Really? If your ‘opinion’ is ‘I don’t like Chinese food’, no ones stopping you posting that online. If your ‘opinion’ is ‘who wants to send me some bomb plans so I can bomb the Chinese embassy’ then there should be something there to limit/stop that happening. Parler existed without moderation (for too long) the only issue I have is that it was enabled by large corporations in the first place. Not that those corporations have finally come to their senses before the government did the right thing.
the 'free speech' argument baffles me. social media has a moral obligation to the law, common sense and decency. it has rules that people sign up to. it's also a private platform and so can ban whoever the f.cuk it wants. Donald Trump is the closest thing to a fascist dictator that I've ever seen in a democratic nation. I find it highly amusing that he bleats free speech. he spent the last 4 years shutting down anyone who questioned him. he'd also be banning people by the second, if he owned his own platform. same with Parler. amazon/google/apple have zero obligation to host any app. they've told Parler to moderate or be dropped from their store. their store, their rules.
There's a real debate to be had about control of internet platforms. In my opinion it can't be entrusted to private companies or individuals such as Zuckerburg nor can it be put in the hands of politicians who have vested interests in favouring one group or another and are notoriously vulnerable to lobbyists. Some sort of cast iron influence free independent body needs to be formed though god knows how that can be brought about. You can bet your bottom dollar though that if such a body were to be created and continued to, rightfully, crack down on lies, incitement to violence etc those on the extremes, particularly the right, would continue to squeal about having their rights to be despicable muzzled.
Trump has a press room as close to his desk as the bottom of my garden is to mine. He can literally walk out of his office and command the attention of the worlds press. someone tell me how that is in the same planet as a removal of his ‘free speech’. What he’s no longer free to do is have a big baby tantrum unchallenged. That is NOT a limit on his free speech, it’s not 1984, it’s just that the world wants to make him accountable.
Social media is not just another form of media. It has redefined the nature of human communication and the impact of that on society will prove to be utterly devastating. What we saw in America last week is only the beginning.
So in your view being '"absolutely against censorship in all forms" means ....it is alright to post kiddy porn on social media or incite others to do so and rely on the police to trace the poster and in the meantime that post remains until the court orders it to be removed. i.e. the hosting site should have no powers to remove it. It is a pointless caveat mitigating that view that that applies in a perfect World as we don't and never will. If we did we would not need laws, speed limits and police. law courts etc. Sorry mate think it through. in a civilised society we live by rules agreed by consensus. ultimately abolishing rules and laws means society descends into anarchy.
Anyone any suggestions how I'm supposed to answer this? If you have any idea apart from the obvious I'm all ears.
The US Department of State has been updated and shows Trump's term as ending tonight. Wonder if it's hacked, published early or just broken.
"Capitol Police did not respond to a request regarding the identity of the officer. The efforts by Goodman, who is Black, gave police the time needed to race to lock the doors to the Senate chamber, according to the Washington Post." "who is black"??? For what purpose has Helen Sullivan, who is sort of pinky orange, chosen to include that? Genuinely baffled. The bloke's a star. I don't understand the motivation behind referencing the colour of his skin. Barnsley won 2-1 Woodrow rifled in the first and Adeboyejo, who is black, curled in the second.
It's worded poorly and not expanded on, but I can see the relevance to referencing the race when he's standing up against a bunch of potential white supremacists alone.
Genuinely not being funny... It never occurred to me that the group were white supremacists. Had the article mentioned that then I would have at least understood the context, but I don't think it does. I thought I'd seen people of different ethnic groups entering the building, it hadn't registered with me it was a white thing. I'm prepared to admit being wrong though as I didn't specifically take note.