Holy smokes, since when did interest in our constitutional rights of free speech become a "right" thing?
It seems like the "From the right" should be "right-wing belief that tech platforms push left-wing biases", true or not, that is their gripe.
It seems like the "From the right" should be "right-wing belief that tech platforms push left-wing biases", true or not, that is their gripe.
Confusing government regulation of private parties to prevent those actors chosen exercise of the right of free speech by way of not actively using their resources to magnify the reach of your favored actors speech with “free speech” is a “right” thing, and one diametrically opposed to Constitutional free speech.
In 2019, having online speech without discovery and viral propagation is obviously disadvantaged. That's like saying in 1960's America, it would have been alright for networks to ban a political party from using radio and television, because they still have newspaper ads.
What you're advocating is that one side of the political spectrum should get a huge media advantage in terms of "friction" and network effects -- because their side owns the companies controlling it. That's not advocating for a free marketplace of ideas. That's advocating for a rigged marketplace of ideas, because you happen to like the direction of the tilt.
Would you be satisfied if Republicans were deplatforming your pundits and widely censoring speech you favored on YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter? I wouldn't, and I don't think you'd like it very much. (In a way, it was like dealing with the Moral Majority types back in the 80's and 90's.) Be careful how you rig the system and distort the marketplace. One day, it might well be the turn of people you don't like. (1)
diametrically opposed to Constitutional free speech
Free Speech is more important than property rights:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
(1) - Given that I agree with Bret Weinstein, that some Bad Actors are exploiting the far left for their own purposes, this is basically already happening. It's just that the bias of most left leaning people prevents them from seeing the corruption on their own side.
If you wanted to be charitable, you could say people mad about social media "deplatforming" are more trying to uphold a cultural value of free speech, but not a constitutional right.
Which is almost always a red herring. Typically the ones being deplatformed are causing harm to individuals, for which even the founders of free-speech philosophy said should be an exception.
"Typically"? Spoken like someone who actually looked at all cases? Or just taken some cases your peers agree on, and painting all cases with the same brush without even looking at them?
Who did Carey Wedler harm, for example? See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzlPhxf4Rd0 Or is that "not typical", as in "No True Scotsman"?
Since this is the internet and people will nitpick things to death, I said Typically, because in any normalized population of bans you're going to have outlying false negatives and false positives, in which you've gone to lengths to dig up and present one.
How do you even know that Anti-Media was banned for their speech anyways? According to them they never received a reason.
No I didn't, I have been subscribed to her Youtube channel for years, actually. I didn't dig up anything. Even if I had, that wouldn't detract even from iota from it.
Naomi Wu is a similar case: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=naomi%20wu&sort=byDate&prefix&...
I've also had my FB account suspended after 9 years of use, 100+ RL friends, using my real name all along, plenty of photos of me and being in tagged in photos, because apparently, people who wanted me off FB reported my profile as not being a real person. I didn't scan my ID and send it to FB out of principle. Mind you, nothing I posted or commented violated the rules, I never got any "trouble" until I flat out couldn't log in because, I guess, "typically" several accounts reporting a profile means it's fake, and the people who act on those reports probably don't get paid enough to actually take an in-depth look at the profiles they kill.
I'll admit, I'm glad, it was the best thing FB ever did for me. But I'm not all people, for some people that would be terrible, and terribly unfair. I know first hand that there is no process worth a fuck, and people just tend to assume "they wouldn't be treated this way unless there was a good reason for it". It's as old as cowardice and selfishness are.
If "false positives" are just a thing you would accept as long as you aren't hit, then I'll just act as if you were removed in this way. Another unfortunate false positive, nothing to see, really. Then there is also nothing I would have to to "nitpick to death" [by making a single comment with questions you ignore, no less] either, very tidy. If you don't care for due process for others, no due process for you.
> How do you even know that Anti-Media was banned for their speech anyways? According to them they never received a reason.
I take this as the answer "nobody to my knowledge" to the question of who she harmed, and "nope" to the question whether you have actual knowledge of the actual individual cases. "there's going to be outliers" isn't enough, that you resort to saying I "went to lengths to dig up an example" just shows you don't necessarily shy from making authoritative statements about things you don't actually know.
The fact is that the speech was curtailed, if no reason is offered that doesn't mean "maybe there's a good reason, so let's just assume that and move along". You wouldn't want to be treated that way.
"dampers, mutes, and hooded executioners"
and
> Criminals don't actually don't belong in a concentration camp. That they still form a permanent category in all camps is, from the viewpoint of the totalitarian power apparatus, a kind of concession to the prejudices of society, which in this way can be made to get used to their existence the most easily.
and
> the first crucial step on the way to totalitarian power is the killing of the juridical person, which in the case of statelessness happens automatically because the stateless person ends up outside of all law. In the case of totalitarian power this automatic killing becomes a planned murder, because concentration camps are always placed outside of the penal system, and the inmates are never to be put there "for punishable or other offenses" (also see Maunz, p. 50). Under all conditions totalitatarian power takes care to put people into the camps, which only are -- Jews, carriers of diseases, members of dying classes -- but have already lost their ability to act, be it for good or bad.
-- Hannah Arendt
But how can marching in goosestep be wrong, when not marching is goosestep is so scary, right?
The way this reads to me is: If you were against it, it could only be because you were a communist. #mcCarthyism
They assert it in their values and in responses to interviews about deplatforming, so claiming it’s a belief makes it look less proven than it is.
That's half of it. The other half is suppression of right-slanted content. The issue is monopoly status + pushing one side + suppressing the other side.