Sign in to follow this  
NeedleinA

Censorship?

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Godless said:

If you drive a car recklessly and dangerously, you lose your driving privileges.

Ah. So if you believe something that Godless doesn't like, then you lose your free speech privileges. Reckless thinking and speaking. Is that it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fether said:

I’m willing to accept that the claims of an illegitimate election were inciting violence. What I am not willing to accept is that supports and encouraging of the “protests” and riots was NOT a call for violence when the prior was.
 

Again, It’s all about inconsistency in their application of policy.

I agree. As I said, I would support any legal action that results from Twitter's inconsistent enforcement of their policies against harmful content. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vort said:

This is false, factually incorrect. Whether or not the election was illegitimate, asserting that it was so was not calling for violence.

Suppose, purely for the sake of argument, that Trump was correct in his claim and the election was actually illegitimate. In that case, are you seriously saying that telling the truth about the election is a call for violence?

This is a difficult situation.  Because frankly—IF similar allegations were true, it probably *would* justify armed rebellion.  And if they are false, then they are the equivalent of shouting “fire” in a crowded theater—the people behind such allegations deserve a special place in hell; and I can sympathize with Twitter not wanting to play into their hands.

But, “open forum” is “open forum”; and if social media companies want to enjoy the privileges and immunities that go with that status, then IMHO they need to leave the policing of their forums to . . . the police.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am concerned.  I never liked Trump.  I do not know very many people that think he is a wonderful example of humanity.   For me, there are two dominate genre types of people that I do not trust and in this order:  Career politicians and corporate moguls.   Often, I think of adding a third and perhaps a forth - media celebrities and royals.  I will be open concerning my opinion, bias and prejudice.  I distrust these genre types because I believe that they are dishonest in that they present themselves as beneficial to society when for the most part (according to my opinion) they are parasitic and do more harm and destruction than any lasting benefit.   In short (my bias) they take as much as they can and give as little as they determine they must.

At this point I want to add another thought - it begins with the deliberate act of what is affectionately known as "GAS LIGHTENING".    In case someone does not know what I mean by this term - it is shifting or diverting blame for what one person does onto someone else.  Again - I believe this most about the genre types that I do not trust because I believe they often try to get around the direct principles of freedom, liberty and justice with "gas lightening".  I believe it was Shakespeare in his play "King Lear" that the King goes incognito among his troupes as they prepare for battle and becomes involved in a classic debate in the argument of who is more responsible for the horrors of war - the leader (King) or those that carry our his orders.

It is the object of freedom, liberty and justice for each and every individual to be 100% responsible for their deeds and acts.  A free people stand responsible for their own deeds and acts and also they expect others to hold themselves responsible for their deeds and acts.  

As I have personally observed the events of this last year unfold and I am most concerned that for all the lawlessness that I have observed - there is little or no accountability - first to those that have committed crimes and those that have encouraged crimes.  Now, I want to say something about the last election.  I live in Utah and I cast my ballet for the last election here in Utah.  I did not see any election or voting ill regularities here.  But to be honest - I did not look for any.  I have in the past and I know for a fact when I have been involved I have observed gross election and voting ill regularities.  I have attempted to bring the knowledge of such violations before the public in the past but have faced bitter opposition both from public news outlets and governmental law enforcement agencies.  In short I faced more threats from both than those that committed the actual violations.

I believe that civil war will eventually result when opposing elements of a society are no longer willing to listen to the concerns of another element of that same society.  Trump has exposed a number of concerns that underpin our society - that I believe need to be exposed.  This exposure is in our trade policies, immigration policies, foreign affairs, domestic health care, taxation, and many other elements - that I personally believe need to be brought before the public and debated openly and without discrimination.   And to be honest - it appears to me that the areas of our society most controlled by Democrats (or those that identify themselves as political liberals) are the most involved in gas lightening and objection to keeping our society based upon maintaining freedom, liberty and justice.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vort said:

This is false, factually incorrect. Whether or not the election was illegitimate, asserting that it was so was not calling for violence.

GOP politicians had every opportunity to tone down their rhetoric after the Electoral College cast their votes and Trump lost nearly every court challenge. Perhaps I was being unnecessarily hyperbolic when I said that voter fraud claims were inciting violence, but it should surprise no one that Trump supporters took him seriously when he said "You'll never take back our country with weakness, you have to show strength" immediately after telling them to march to the Capitol.

 

 

Quote

Suppose, purely for the sake of argument, that Trump was correct in his claim and the election was actually illegitimate. In that case, are you seriously saying that telling the truth about the election is a call for violence?

Trump knows his base. He knows that they will literally go to war for him if he tells them to*. Knowing this, and then telling an angry crowd of supporters to march to the Capitol is dangerous. And yes, it would be equally dangerous if there was reason to believe that the claims were true. Claiming election fraud in and of itself is fine. But you have to recognize when the rhetoric, even if true, is becoming dangerous. Dems were convinced that there was foul play in the 2016 election. And while Trump himself was never directly implicated, investigations showed that our concerns were valid. We put up with Trump for 4 years anyway. 

*The Left knows this too, which is why we were horrified, but not the least bit surprised, by the way Trump supporters behaved on Wednesday. We knew that the type of people who would bring Confederate flags to "patriot" rallies and put Trump's name on the American flag weren't as loyal to the ideals of their country as they pretend to be.

2 hours ago, Vort said:

Ah. So if you believe something that Godless doesn't like, then you lose your free speech privileges. Reckless thinking and speaking. Is that it?

People were literally calling for Pence and Congressional leadership to be arrested, tried for treason, and face execution days before a mob broke into the House chamber with flex cuffs while a gallows was constructed outside. If Twitter wants to treat #StoptheSteal as a terrorist mantra after hundreds of rioters took it very literally, then that's their prerogative. And that's not even what's happening. As I mentioned earlier, rumors of conservatives' demise on social media have been greatly exaggerated. This was tweeted on Friday and hasn't been removed. There are countless tweets along these lines that have not been censored or removed. Twitter seems to be focusing their attention on bots and actual violent rhetoric. 

Screenshot_20210111-102729_Twitter.thumb.jpg.cfb45e2fc2ed02fdc8c8368780d7cf0e.jpg

Edited by Godless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But, “open forum” is “open forum”; and if social media companies want to enjoy the privileges and immunities that go with that status, then IMHO they need to leave the policing of their forums to . . . the police.  

As I mentioned in a different thread, I imagine that liability and complicity concerns come into play at a certain point. If a well-respected (among unsavory crowds, anyway) lawyer suggests on Twitter that the Vice President of the United States should be arrested and executed, and then someone takes it upon himself to try to make that happen, what is Twitter's liability/complicity in that scenario? Serious question, because you're a lawyer and I'm not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Godless said:

GOP politicians had every opportunity to tone down their rhetoric after the Electoral College cast their votes and Trump lost nearly every court challenge. Perhaps I was being unnecessarily hyperbolic when I said that voter fraud claims were inciting violence, but it should surprise no one that Trump supporters took him seriously when he said "You'll never take back our country with weakness, you have to show strength" immediately after telling them to march to the Capitol.

 

 

Trump knows his base. He knows that they will literally go to war for him if they tell them to*. Knowing this, and then telling an angry crowd of supporters to march to the Capitol is dangerous. And yes, it would be equally dangerous if there was reason to believe that the claims were true. Claiming election fraud in and of itself is fine. But you have to recognize when the rhetoric, even if true, is becoming dangerous. Dems were convinced that there was foul play in the 2016 election. And while Trump himself was never directly implicated, investigations showed that our concerns were valid. We put up with Trump for 4 years anyway. 

*The Left knows this too, which is why we were horrified, but not the least bit surprised, by the way Trump supporters behaved on Wednesday. We knew that the type of people who would bring Confederate flags to "patriot" rallies and put Trump's name on the American flag weren't as loyal to the ideals of their country as they pretend to be.

People were literally calling for Pence and Congressional leadership to be arrested, tried for treason, and face execution days before a mob broke into the House chamber with flex cuffs while a gallows was constructed outside. If Twitter wants to treat #StoptheSteal as a terrorist mantra after hundreds of rioters took it very literally, then that's their prerogative. And that's not even what's happening. As I mentioned earlier, rumors of conservatives' demise on social media have been greatly exaggerated. This was tweeted on Friday and hasn't been removed. There are countless tweets along these lines that have not been censored or removed. Twitter seems to be focusing their attention on bots and actual violent rhetoric. 

Screenshot_20210111-102729_Twitter.thumb.jpg.cfb45e2fc2ed02fdc8c8368780d7cf0e.jpg

I listened very carefully to your supplied video of Trump and heard no call for any violence.  Would you provide that time into the video so I know what you are talking about.  BTW, I do recall a Hollywood type posting a picture of them with the severed head of Trump - I do not recall twitter or anyone else suggesting her accounts or freedom of speech be withheld.

 

The Traveler

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Here’s an example of the inhumane horrors that have been perpetrated on Twitter:

https://youtu.be/xlvpXKCNWKQ

I have a feeling if I click that link it's going to be a Justin Bieber video...or KISS (nod to our absent friend Mormongator.)  You can not trick me like that Mr. Attorney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Traveler said:

1. I listened very carefully to your supplied video of Trump and heard no call for any violence.  Would you provide that time into the video so I know what you are talking about. 

2. BTW, I do recall a Hollywood type posting a picture of them with the severed head of Trump - I do not recall twitter or anyone else suggesting her accounts or freedom of speech be withheld.

1. There was no call to violence. The left want to blame Trump again... what is new. (sigh)
From the transcript of his speech:

Quote

Thank you. I’d love to have, if those tens of thousands of people would be allowed, the military, the secret service, and we want to thank you, and the police law enforcement. Great. You’re doing a great job...

... (speaking to the crowd) You’re the people that built this nation. You’re not the people that tore down our nation...

... We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women... I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard...

...So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give … The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.

2. Kathy Gifford
She retweeted it again in Nov. 2020
Untitled-1.jpg.c2129112fa87c7732f8a52cd44d5c079.jpg

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2021 at 1:40 PM, Anddenex said:

It's because we live in a double standard world. It is OK for BLM, Antifa, Democratic platform to encourage, entice, promote (even fit the bill for release of criminals), and use Facebook, Google, Apple, and other outlets for their violence. We live in a very hypocritical society. If all things were issued fairly, no one would be having a complaint. If Facebook, Apple, Google, etc...called out the violence that happened for 7 months they might have a leg to stand on. But no, they encouraged it, supported it, and did nothing against those who enticed it. BLM an known marxist organization, that initiated and assisted with violence still have a Twitter account. Go figure -- shocker -- not. 

I just deleted Twitter for good. I never did like it. Also took Facebook off my phone so I'm not tempted to spend too much time there. I also put a moratoreum on myself for posting or commenting there. ( which is probably why I showed up here again. got to get this stuff off my mind! 😁) I only broke my rule once yesterday when I read a really good post by a conservative commentator from my old stomping grounds out west. I was reading the comments and one woman said this:

"I don't know if I should say amen or a-women so I'll just say well written!" 

I burst out laughing and had to " like " that.

Unfortunately, Facebook has also got the monopoly on groups for information like our ward RS info page,  a community info page and another local group against virtual school (which is STILL going on where I live. So-long fun senior year for my daughter!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, carlimac said:

I just deleted Twitter for good. I never did like it. Also took Facebook off my phone so I'm not tempted to spend too much time there. I also put a moratoreum on myself for posting or commenting there. ( which is probably why I showed up here again. got to get this stuff off my mind! 😁)

I've heard that story about a dozen times today.  And I only know fifteen people. :D

For me, Twitter has always been a good place to:
- Get up-to-the second reports on local news, from traffic, to forest fires.
- Hear what politicians say, and what people have to say about it.  

Twitter is rapidly becoming just a good place for that first thing.

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Godless said:

As I mentioned in a different thread, I imagine that liability and complicity concerns come into play at a certain point. If a well-respected (among unsavory crowds, anyway) lawyer suggests on Twitter that the Vice President of the United States should be arrested and executed, and then someone takes it upon himself to try to make that happen, what is Twitter's liability/complicity in that scenario? Serious question, because you're a lawyer and I'm not.

It’s not my forte, tbh.  I’d imagine that something that direct (“There is John Doe.  Let’s go hang him on Layfayette Square right now!”) would be clearly illegal; and I think even nominally “open forums” are in their rights (if not affirmatively obligated) to ban obviously illegal content even before the law/courts get involved.  But when you have less-clear cases of incitement, or when you broaden your horizons and start saying that you’re going to monitor all content for “truth”—if you then approve untruthful content that causes harm, you may find yourself in a heap of trouble.

Ditto, if you are found to have clamped down on “violent rhetoric” by your opponents but to have permitted and even affirmatively featured similar rhetoric by your allies; and again—the current clampdown by the social media giants would be a lot easier to stomach if they had an undeniable record of consistency over the past year’s events.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Mod hat on]
 

Folks, this is a fine line, and I’m having trouble adhering to it myself.  But let’s try to keep the focus of this thread on the social media companies themselves, rather than getting wrapped up into which politicians or advocacy groups have specifically said what.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Ditto, if you are found to have clamped down on “violent rhetoric” by your opponents but to have permitted and even affirmatively featured similar rhetoric by your allies; and again—the current clampdown by the social media giants would be a lot easier to stomach if they had an undeniable record of consistency over the past year’s events.

This is part of why I am a bit baffled by Big Tech in this matter... They are choosing a side.. and the side they have chosen is one that favors high taxes and is generally hostile to Large Corporations... Its just a matter of time before those they have chosen to ally with will turn on them.

 

Edited by estradling75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, carlimac said:

I just deleted Twitter for good. I never did like it. Also took Facebook off my phone so I'm not tempted to spend too much time there. I also put a moratoreum on myself for posting or commenting there. ( which is probably why I showed up here again. got to get this stuff off my mind! 😁) I only broke my rule once yesterday when I read a really good post by a conservative commentator from my old stomping grounds out west.

 

I also just deleted my Twitter account.  Likely I only used it several times in the past.  I am a weird individual that has no Facebook account and I likely never will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

1. There was no call to violence. The left want to blame Trump again... what is new. (sigh)
From the transcript of his speech:

2. Kathy Gifford
She retweeted it again in Nov. 2020
Untitled-1.jpg.c2129112fa87c7732f8a52cd44d5c079.jpg

Also from the transcript:

"And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country any more."

Read the whole thing in the context of what happened. He spoke like a president who was absolutely convinced that he wasn't going anywhere, even as Biden's presidency was being confirmed on Capitol Hill.

And Kathy Griffin's post absolutely should have been removed, FWIW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Godless as much as I'd like to honestly go back and forth, we were given a fair warning:

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But let’s try to keep the focus of this thread on the social media companies themselves, rather than getting wrapped up into which politicians or advocacy groups have specifically said what.  

I would prefer to keep the thread open at this point.

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, pam said:

I had closed the thread and then noticed that JAG gave everyone a friendly reminder not long ago.  Let's keep politics out of the conversation or the thread will be locked.

I know that rules are rules but I also have been dismayed at the wide gap between the opinions and perceptions of members of the Church who you would think are looking at these events from the same place. I wish there really were a place where we could talk about political events ( are these not events of the Last Days?)  and figure out how even members of the Church got so polarized. It's like we're living on alternate planets. It's really disturbing and to have these discussions continually shut down feels counter productive to figuring out how to meet in the middle with our fellow saints.

Any ideas how to help? I feel like we're pretty evenly divided politically here, yet our discussions seem civil and educational to me. I know there is potential for things to get out of hand but so far this thread has remained mostly even tempered. Even our Church leaders have encouraged us to get involved in the political process. Seems like this forum would be a good place to learn and look at things from a gospel perspective. 

Edited by carlimac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These platforms are "the public square" regardless of them being on private property.  if you allow people to stump on your lawn, you have an obligation to allow free speech. Someone mentioned slander/libel, and that's fine, but there are laws for that, and the people posting the lies can be held accountable.  But presenting a belief that is generally considered false is still free speech.  And I believe you must allow 1000 lies if it reveals a single truth.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It’s not my forte, tbh.  I’d imagine that something that direct (“There is John Doe.  Let’s go hang him on Layfayette Square right now!”) would be clearly illegal; and I think even nominally “open forums” are in their rights (if not affirmatively obligated) to ban obviously illegal content even before the law/courts get involved.  But when you have less-clear cases of incitement, or when you broaden your horizons and start saying that you’re going to monitor all content for “truth”—if you then approve untruthful content that causes harm, you may find yourself in a heap of trouble.

Ditto, if you are found to have clamped down on “violent rhetoric” by your opponents but to have permitted and even affirmatively featured similar rhetoric by your allies; and again—the current clampdown by the social media giants would be a lot easier to stomach if they had an undeniable record of consistency over the past year’s events.

I need to update this a bit, as I’ve been reading about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.  It sounds like providers of an “interactive computer service” get pretty broad immunity for third-party content created by their users.  So avoidance of liability has little to do with Twitter’s/Facebook’s/Amazon’s actions here; except insofar as they may be trying to ingratiate themselves with the incoming political powers-that-be in order to forestall potentially adverse amendments to Section 230.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the one good thing that will come from this, if it isn't already too late, is that true free speech platforms and networks will rise from the ashes.   The tech platforms are scrambling to get rid of any platform for opposing thought.  GoDaddy dumped Arfcom yesterday.  Fortunately they were always concerned about this and had a back-up plan.  It's only going to get worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I think the one good thing that will come from this, if it isn't already too late, is that true free speech platforms and networks will rise from the ashes.   The tech platforms are scrambling to get rid of any platform for opposing thought.  GoDaddy dumped Arfcom yesterday.  Fortunately they were always concerned about this and had a back-up plan.  It's only going to get worse.

twitter and facebook are not the only ones that can do blocking of content. We'll see how they like having the tables being turned. 

https://www.deseret.com/u-s-world/2021/1/11/22225796/north-idaho-internet-provider-blocks-facebook-twitter-censorship

Yes, it will get worse. Ultimately, we all will need the guiding influence of the Holy Ghost to sift through the myriad of messages that will bombard us in the coming years. In the time before the Lord's second coming it will, by nearly all accounts, appear as if the adversary is winning. He won't, but times are going to get tough for followers of Christ. Conservatism will largely be viewed as going hand in hand with Christianity, and be perceived as the root of all the problems we face. In multiple ways, those who profess to follow the Lord will be scourged and mocked by those that do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this