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.