then anything can be painted in such a light if the object is to silence the message.

NSAman

ShatterAlan wrote: »

By your logic a trad band in a bar can be shut down and hauled off for singing


"Come out ye Black & Tans"
"Highland Paddy"


These songs speak of violence and maybe you might find them innocuous but there's always some stuffed shirt stick in the mud who might classify them as inciteful.


Tom Jones' "Delilah" speaks of a tormented man knifing his partner because he couldn't take her abuse.


How many Heavy Metal and rap songs glorify violence.



Anything can be construed as inciteful if you do enough verbal hoop-jumping.


There's a big difference between standing up and urging people to go out and commit acts of violence, and simply telling stories. But therein lies the rub. Most people with half a brain know the difference. If it is deigned and deemed that what you say "could" be inciteful then anything can be painted in such a light if the object is to silence the message.

That to me is the prime issue.

Closing down any speech that "breaches the terms and conditions" of our platform.

These platforms in the future are going to face larger and larger issues if they insist on being the thought police for generations now and in the future.

I am sure there will be legislation brought in against them, whether it be personal identification (not a problem for me) or actual sanctions on anything that promotes violence at all. (define violence)

When does the messenger (pun intended) get shot?

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Okay, and what is the conspiracy theory?

I can't spell it out in any simpler terms than I already have done.



The USA PATRIOT act was effected to combat terrorism yet has been used to ensnare, charge and convict those who have no links to anything remotely resembling terrorism despite assurances that that was the purpose of the legislation.


People talk about private companies and "their rules".



If you want to get a message across that might embarrass a few people in power do you think that because you voiced that on Twitter, Twitter banned you because THEY were uncomfortable with your thoughts or because they were put under pressure? If ZERO pressure was brought to bear on media whether they be print, digital, audio, video, then anything would and could be broadcast.



Now if you can't get your message across via traditional channels you could set up your own channel. The only problem with that is that the government control the airwaves. So they don't like what you have to say...BAM...end of license.


Rewind back to pre-internet days. You could print and distribute your own newspaper/magazine/newsletter. If they didn't like your message your offices and printing facilities were attacked and destroyed.


That leaves you with standing in the park or on the town square simply speaking. A much tinier audience but again if the message is uncomfortable then you can be easily silenced.



Julian Assange is banged up for no other reason than he published leaked documents that exposed US war crimes. He didn't incite a riot. He didn't sell secrets. All he did was publish the same things that the NYT and The London Times did. But he's being labelled as a traitor to the US (that's funny...he's not even American).


What I'm trying to say in, I suppose, this drawn out explanation is that the Capitol Hill "invasion" has provided ample ammunition to clamp down on freedom of speech under the umbrella that said free speech can vaguely be determined as seditious and anathema to the sanctity of "The Republic".

Zaph

ShatterAlan wrote: »

What I was attempting to suggest is that a pretext or even a precedent will have been set with regards to this Capitol "insurrection"

I'm not sure why you feel the need for inverted commas around insurrection. It was an insurrection, essentially at the prompting of the sitting president of the United States. There's no question as to what else it could be considered. Similarly what Trump did can only be classed as sedition. The definition of sedition is "conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch". There's no question that his speech incited people to attempt to stop Congress from carrying out their democratically elected duty of certifying the election votes.

Trad bands, that's quite the ace in the hole for your argument.

ShatterAlan

NSAman wrote: »

That to me is the prime issue.

Closing down any speech that "breaches the terms and conditions" of our platform.

These platforms in the future are going to face larger and larger issues if they insist on being the thought police for generations now and in the future.

I am sure there will be legislation brought in against them, whether it be personal identification (not a problem for me) or actual sanctions on anything that promotes violence at all. (define violence)

When does the messenger (pun intended) get shot?

You make a good point.


A very easy way to test your hypothesis is to conduct a small experiment.


If you were to go online to, shall we say, Youtube and post a comment on perhaps a football discussion and announce "All Glasgow Rangers supporters should be drowned at birth or knifed in their beds" .... chances are that vile and mouthy comment would be allowed to stand.



If you were to state that you were fully in favour of children being caged (that is violence after all) at the Mexican border and that their parents should be shot or jailed. Again you will find that this type of talk will be allowed.


If, however, you state that your elected representatives are derelict and that the oath that they have sworn has not only been abrogated but sullied and ignored and that you are within your remit to exercise your constitutional right to Freedom Of Speech, Freedom Of Assembly and the right to petition government to address grievances, then you can be not only limited but furthermore sanctioned.


I see the difference between inciting against A and B. You don't seem to.


Which is inciteful to violence?


A: We should all storm the Hill and teach these bloodsuckers a lesson.


B: We should turn North Korea/Iraq/Iran/Venezuela/Cuba/Syria/Afghanistan/Libya into a radioactive slag heap and let God sort 'em out.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I can't spell it out in any simpler terms than I already have done.

It's just a random stream of your world views.

1. Who is behind this conspiracy related to the capital riots? name the accomplices
2. What exactly is their goal?
3. How long has this been happening for? (a basic timeline)
4. Evidence for the above

Walter Mitty stuff.

ShatterAlan

Zaph wrote: »

I'm not sure why you feel the need for inverted commas around insurrection. It was an insurrection, essentially at the prompting of the sitting president of the United States. There's no question as to what else it could be considered. Similarly what Trump did can only be classed as sedition. The definition of sedition is "conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch". There's no question that his speech incited people to attempt to stop Congress from carrying out their democratically elected duty of certifying the election votes.

And I don't know why you even posted what you posted. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic we are discussing. It's irrelevant what your opinions are on Trump, his supporters, the Capitol riot, the incoming Biden administration or whatever. The topic of this thread is that the Capitol riot will be used as a pretext to shut down free speech.


For anyone who is interested here are a few articles that address the topic as well:


https://www.sbs.com.au/news/donald-trump-s-twitter-ban-sparks-political-debate-in-australia-over-censorship-concerns


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/56164.htm

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's just a random stream of your world views.

1. Who is behind this conspiracy related to the capital riots? name the accomplices
2. What exactly is their goal?
3. How long has this been happening for? (a basic timeline)
4. Evidence for the above

Why are you completely changing the subject?

Fighting Tao

ShatterAlan wrote: »

And I don't know why you even posted what you posted. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic we are discussing. It's irrelevant what your opinions are on Trump, his supporters, the Capitol riot, the incoming Biden administration or whatever. The topic of this thread is that the Capitol riot will be used as a pretext to shut down free speech.


For anyone who is interested here are a few articles that address the topic as well:


https://www.sbs.com.au/news/donald-trump-s-twitter-ban-sparks-political-debate-in-australia-over-censorship-concerns


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/56164.htm

You don’t seem to understand ‘free speech’, and I don’t have the will to explain it to you because you won’t listen.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Why are you completely changing the subject?

Considering this is a conspiracy theory forum, and this is a thread about the Capitol riots, and that you've previously claimed that "something else" happened at those riots..

What is the conspiracy?

If there is none, then what relevance does this thread have to do with conspiracy theories..

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Considering this is a conspiracy theory forum, and this is a thread about the Capitol riots, and that you've previously claimed that "something else" happened at those riots..

What is the conspiracy?

If there is none, then what relevance does this thread have to do with conspiracy theories..

This thread is NOT about the Capitol riots. This thread is about the Capitol riots being used as a pretext to exacerbate censorship. If I am of the opinion that something other than what reportedly happened took place then that is a different story and is completely irrelevant to this discussion/ You are trying to derail the thread by going off on a tangent.

It's as if I were to state that the 7/7 bombings in London were going to be used as a pretext to ramp up surveillance all over the UK and install cameras covering every square inch of every city and you come back with some irrelevant questions about the bombings themselves.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

This thread is NOT about the Capitol riots. This thread is about the Capitol riots being used as a pretext to exacerbate censorship. If I am of the opinion that something other than what reportedly happened took place then that is a different story and is completely irrelevant to this discussion/ You are trying to derail the thread by going off on a tangent.

Okay, and you are presumably aware this is the conspiracy theory forum, which begs the question, what does that have to do with conspiracy theories?

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Okay, and you are presumably aware this is the conspiracy theory forum, which begs the question, what does that have to do with conspiracy theories?

I've made my point. I'm not going to play your predictable games of gotcha questions. And if you want to be a moderator then why don't you just apply for the position?

Detritus70

If I walked into a business, startet screaming and yelling and generally acting the arse, I would be asked to leave. If I didn't leave, I would be removed. If I asault anyone, I would be arrested and charged. And NONE of my rights would be infringed.
This is exactly the same.
Freedom of speech does not mean ANYONE ELSE has to enable you or provide you with a platform. You will be yelled at, ridiculed, insulted, warned, infracted, banned and you WILL be charged if you engage in hate speech or incited violence.
If Boards bans you, your rights have not been infringed.
You can open your own Platform where you can say whatever you want, but the whole incitement to violence and hate speech thing will still bite you in the ass.

TL/DR:
No one owes you a platform. If you act the arse, you will get banned and may face charges.
And too fcuking right!

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I've made my point.

Your point doesn't make any sense, I'm not even sure you understand the question.

ShatterAlan

Detritus70 wrote: »

If I walked into a business, startet screaming and yelling and generally acting the arse, I would be asked to leave. If I didn't leave, I would be removed. If I asault anyone, I would be arrested and charged. And NONE of my rights would be infringed.
This is exactly the same.
Freedom of speech does not mean ANYONE ELSE has to enable you or provide you with a platform. You will be yelled at, ridiculed, insulted, warned, infracted, banned and you WILL be charged if you engage in hate speech or incited violence.
If Boards bans you, your rights have not been infringed.
You can open your own Platform where you can say whatever you want, but the whole incitement to violence and hate speech thing will still bite you in the ass.

TL/DR:
No one owes you a platform. If you act the arse, you will get banned and may face charges.
And too fcuking right!

This is exactly the same as what?