|
|
Post by mustrumridcully on Jan 19, 2021 12:35:00 GMT
A big thanks to Russia for protecting Free Speech across the world!
Just after they diverted a flight for government critic Nawalny to arrest him at the airport after he returned from recovering of being poisoned in Russia. Perfect timing
|
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jan 19, 2021 13:25:35 GMT
Not only that but you can bet they're going to use the opportunity to slide in some operatives to fan the flames of conservative stupidity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jan 19, 2021 14:24:11 GMT
It's a very sad day for America when a Russian company has to step in to support free speech here, while American companies stifle it. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jan 19, 2021 15:01:11 GMT
I doubt it was due to philanthropy or for high ideals like freedom of speech. More than likely, Russian intelligence views it as an opportunity to easily infiltrate conservative conversations.This is Russia we're talking about dude. There's always an ulterior motive.
|
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Jan 19, 2021 16:45:00 GMT
Nope. I don't see what they have as public square protections. And you're wrong. Objectively wrong. Correct, because legally they aren't publishers despite actually publishing online content. Because legally 47 U.S.C. § 230 gives them public square protections, explicitly. Those aren't public square protections. Those are bulletin board (literal, physical bulletin boards, not the BBS's of old) protections. Wrong. If they weren't protected from the consequences of what they publish, they would have to spend more on moderation to protection themselves from the potential of being sued for publishing defamation and libel than it would be worth. That's what 47 U.S.C. § 230 gives them, protection from the consequences of what they publish.[/quote]Bzzt. Wrong. You don't understand the court cases that preceded section 230. A repeal would go back to those court precedents. Those cases basically held that if there was no moderation, then the company running the board (since nothing like FB or Twitter existed at the time) could not be held liable. But if they DID moderate the board, they COULD be held liable. Which is why I think they would just stop moderating. Yes, there is more nuance to that, but that's the essentials. |
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Jan 19, 2021 17:10:47 GMT
So here's the problem with what you're saying. They're removing misinformation, and you have a problem with it. For example, the vaccine "debate". Just about everything put out that's anti-vaccine is full of lies. Those things not only shouldn't be given equal time, they shouldn't be given time. It would be fine if they were just removing misinformation across the political spectrum - if they had an all-knowing AI confirming truth. The fact is they are removing ideas that they don't like because "fact checkers" are human and the vast majority of them lean strongly left. I didn't see, for example, any rush by the media, to remove or correct their narrative when the DoJ started walking back their assertions that the capitol riots were right -wingers exclusively, once they started arresting hard-core antifa leftists. Most news outlets revised their story in like page A97 when the initial story was front-page. You mean the guy who filmed the shooting? Him? No, he's a nutball, pure and simple. He isn't what he claims. The leftists from where he is from disavowed him well before the coup attempt. They warned other leftist groups to avoid him. Are there any others? Most vaccines have a small chance of death or side effects. Even when it's 1 in 1,000,000 for a particular side effect, there are 330 million people in the US alone so there are going to be some people who have that side effect. Regarding mRNA manipulation, it's not like it's changing DNA or anything like that. It's basically inducing the production of certain molecules by your cells that will cause your immune system to create the antibodies that are needed. This isn't completely new, it's the basis of the Shingrix vaccine, for example. It's safe. That information is freely available. By the same token, it's a psychological thing to not advertise the tiny chances of side effects because it's important for everyone to get the vaccines. And even showing those tiny percentages is enough to get people not to get it. But because of faked research, people think that they can cause autism when there is nothing showing that. |
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Jan 19, 2021 18:58:08 GMT
It's a very sad day for America when a Russian company has to step in to support free speech here, while American companies stifle it. Yes and no... mostly yes, but... This isn't "Russia steppin in for Free Speech!", it's a russian company steppin in to make the almighty dollah. But yeah, it would be preferable that an American company stepped in to provide hosting and Free Speech protection. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jan 19, 2021 20:36:10 GMT
Just like Trump and Deutsche bank. No bank in the US would do business with him and Deutsche bank found out why. Same will happen with these jokers. I have no sympathy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jan 20, 2021 3:00:29 GMT
I doubt it was due to philanthropy or for high ideals like freedom of speech. More than likely, Russian intelligence views it as an opportunity to easily infiltrate conservative conversations.This is Russia we're talking about dude. There's always an ulterior motive. Probably, but they're going to spy on us anyway. They didn't have to do it this way. They're doing it for the irony of Russia helping America with free speech and of course the cash, while American companies try to stifle it. I'm just waiting for the conservative midwestern Republicans' heads to explode as they get the conflicting impulses to cheer for Russia while simultaneously hating Russia. |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Jan 20, 2021 3:10:45 GMT
I doubt it was due to philanthropy or for high ideals like freedom of speech. More than likely, Russian intelligence views it as an opportunity to easily infiltrate conservative conversations.This is Russia we're talking about dude. There's always an ulterior motive. Probably, but they're going to spy on us anyway. They didn't have to do it this way. They're doing it for the irony of Russia helping America with free speech, while American companies try to stifle it. I'm just waiting for the conservative midwestern Republicans' heads to explode as they get the conflicting impulses to cheer for Russia while simultaneously hating Russia. Anyone who doesn't recognize that *every* government that can do it has hooks into whatever private businesses are homed in their countries is a fool. Russia trying to spy on the US via their internet hosting companies? To be expected. The US spying on its own citizens? Also to be expected. *All* governments are corrupt because the people that end up running them are corruptible. The days of statesmen-scholars involved in government as a public service out of a sense of duty are long gone, inasmuch as they ever existed to begin with. |
|
|
|
Post by Libtard on Jan 20, 2021 10:38:23 GMT
It’s illuminating that Parler couldn’t find a domestic backer for its platform, and had to look to a service based in a hostile foreign polity in order to stage and finance it.
Am I missing something?
|
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jan 20, 2021 13:05:29 GMT
It's that toxic. That's what I'm getting. Hell, no bank in the US would back Trump on loans. He had to go to a foreign bank to do that. It should have told you something about the man. Parler having to go to a foreign country, a hostile foreign country at that, to get back online should tell you a similar story. Stay away from it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jan 20, 2021 14:08:49 GMT
It’s illuminating that Parler couldn’t find a domestic backer for its platform, and had to look to a service based in a hostile foreign polity in order to stage and finance it. Am I missing something? That American companies are limiting speech to only speech they approve of? They can do it, but it's a pretty anti-American stance to take. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jan 20, 2021 14:10:22 GMT
It's that toxic. That's what I'm getting. Hell, no bank in the US would back Trump on loans. He had to go to a foreign bank to do that. It should have told you something about the man. Parler having to go to a foreign country, a hostile foreign country at that, to get back online should tell you a similar story. Stay away from it. Toxic it may be, but that's not a valid reason to limit free speech. Toxic speech is a subjective opinion, which means that it could be your preferred speech that is declared toxic eventually and banned. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jan 20, 2021 14:17:46 GMT
Yeah, but when the website is used to plan an insurrection, kill congress people and the vice president and encourage mob violence, that goes beyond speachifying and yapping. Parler is toxic because of that.
|
|
