Big Tech Taking Advantage of a "Tragedy"

Post Reply New Topic

They were banned, who were those trolls?

I didn't know you enjoyed them.

I would say Rowan Atkinson's approach (from 2012) to free speech aligns reasonably well with my opinion:


I have no interest in seeing people silenced because I disagree with them - I'm happy to discuss things with people who see things in a different way to that in which I do, but similarly, those whose character I find abhorent or distasteful (based on previous words\actions), or promote things I feel dangerous, I can simply choose not to interact with them, denying them an audience - They have the right to speak, I have the right to not listen\respond.

Similarly, I can participate in conversations which include those I see as being of poor character (based on their past words\actions\behaviour), not by responding to those people, but instead by conversing with others in the discussion where they have addressed a remark from a person I wish nothing to do with, but was interested in a portion of their remark. In this way, I can still "hear" what they say, but do not assist them in amplifying their message, instead hopefully steering the conversation away from those people I see as a problem, and towards a discussion involving those I see as being interested in a reasoned conversation (regardless of whether I agree with their opinions\beliefs).

As to the inevitable suggestion that people should be silenced for saying something illegal - If it is illegal, there are obviously laws regading it, and so people are free to report the illegal words\etc. to the appropriate authorities who will take any required action - It is important to bear in mind, though, that where one person may find something said by a person\group which they greatly dislike to be "incitement", that does not mean an objective or neutral listener would take the same interpretation...The more a person dislikes another, the greater the negative inference they are likely to place on any words from them, and the more incentive they have to find "fault" with them.

Similarly, sites should be free to determine what is posted\acceptable on them, providing this is announced at the time at which members are encouraged to\do join a site. A site, however, that advertises as being a place for free discussion\public forum\etc. should lose the ability to remove those people whose speech\opinions its management dislikes simply by changing their "rules" in such a way as to be incompatable with what those people say, and should be forced to honour their previous commitments to members (with the exception of changes being permitted regarding laws in the location the company or individual member resides in).

Who has actually expressed that they want to see people silenced just because they disagree with what they say? It kind of sounds like virtue signaling.

Who even decides who is an objective and neutral observer? Especially when we take into consideration things like dog whistles, which are created with the sole purpose of being hidden from someone who is not in the know. In those cases I think that the best you can do is rely on the businesses to recognize such a dog whistle.

I agree with ezbzbfcg2’s position. And I find it amazing how irrational most of the other posters on this thread are about the issue. I would go even further though and state that Trump did not actually incite any of his supporters to engage in violence, if anyone actually bothers to read what he said at the Save America rally instead of just reading the headlines. If his words can be interpreted as inciting violence, then ANY dissident political opinions can be, since the establishment can just claim that anyone who doesn’t think they’re being listened to “might” resort to violence to get what they want.

Since the Capitol Hill building was stormed, Trump’s accounts and various pro-Trump accounts have been removed from Twitter, Facebook/Instagram, Reddit, Twitch, Shopify, Snapchat, Discord and Pinterest.

Firstly, this should demonstrate something to those people who think that there’s no co-ordination behind the scenes when it comes to the decisions these corporations make.

Secondly, this should also help refute the idea that big corporations are solely interested in making money and nothing else (I see people still making that claim on this thread, lol!). Trump still has millions of supporters, and none of these companies was under a legal obligation to do what they did.

Thirdly, this high-level co-ordination should also show you demonstrate the ridiculousness of claiming there is no threat to free speech, because people can just go and create their own websites and platforms. So say you have an independent journalist who gets kicked off twitter and creates his own website. What happens when google removes his website from the search results. Then Paypal refuse to allow him to receive donations. Then cloudfare refuse to protect DDOS protection. Then he gets cancelled by his domain hosting service. No threat to free speech right?

To all you people who claim that private companies can ban who they like, why is it so hard for you to understand that these big tech companies are so large they need to be treated like public utilities and regulated as such. I suppose you people think Google and Facebook should be able to decide the outcome of elections. I suppose if electricity suppliers start cutting off people’s electricity supply because of their political opinions, you people will support that too.

You know, I honestly don’t think that most of the so-called leftists on this forum actually have any political principles or understanding at all. It’s as if they view the Right as a proxy for the kids who picked on them at school, and so they decide to support the Left, where to them supporting the Left just means supporting whatever the biggest leftist loudmouths on TV tell them to support. This is how you end up with leftists supporting more power for Big Tech, along with supporting warmongering politicians and government surveillance.

It had already been explained to you on the preceding three pages why this cliched argument is inappropriate. Big tech companies now have such power over who is and who is not heard that they should be regulated like public utilities.


Ridiculous. What do you think Trump was trying to achieve by banning TikTok? There is very little political discussion on TikTok, and none that you wouldn’t find on Facebook or Twitter already. It’s clear that he and his administration tried to ban it because for the reasons they gave – because they thought the technology was a national security risk.
Next you’ll be telling us that Trump’s ban on Huawei was an assault on freedom of speech, and “conservatives didn’t complain about that, PWNED!”


This leads me to conclude that you’re projecting. In reality, you support the big tech companies that have banned Trump and his supporters because you don’t like what Trump and his supporters have to say, although you dress it up by saying "private companies should be able to ban who they want". But it was only a year or so ago that you were moaning that YouTube wasn’t doing enough to prevent people from accessing right-wing material.


This just seems to me to be a sad reflection of your priorities. You are more concerned that there is a free market in gadgets than that there is a free market in ideas. You’re the sort of person who is more concerned that a person can buy 30 different brands of toothpaste than if they get fired from their job for wrongthink. I agree that the Apple-Google duopoly is a problem, but the free speech issue is more important. The Apple-Google duopoly actually impacts on the free speech issue (look at how Apple banned the Gab social media app from their stores), but I notice you don’t mention that.


Railing against populism and promoting neoliberalism clearly makes you feel like some sort of winner. I bet in your Walter Mitty-esque fantasies you’re a rising star in some globalist think tank, strolling around in the corridors of power in between giving Ted Talks to your admiring fans.

I don’t support heavy regulation of public utilities. People should be free to choose their utility providers.

Trump’s ban on Huawei was an assault of freedom of commerce, but I’ll grant that it wasn’t on freedom of speech.

As for TikTok, yes, the government preventing access to a communication platform is an attack on freedom of speech. I don’t think this was motivated by a desire to suppress freedom of speech, but it amounts to the same thing. In the same way, I believe Twitter when they say that they banned Trump for inciting terrorists to attack the US Capitol. If it was purely for his views then they would have banned him and everyone like him a long time ago.

I believe that private companies can do what they want without it being a freedom of speech issue. I also believe that citizens have a right to criticise private companies for their moderation actions or lack thereof. I think I’ve been proven correct in this particular instance - in the past few years most of the companies in question have realised the failings of their systems and cracked down on the sort of content I was complaining about, ethnonationalism and violent extremism as well as conspiracy theories.

Of course, this means I can also support you saying “I disagree with this banning” - I simply object to the suggestion that this is somehow an infringement upon Trump’s rights.


This just seems to me to be a sad reflection of your priorities. You are more concerned that there is a free market in gadgets than that there is a free market in ideas. You’re the sort of person who is more concerned that a person can buy 30 different brands of toothpaste than if they get fired from their job for wrongthink. I agree that the Apple-Google duopoly is a problem, but the free speech issue is more important. The Apple-Google duopoly actually impacts on the free speech issue (look at how Apple banned the Gab social media app from their stores), but I notice you don’t mention that. [/quote]
That was literally what I was talking about, although I was more thinking of Parler than Gab. I think Apple and Google’s control of their app stores grants them much greater control over discourse than Facebook and Twitter. Competitors to social media companies can always emerge, but this probably isn’t true for operating systems. This impacts upon Spotify and Epic Games and others, and it is grossly unfair and probably more important than banning Parler or Gab, but the speech side of things must also be considered.
[/quote]
This did get a chuckle out of me. Naturally I think my ideology is the best one or I wouldn’t follow it. I’m under no delusions of it being at all sexy though. If you want to make a living through political theory then populism is where the money is at, be that left populism or right populism. Compare the Twitter following of Sam Bowman to Owen Jones or Douglas Murray.

I believe that I already said that making these sort of things something like a public utility would be fine, but that does require certain things like public investment. And I am not super into the USA government just getting to decide things for everyone else.

Kind of feels like some projections for saying that I don't have any political principles, I would consider myself pretty solid in my principles. I want equality for everyone under protections against dangerous misinformation, and not allowing rhetoric that spreads hate and is likely to cause violence.

Donald Trump ticks all the boxes of dangerous language where he spreads conspiracies that has continued to radicalize people and cause events like the attack on the Capitol building. I am shocked that people still cannot see these facts, and in fact places like Twitter have allowed Trump to spread his lies, without bein fact checked. Even after being fact checked Trump treated it like he was being censored. Why should they platform his as a private business when he will say even being fact checked is evidence of a Left wing conspiracy.

And the ban does not mean there is evidence of caring more than profit, since these businesses not allowing dangerous content on them can be directly linked to how much money they can make. And still, if there is some conspiracy by the big tech companies, then what is it and how does it work by supposedly focusing the Right for no other good reason?

I can say that if people the Left start spreading blatant lies and language that leads to acts of violence, I will be just as much willing to let them suffer the same treatment. But the evidence pans out most violence is coming from the Right. Someone like Bernie Sanders or Vaush are not spreading hate and encouraging people that a violent revolution needs to be carried out.

As far as I know, there was no meeting where they agreed "Fantastic, now we can ban Trump like we always wanted to".

It is within their free speech rights to do this even if they did have a meeting and agreed to this.

The Hill w/ Matt Taibbi going over the ways in which the media's continuing to serve up more division and what their role was in getting us to where we are now.

These are American corporations, based in the USA, subject to American law. They do business internationally, yes. Some countries, like Iran and China, censor these sites entirely. If Australia doesn't like the way these companies do business, then petition your government to ban what you feel hurts your feelings.

As is, several American tech giants have cornered a market and have the potential to control who can say what and who can access what. Their actions are, indeed, anti-American. The feelings of Australians is moot on this issue. I don't believe in some sort of "global law" that can supersede American laws and ideals and principles whatsoever.

Forget about Trump. They can use this to ban whomever they want whenever they want. And if there was some think tank meeting, what makes you think they'd even tell the public?

Without getting too far into a legal debate (the Ninth Amendment specifically says that not all rights enjoyed by Americans are codified in law, and this is one reason why lawyers and judges often cite foreign and international law in American courts), one of the proudest American values is freedom of commerce.

If Elizabeth Warren walks into an independent coffee shop or hair saloon or bakery, the owner is within their rights to say “sorry, I disagree with your views on healthcare, I’m not serving you”.

Now, of course, there is a difference between “within their rights” and “morally right”. But speaking as a liberal, I do not believe businesses should be forced by the government to do business with people they disagree with. In some cases, boycott and denials of service can be morally justified.

In the case of Trump, it is more than just his views (although that would be reason enough). It is specifically the fact that he has repeatedly invited violence, and has now incited insurrection against the United States. The social media companies have bent over backwards to keep him on the site. Twitter literally rewrote their rules to give Trump an exemption. Now he’s crossed the line so dramatically that even these people have turned against him.

What you’re proposing seems to be that the whole concept of moderation has to be thrown away. Any time any website forbids a certain type of content, they are “censoring” people. If not violent insurrectionists, then they are censoring ethnic nationalists, genocidal maniacs, death cults, terrorists, pornographers, paedophiles, false advertisers, scam artists, and spammers. Is a newspaper committing censorship when it refuses to publish every letter it receives on the front page? Is a local shop committing censorship if it takes down a poster advertising a local brothel stuck in their window?

Of course there is some censorship that almost everyone thinks is unacceptable and some censorship that almost everyone thinks is morally necessary. The issue we have is deciding what to do about edge cases. But I take issue when you characterise the actions of social media companies who have spent the past four years tripping over themselves trying to kiss Trump’s rectum as evidence that they have all taken co-ordinated action against Trump, when in reality he just crossed a rubicon that none of them ever thought he’d cross. I don’t doubt that the first big name to strike effectively acted as a signal to the others that it was safe for them to move, but I don’t see any evidence for anything sinister. In my view, their actions are morally necessary and long overdue, while your proposed solution is a nasty, Orwellian, insidious form of censorship that would restrict the speech of ordinary Americans in a never before seen way.

Actually, no. Her views have nothing to do with the service. Yes, they can do it, but there is a fine line here that can be challenged. That is the problem of people not servicing people because of religious beliefs. Unfortunately, we have made very bad judgements allowing discrimination using the religious value defense. That is disturbing. However, if Warren uses the coffee shop to propagate her views, the coffee shop can prevent her.

Facebook and Twitter service is to publish speech. They have clear terms and conditions. They can deny service to those that violate those terms.

Last edited by Jiheisho on 11 Jan 2021, 11:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

It is funny how little people understand free speech here. It is not absolute. Free speech is just your right to speak. It does not include compelling others to propagate your speech.

The utility arguments is similarly false. Yes, the internet should be treated as a public utility. But specific services on the internet are not. As pointed out, people can create their own site to voice their opinions. And if you cannot speak in the internet, you can publish books, give lectures, or shout on the street corner--as long as what you are doing is free speech, which does have limits: inciting violence, creating panic, fraud, illegal activities are not free speech.

As far as those on the right complaining about the "lefts" "cancel culture," I have two words for you: Colin Kaepernick. What is more ironic is your cancel-culture commander in chief just instigated an insurrection against one of our greatest rights of free speech, our elections. But the right has been attacking those rights through Gerrymandering and voter suppression laws for a long time.

If you want to spread your ideas, you have every right. But no one can be compelled to support or tolerate that speech.

We should all support the right of free speech warriors to plot on social media:









This is all just free speech that needs to be given a platform. Anyone who disagrees is totalitarian who hates free speech.