Discussion about hot topics trending today

[jelgate]

This is a common misconception. Many people have this illusion that social media is the same as going out in public and saying whatever they want. A better example is going into a store or restaurant. The law is quite clear they can kick you out if you break their rules no matter what. Its the same for social media as they are in the private sector. Free speech only applies to the public sector

[Chaka-Z0]

Let's refresh his memory, remember the gay cake case? We agreed that the baker had every rights since it is his own business he can do whatever he wants. No difference with FB. That's on the record. How about you drop that futile argument in regards to free speech and social media Annoyed?

The Flat-Earthers, anti-vaxxers and right conspiracy theorists (Annoyed's pick), which are all part of the same jolly band of morons, will need to find another platform to keep on loitering the social sphere.

[Annoyed]

Agreed, this is an enormous intrusion into the private sector. But this is a unique situation. SM giants such as FB want to be and are rapidly becoming the national discussion forum where the populace discusses issues of the day.

Maybe the public's interest in have a open forums for discussion supersedes the absolute right of private enterprise in this case? The precedent is established; broadcast license holders have had to toe government lines in order to keep their FCC licenses for a very long time.

Do you really like the idea of private enterprise owners being able to regulate the national discussion of issues? Suppose Breitbart or Fox purchases Facebook. You want them holding the edit button?

[Chaka-Z0]

National discussions? On FB?

No?

[jelgate]

We shouldn't feed His conspiracy theories Chaka

[Chaka-Z0]

Trump casually browsing his FB when...

Kim Jong un liked your profile picture

*Press conference*

I know my allies are worried about the May launch violations but listen to me, he's a good man and he will come around I'm telling you.

[jelgate]

Its only a matter of time before Trump starts jailing journalists

[aretood2]

Agreed, this is an enormous intrusion into the private sector. But this is a unique situation. SM giants such as FB want to be and are rapidly becoming the national discussion forum where the populace discusses issues of the day.

That's the point of net neutrality, that everyone can use the internet to create their own forums without having a high barrier of entry such as extra fees that greedy ISP's would like to impose. But you're against that so....

Maybe the public's interest in have a open forums for discussion supersedes the absolute right of private enterprise in this case? The precedent is established; broadcast license holders have had to toe government lines in order to keep their FCC licenses for a very long time.

It's called Reddit. Or 4Chan if you want to say nasty horrible things.

Do you really like the idea of private enterprise owners being able to regulate the national discussion of issues? Suppose Breitbart or Fox purchases Facebook. You want them holding the edit button?

What anyone wants is irrelevant. You're supposing everyone is hypocritical like you. No, just because it may be inconvenient it doesn't change the facts. The government shouldn't compel speech. Period. Facebook or any other group should not be forced to allow one thing or another by the government.

But why are you defending these groups? I remember I asked Grahkal this question ages ago when he kept defending neonazis even going as far as implying that they aren't violent (I wonder if he still holds to that after everything between Dylan Roof and New Zealand Mosque attack).

[Chaka-Z0]

Its only a matter of time before Trump starts jailing journalists

Has he not evicted a ton of them already? I thought they changed the rules to renew a license to the WH.

[jelgate]

I think you're right. Its only a matter time before Im jailed for criticizing Trump like they do in North Korea.


I think it might be time to invoke my Canadian ancestry

[Annoyed]

That's the point of net neutrality, that everyone can use the internet to create their own forums without having a high barrier of entry such as extra fees that greedy ISP's would like to impose. But you're against that so....

Who ever said I'm against Net Neutrality? I am not. I am decidedly in favor of it, in fact to a greater degree than most supporters. Traffic carriers should be required to treat ALL traffic equally, I don't care whose or what it is. But no one really wants that, because things like VOIP phones won't work without preferential treatment. That's a big part of how the whole Q.O.S. system came into being.

It's called Reddit. Or 4Chan if you want to say nasty horrible things.

They should be subject to the same rules. No editing.

What anyone wants is irrelevant. You're supposing everyone is hypocritical like you. No, just because it may be inconvenient it doesn't change the facts. The government shouldn't compel speech. Period. Facebook or any other group should not be forced to allow one thing or another by the government.

But why are you defending these groups? I remember I asked Grahkal this question ages ago when he kept defending neonazis even going as far as implying that they aren't violent (I wonder if he still holds to that after everything between Dylan Roof and New Zealand Mosque attack).

I've said this over and over. In any forum, gathering or whatever, people should be allowed to say whatever they want, short of "yelling fire in a crowded theater" situations. The audience should be allowed to decide the value of what is said.

Why do you think I've posted requests at various times that no moderator here edits or censors someone based upon what they say about me? Because I assume the reader has enough intelligence to assign the proper value to personal insults and such. They say much more about the speaker than they do the target. But that's the idea. Everyone gets their say, and the audience decides if it's worth paying attention to it.

[Chaka-Z0]

[COLOR=#000080]What anyone wants is irrelevant. You're supposing everyone is hypocritical like you. No, just because it may be inconvenient it doesn't change the facts. The government shouldn't compel speech. Period.

I disagree. Government should compel speech that is a threat to national or interior security. You want to let religious extremists such as Daesh spread their messages on those platforms and corrupt more kids that are helpless against expert recruiters? Anti-Vaxxers should be included in that group as well because they represent a threat to public health.

As long as it's done in a transparent fashion I have no issues with that whatsoever.

Facebook or any other group should not be forced to allow one thing or another by the government.

I completely disagree. They should be able to force FB and other groups not to allow hateful content such as right-wing extremist or religious extremist propaganda, and actually, they are able to and are doing it right now.

Businesses bend their products, services to the specifications of each Govts of each countries, that's not news that's always been like that and there are good reasons why. Your car would still be a deathtrap if it wasn't for the govt compelling the businesses to adopt security features. FB would still not give a single clap about the bots or fake news or else on their platforms if it wasn't for the world govts rising up against them. It's quite simple, they are there to make money and whatever costs them more isn't something they will freely do unless compelled to.

[Gatefan1976]

Who ever said I'm against Net Neutrality? I am not. I am decidedly in favor of it, in fact to a greater degree than most supporters. Traffic carriers should be required to treat ALL traffic equally, I don't care whose or what it is. But no one really wants that, because things like VOIP phones won't work without preferential treatment. That's a big part of how the whole Q.O.S. system came into being.

Traffic does not equal content. Tood confused the two.

They should be subject to the same rules. No editing.

Not your choice. Want that choice? Make your own forum.

I've said this over and over. In any forum, gathering or whatever, people should be allowed to say whatever they want, short of "yelling fire in a crowded theater" situations. The audience should be allowed to decide the value of what is said.

You don't make the rules, the owner of the digital establishment does.

Why do you think I've posted requests at various times that no moderator here edits or censors someone based upon what they say about me? Because I assume the reader has enough intelligence to assign the proper value to personal insults and such. They say much more about the speaker than they do the target. But that's the idea. Everyone gets their say, and the audience decides if it's worth paying attention to it.

Still going with that cop out?
When ONE person calls you a "bad word", then it says more about them, true.
When everyone does it, it's time to look at yourself and wonder why.
Gateworld -constantly- edits words out into **** format as it is a PG-13 site, that's the rules and your "request" means nothing.

[Annoyed]

I completely disagree. They should be able to force FB and other groups not to allow hateful content such as right-wing extremist or religious extremist propaganda, and actually, they are able to and are doing it right now.

But left-wing extremism is just fine, eh?

I see you don't believe in free speech. A belief in free speech requires that you allow ALL partys to speak, not just those that you agree with.

[jelgate]

Now I can build a scarecrow with Annoyed's straw