jack is literally a white supremacist, obviously, he has no ****ing problem suspending people when they call Nazis mean names.

This guy would melt down into a ****ing puddle of post reports and crying if I shared my honest beliefs about the social value of his immediate family. It's just bull****.

The idea that the gold standard of free speech is nobody saying "******" or "binch" but unfettered ability to say "gas the Jews" is some completely invented bad faith bull****. Don't try to conform your behavior to principles articulated by your goddamn enemy. Develop your own principles, then try to live by them.

Isn't your entire ****ing self esteem built around the idea that you and only you are smart enough to see through the Bilderberger lies about the Federal Reserve and ****?

**** off, man.

Go off, king, fully co-sign for the most part. My only quibble is a bit nitty; I do mean institutions plural, like the press for example. Other institutions exerting increasingly weak influence over social proving processes (which is a phrase I just made up and I won't mind a bit if someone tells me whatever the official term is) include churches, labour unions, political parties and agitation groups etc. All of these are waning in influence as the internet makes a la carte ideology the norm. What we're seeing is the beginning of the end of institutional authority as a concept, not just the press losing its authoritative air. And I agree there's no going back, I wasn't saying we should try to ice-skate up that hill.

That aside, I think we basically agree.

Social media has nothing to do with free speech. Not only should they be censored and banned from social media, they should be locked up. Do people forget nazis want genocide?

In our lifetime, when the vast majority of human beings within a defined society have access to a, at least, moderately rewarding job, which sees the individual working no more than 40ish hours/wk and provides a healthy-life-sustaining wage:

Healthy-life-sustaining wage defined as: Enough wealth to—supply themselves and offspring with food—preventative and curative healthcare—safe lodging—family time—creative time—questioning time (life, government, spirituality, etc)

And the above common, healthy-life-sustaining wage (HLSW) is achieved within the construct of a socially democratic society, which guarantees the free exchange of ideas, freedom of movement, etc.

Then, extreme political and societal views hold little, if any, sway in the public sphere.

Dilemma of today: Majority in United States are working way more than 40 hours and still struggling to provide the basics for themselves and offspring. The very notion of having freedom of time to be human, enjoy family/life is laughable.

Stories like the one about the father who works four jobs just to buy his daughter a dress for a dance are, at their core…disgusting.

Freedom of speech is only in doubt/debated in times when systems of government, religion and finance conspire to leave the majority of human beings in circumstances bordering on devoid of human dignity.

The worst of humanity will always shine through when the important aesthetics of humanity are denied to the majority of human beings.

We, the humans making up the majority, have been duped into debating the smell of a pile of ****. The fact is, the pile is ****.

Ask yourself: Why aren’t black people, white people, asian people, poor people, educated people, uneducated people, muslims, christians, atheists, jews, etc. all focusing on the slow but accelerating destruction of human dignity through the Gollumming-up of all the precious?

So "social media has nothing to do with free speech" is sort of like saying preventing someone from staging a protest in the middle of a grocery store has nothing to do with free speech. On its face, sure. But the difference is while you can protest the grocery store outside in a less disruptive way, a handful of social media companies effectively control the whole social media space of the US. So facebook and twitter could effectively prevent certain political viewpoints from being on social media at all.

Similarly, Amazon, Google, and Apple could do the same with the internet as a whole, with search results or hosting of websites.

Sure, keeed. Now let's remind ourselves that promoting genocide is not a political viewpoint. Genocide-promoting viewpoints should be prevented from being on social media at all.

Well but that same viewpoint might be protected speech if shouted from street corner or printed in a newsletter. I don't know what the line is between protected or forbidden speech but I think that vague incitement to violence is generally permitted while urging specific action is not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

So Facebook and Twitter probably already ban the sort of speech that was found to be protected in Brandenburg. Which, of course, they're not the government, etc. Fine. But the effect of that is that a couple of private companies can unilaterally decide that speech that's constitutionally protected is effectively exiled from the space of social media. Which, if it's limited to Alex Jones, who cares. But it doesn't seem like it is limited to that:

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/30/...i-governments/

So you have Facebook taking the word of the Israeli government which Palestinian Facebook accounts need to be deleted because they're incitement. Seems bad man.

good interview in slate about this:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...a-problem.html

And Google probably does filter searches for the US Gov as well as the Chinese. Still, FB and Google will never be a restrictive as just the Overton Window and almost all of media have been for a long time.

But, net neutrality is important imo. The internet itself should be a public resource.

Genocide-promoting viewpoints shouldn't be protected anywhere. Genocide-promoting viewpoints should be prosecuted.

OK, but the supreme court has come down on the side of Nazis time and time again. So it's fine that you hate Illinois Nazis (who doesn't), but that sort of speech is generally protected. Like an actual call for genocide might not be permitted if specific enough, but general Nazi sentiments surely are.

Under the anti-promotion of genocide law everyone in Congress except Barbara Lee gets prosecuted imo.

If you're trying to get people to oppose that law this might not be the best strategy

How do you square the circle of being opposed to public accommodation laws and also opposed to social media sites banning people for the content they post?

It would seem that if there were no public accommodation laws then those sites could freely discriminate on any grounds they wished.

You're right that those views are inconsistent. That post Fly quoted was from 2011 and I don't believe that any more. And I'm sure 2011 SenorKeeed would say that as private companies Facebook and Twitter can discriminate on any grounds they wish. But I was wrong -- the public accommodation part of the civil rights act was important and necessary. Just as regulation of monopolies like Facebook and Twitter is important.

Facebook is not a monopoly. We are utilizing a competing service right now. Jones is not denied a platform by being banned from Facebook.

2p2 is not competing with Facebook, mainly because of the Obama administration.

Zuckerberg says facebook isn't a normal company and is more akin to a government. I agree! So whether or not it is a monopoly, it is a uniquely powerful company with the ability to control what speech we see and say. And the nature of the network effect makes particular types of social networks -- twitter, facebook, etc -- natural monopolies for each individual type of social media. So if we should regulate the electric company, why shouldn't we regulate Facebook?

Why can fraud in sales be subject to government regulation but not fraud in media?

Nazis and white supremacists poking their heads out of the shadows more and more. What a time to become woke to public accommodation.

It is? Slander and libel laws are still things afaik.

Hmmm, should the federal government be deciding who is and who is not fake news?