Which is fine, I feel that people should be free to form any clubs/groups they want.
They can't do that AND profess to support free speech within their club.
I think people should be able to form their groups as they like. But that doesn't mean that that group is a healthy place or that it doesn't harm wider society.
I'm also not clear whether this is a group of people forming under their own initiative (as is their democratic right). Or if its actually some shady privately funded project by billionaires seeking to influence elections. That second option is much less democractic and would (imho at least) be open to investigation and regulation like any other campaign activity. Hopefully it's not that, it's just someone trying to launch twitter 2.0 and make some cash.
What a mess! :)
Sorry, but they can and do.
This is a group of people that will happily shut down your speech while proclaiming themselves to be the defenders of free speech and liberty.
They will happily insult you, but are quick to play victim and complain about being oppressed and harassed and insulted.
Let's not jump to conclusions, otherwise we are as guilty of the credulity we are casting on them (Soros bucks, anyone?). Until there is hard evidence of this, please don't bandy it about.
https://www.businessinsider.com/rebekah-mercer-funds-parler-...
"[Robert] Mercer played a key role in the campaign for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union by donating data analytics services to Nigel Farage. He is also a major funder of organizations supporting right-wing political causes in the United States, such as Breitbart News, and Donald Trump's 2016 campaign for president."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mercer
They're a husband and wife pair that fund hyper partisan causes, it's not exactly jumping to conclusions.
Well then, I am grateful you cited sources. GP proffered the claim with nothing to back it up. I'm definitely the kind to believe these claims, as I've seen them verified in other realms before (Murdoch, Ailes, Kochs, Sinclair, etc), but that's precisely why I have to question that instinct. I can't just go believing things without evidence.
They aren't remotely for free speech either, by the way. I started an account there, disagreed with someone (I guess one of the wrong people to counter), and was banned within 10 minutes for wrongthink.
It's also a free speech issue. The main purpose of free speech is the ability to criticize your government and social media have obviously a huge influence on elections. As we move towards more and more lockdowns, where you won't be even able to just go out and speak your mind to the public, the social media will become the only way of communication. If you are not allowed to speak freely on those platforms and be able to actually make a change, it will render the free speech laws completely useless and you might as well repeal them at this point. Free speech laws should apply to social media.
You might not agree with the ideas that are being censored right now, but sooner or later they will come after you too.
In the 1800s not everyone had a newspaper to spread their ideas. That is not a violation of freedom of speech for the ones who can't afford a newspaper. They aren't entitled to a platform - they're entitled to the government not restricting their platform.
What about a property on a busy road - a sign there has more impact than a sign at a house off the beaten path. You're essentially arguing that because that property has more visibility, it is unfair to the other who doesn't have that same location. This just isn't how the constitution works.
> What about a property on a busy road - a sign there has more impact than a sign at a house off the beaten path. You're essentially arguing that because that property has more visibility, it is unfair to the other who doesn't have that same location.
In US there were a couple of court cases that ruled that free speech applies to places that are technically private. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
And if I'm not mistaken, you already have plenty of FCC regulations regarding means of communications like TV, radio and internet, that probably could be construed as violations of either freedom of speech or freedom of association.
We could spend all day arguing about legalities and whether it's constitutional or not. Under current laws it is in fact exactly as you say, but this is a huge problem. I live in one of post-soviet countries, so it shouldn't be a surprise that a lot of people here, including me, are against socialism. But I have to admit that the left has a point. Or at the very least had a point, since I sometimes encounter people who will say how capitalists are evil and then proceed to explain how social media are a private property and corporations are free to do whatever they want with them. If we don't do something about this, we might very soon find out how truly dystopian capitalism can be.
You're arguing for a fairness doctrine - e.g. Fox News should be forced to show the other side an equal amount of time.
I know there is no law preventing social media from censoring people. If there was, we wouldn't be arguing about this right now. What I'm saying is that free speech should be extended to social media.
Now regardless of 230, if the government says "twitter, you can not moderate." That is a violation of Twitter's freedom of speech. It can moderate content however it pleases as of now.
> I know there is no law preventing social media from censoring people. If there was, we wouldn't be arguing about this right now. What I'm saying is that free speech should be extended to social media.
The reason there is no law is because it's unconstitutional. The government can't force speech on platforms, even if said platforms are not responsible for its content.
Sure it doesn't, I brought 230 up because you've equated the ability to post content with endorsement of that content. And again, I'm not sure where do you got this "censoring you is actually my freedom of speech" thing from.
I already posted a wikipedia article proving that in fact yes, you can legally "force speech". I'm not a lawyer, I don't know the law, but it seems to me that we have all those politicians wasting time on nonsensical stuff like trying to ban E2E encryption, so why shouldn't they for once do something useful and ensure that corporations cannot abuse their powers?
I follow the topic carefully and I've never seen domains being taken down just because people were simply discussing conservative politics.
Hosting platforms love getting paid and tend to block extremist "clubs" like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_(website)
I don't know much about Parler, but going just by what people are saying, it seems just like twitter but for conservatives, so it's no good either. Not sure what gab is now up to, but from what I remember, it was just a free speech site. They had some rules like no doxing, but other than that they never banned anyone for anything. You could say anything you want no matter what your politics are, as long as you didn't violate the law. So the issue for me is not really "conservative clubs", but that you will get targeted by the companies up the food chain, just by allowing free speech to be exercised.
Parler chooses not to maintain the same freedom. But then falsely claims it does...
This is, empirically, false.
Just as the right can chant “freedom of religion” and mean by that “freedom of my religion to impose it's views on others while others are suppressed”, they can also chant “freedom of speech” and mean the exact same thing with “speech” in place of “religion”.
This should be all anyone needs to know about how seriously these groups takes freeze peaches. Look at their actions, not their words.
Don't just take a claim like this as the whole story, they are generally in "tidied up" form.
You'd want the text of the post, the person's posting history on the forum in question, a list of warnings etc and a copy of the forum rules to even approach a reasonable judgement.
It's not about free speech and being oppressed, it's a literal safe space - which is fine, but selling themselves as the opposite of that just makes them look foolish.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/gumxuy/...
At some point we'll need to have a psychological nuclear weapon disarmament... the question is when and how, not if.