|
Replies: 28
| visibility 786
|
Hall of Famer [20540]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11683
Joined: 10/15/02
|
The balancing act...sedition versus free speech
Jan 9, 2021, 7:51 AM
|
|
The First Amendment is this, and I think nobody would disagree this is BY FAR the cornerstone of America and the thing that made us a unique creation upon our formation and continues to sustain us to this very day:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
On the other hand, no government can endure if people plot against it to destroy it from within, and the government doesn't have the power to stop them. That's called "sedition." The definition of "sedition" is this:
Conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.
The line seems pretty plain here, but the application of it is slippery. IMHO, Trump's been committing sedition for as long as he's been telling the lie that the election was stolen while at the same time being completely unable to provide in a court of law any evidence to that effect.
He's also been aided and abetted in this endeavor by "conservative media", which duly parrots and amplifies thise lies.
So we've essentially gotten two Americas, which are simply not compatible with one another - one group that believes we have fair if perhaps not perfect elections (I think this remains the majority of Americans) and another group that believes, with zero evidence that has been sustained in ANY COURTROOM (which is the real litmus test for "evidence") - that our way of life and system of government has been suborned by some invisible shadow conspiracy.
People with this strongly-held belief just stormed our capital and tried to attack our Congress while it was certifying the electors of our democratic process. Why? Because they'd been lied to by people committing sedition. In some ways I don't really even blame those involved, though they're going to get to be the examples. These people believed what they believed because they've been told it enough times and this "reality" achieved its own critical mass. It was basically a Jonestown moment.
We're already seeing the crackdown for that - a sweeping social media ban on seditious speech. And it's necessary. Our democracy can't sustain if instigators engage for profit (keep in mind clicks and engagement are big money in the digital world) or personal political gain in seditious speech that will inevitably lead to the clash of people who believe our elections are fair and those who have been falsely convinced it isn't. It leads inevitably to civil war.
Right now, Twitter, Facebook, etc. are on the right side of history. Donald has been governing by Tweet anyhow; by pushing a single button, Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, just single-handedly took away the Donald's ability to communicate and agitate his own base...and without that, the whole Trump Movement has been revealed - literally overnight! - as exactly what it always was - a creation of social media, sustained by the platforms of social media, reliant upon the self-sustaining feedback effect of social media to survive.
It had to happen, or we were going to eat each other.
The obvious problem is this: a handful of tech companies cannot and must not be allowed to be the arbiters of free speech in America. See the first Amendment. Who the eff elected Jack Dorsey the president of anything again? So that means, collectively, we have to make sure "terms of service" - set by Jack Dorsey or Mark Zuckerberg, and are whatever Jack Dorsey or Mark Zuckerberg decide they are on that particular day as the whim takes them - do not become more important than Amendment #1 of the US Constitution, listed above.
Where's the line, and how do we make sure that happens before it's too late to have that discussion? Because while I am assuredly not on the side of our board reactionaries, I very much share their concerns...and you should too. And that's a conversation we'd better have now, while it's still possible to have it, or Big Tech's terms of service and legions of board mods are going to become the Arbiters of Truth in America.
No, no, no, and no. A thousand times no.
As guys like NC_Tiger_ said emphatically - a lot of us are cheering now, but wait until what happened to them tonight happens to the rest of us? And we'd better listen to that too...because that concern is dead-on. We're not at Big Brother yet but that possibility is staring us right in the face.
So...thoughts? Concerns? From anyone? (And though it's a big ask, try not to align in traditional red-blue corners...please?)
|
|
|
|
 |
110%er [7207]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9432
Joined: 12/18/13
|
Re: The balancing act...sedition versus free speech
Jan 9, 2021, 8:07 AM
|
|
It's amazing that Jack has done more to reprimand Donald Trump than our actual government. Concerning Twitter, I believe it was not only the right thing to do, but long overdue. As I posted before, a restaurant owner would not let me rent out a room to hold Klan meetings. It is also true that we are bordering plutocracy and we need to do something to take away any big company's influence over our government. I am all for breaking the big three up, especially from a vertical perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7207]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9432
Joined: 12/18/13
|
Except for Maurice's obviously.***
Jan 9, 2021, 8:09 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20540]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11683
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: The balancing act...sedition versus free speech
Jan 9, 2021, 8:16 AM
[ in reply to Re: The balancing act...sedition versus free speech ] |
|
So...aggressive anti-trust?
This issue is going to be fascinating, too, because alliances aren't always cut-and-dried. Our real alliances are literally unseen because dark money has ensured they're unseen. And keep in mind Kamala Harris being named VP when more charismatic and centrist candidates like Val Demings were available was in no small part, IMHO, because Kamala's a California gal with the necessary alliances with Big Tech. They like her, they support her, and they financed her war chest in several elections.
Politics shift all the time, and I can easily see a tomorrow where Big Tech mega-corps encroach bigly...aided and abetted by dark-money alliances to Dem politicians.
That ain't good either. Jack Dorsey seems like a high-minded and intelligent guy but his position there at Twitter is dangling by a thread and I sure as eff know I don't trust Mark Zuckerberg to run this country. That's a mighty thin reed to build our Democracy upon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7207]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9432
Joined: 12/18/13
|
Re: The balancing act...sedition versus free speech
Jan 9, 2021, 8:24 AM
|
|
Election reform should be thrown into the mix here as well. You keep mentioning dark money, and there are lots of other avenues corporations and wealthy donors can use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [119695]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 54463
Joined: 6/24/09
|
Agree, but I also think the voting mechanisms for Prez/VP
Jan 9, 2021, 9:44 AM
|
|
should be consistent from state to state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
I aint' gonna lie. I stopped reading at 'antitrust' and gave
Jan 9, 2021, 10:40 AM
[ in reply to Re: The balancing act...sedition versus free speech ] |
|
you 50 TU's. I think it recorded only one.
I don't think we realize how many of the things we argue about have their root cause in our shift from a distributed free market to an oligarchy in our 4 or 5 most influential industries. Tech leads the way, with media and banking in the same bag.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: The balancing act...sedition versus free speech
Jan 9, 2021, 11:23 AM
[ in reply to Re: The balancing act...sedition versus free speech ] |
|
While we are calling out the oligarchy - with its dark money and lobbying efforts - let's not restrict ourselves to Big Tech. Let us not forget Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Insurance et al.
At the root of all of this oligarchy is the power of money to influence our politicians through campaign finance and lobbying. Until we get that under some kind of control, any regulation of the oligopoly will just be a game of whack-a-mole in which we temporarily assuage ourselves that we have imposed restrictions to the benefit of the American people - until the next time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17285]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14229
Joined: 12/14/98
|
The balancing act... switching from beer to bourbon.
Jan 9, 2021, 8:17 AM
|
|
Going with right before the Bucs -WFT game around 8 pm.
q ... I’m sure it’s a thoughtful post but just too worn out. Will read on Monday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Re: The balancing act...sedition versus free speech
Jan 9, 2021, 8:27 AM
|
|
Who is limiting their free speech?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155886]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65807
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Here’s where sedition gets tricky
Jan 9, 2021, 8:38 AM
|
|
From the DoI, “ That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
Our own founders encouraged sedition when merited by certain conditions. While I think we are talking about a minority of those who went into the capitol with actual intentions of altering our govt, they clearly (and I think incorrectly) believed those conditions had been met.
I wish I could say it would get better, but social media has created, aided and abetted the ever widening gap in the country. It is the massive wedge that takes minor ideological disagreements and amplifies them into blood feuds. Absent the genie going back into the bottle, I’m not sure what you do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20540]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11683
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: Here’s where sedition gets tricky
Jan 9, 2021, 8:51 AM
|
|
Yup. It's the algorithm feedback loop Big Tech created. People click on stuff. The search engines and social-media platforms record that. They then farm that data out to advertisers for money...who then target those users with similar stuff because they know the user's going to be interested in it.
User ends up seeing only stuff that confirms the stuff he likes, which cements his worldview. Feedback loop, and there's no end to it. We're building our own Jonestown, and we're doing it every day, on a mega scale.
Okay, so Big Tech decides they're going to try to hit the Manual Override switch on that feedback loop, and employs a legion of mods to zap the stuff that's deemed dangerous. Those people effectively just became Big Brother. Unelected, faceless masses of gnomes who get to decide what speech and virtual groups are allowed to exist. Not good either. Who moderates the mods?
Obviously we've gotta start with the algorithm feedback and the mega scale of Big Tech...but they just cemented an alliance with the Dems and they're going to fight that tooth and nail.
Burp. I think that's called "progress". You imperfectly solve one problem just to create even bigger ones for tomorrow to deal with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7207]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9432
Joined: 12/18/13
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155886]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65807
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Weird that you have to read to the end of the article
Jan 9, 2021, 9:01 AM
|
|
To see that Twitter itself says that the headline and the rest of the story are BS. Wonder why they’d put it at the end?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7207]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9432
Joined: 12/18/13
|
Re: Weird that you have to read to the end of the article
Jan 9, 2021, 9:19 AM
|
|
Look at the volume of accounts that disappeared last night and tell me there's not an algorithm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: Weird that you have to read to the end of the article
Jan 9, 2021, 11:28 AM
|
|
how would one look at that ??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155886]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65807
Joined: 5/6/13
|
A better analogy would be a sign on the front of the
Jan 9, 2021, 11:39 AM
|
|
grocery store that said "we have eggs and milk 50% off" and you got to the back of the store and the cooler was full of play-doh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4679]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6557
Joined: 4/11/20
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12592]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6312
Joined: 12/24/15
|
Re: The balancing act...sedition versus free speech
Jan 9, 2021, 9:13 AM
|
|
As a private company, Twitter, FB, etc may elect to shut down anyone they want. I think it is chilling that this has happened to President Trump regardless of what he said or says. Where does this censorship stop? It doesn't.
The KKK and Nazis are free to march. This is very offensive to me, but I support their right to spout offensive speech. If we are to begin censoring what the N California tech oligarchs deem offensive and inciting violence, God help us all. This will ultimately lead to more unrest not less and count me in. So Trump saying he wasn't gonna show up for the Inauguration was a green light to his followers to commit mayhem? Total BS! He should now show up just to screw with Jack and Mark.
Joe Biden said referring to the GOP- that the GOP was going to put blacks back in chains. You ain't black if you were black and didn't vote for him. That's pretty #### offensive. Yet his Twitter account is viable as it should be.
The leader of Iran is free to post.
Censorship is bad. Period.
Now apparently Parler is being attacked. Google is dropping them.
This is very dangerous. The censorship of speakers on university campuses was the beginning. I think we can see the end. If this continues, what was seen in DC will look like small potatoes ultimately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20540]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11683
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: The balancing act...sedition versus free speech
Jan 9, 2021, 9:40 AM
|
|
I posted to this yesterday, and again at the top of my main post.
The problem is, what the history of Internet tells us is that when enough like-minded people converge into the same echo chamber, what happens is they reinforce one another's extreme views, rile one another up, and start encouraging and egging their members to commit violent attacks against their perceived "enemies".
Almost all of the spree shooters we've seen lately seem to have gotten radicalized on-line and were participants in extremist groups. Which is the reason why we've gone from having one spree shooter in 1966 - when a former Marine sharpshooter parked himself in the University of Austin bell tower and started picking people off, killing 17 and wounding another 31 - to almost 10 years passing before the Cal-State Fullerton shooting when a janitor went ape and killed 7 random people - to the modern days, when it seems like we're having spree killings every other week to the point unless 20+ people die it barely even makes national news anymore.
Clearly the Internet is not going to police itself, and unless it's policed, it spawns uncontrolled violence and conspiracy theories and political mayhem and entire segments of the population being convinced that others are out to get them. Society breaks down under those conditions. It was breaking down in Washington just Wednesday.
On the other hand, control it too rigidly and we will be living in a police state where you have to watch every word you say and a mistake you make when you're, say, 25 years old (or even 15 years old!) that gets recorded on-line can then be used to destroy your reputation and job prospects at any future point in your life. Which is already happening, obviously. Not cool either.
Can society even survive social media or do we have to turn it off?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4679]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6557
Joined: 4/11/20
|
Re: The balancing act...sedition versus free speech
Jan 9, 2021, 9:53 AM
|
|
I don’t think society can survive social media. I said that years ago and was called crazy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: The balancing act...sedition versus free speech
Jan 9, 2021, 11:38 AM
[ in reply to Re: The balancing act...sedition versus free speech ] |
|
Q
Are we saying that a significant % of Americans (or humans) are not capable of using empirical evidence and rational thinking to discern reality from fantasy. After the events of the past two months, that seems a fair question.
Does democracy seem viable if you answer the above question in the affirmative ?
Can people be taught to adequately and accurately deal with the absolute deluge of information available on the internet ? Or does it lead to such a sensory overload that one cannot separate fact from fiction ?
Underneath ALL of the issues we might chose to discuss is this one: How do humans digest messages in the information age ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12592]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6312
Joined: 12/24/15
|
Re: The balancing act...sedition versus free speech
Jan 9, 2021, 4:51 PM
[ in reply to Re: The balancing act...sedition versus free speech ] |
|
I personally think social media has done more harm than good, just as I think cable news has also. There is no time for reflection and thoughtful analysis. However, I don't think social media is going away and I personally prefer the wild west of completely open and uncensored posting as opposed to censorship.
What may constitute hate speech by someone else may in fact be speech that expresses an opinion at variance with someone else and make someone uncomfortable. It could also be hate speech. However, I am more concerned over censorship than I am craziness.
I am curious which far left individual or group has been censored? Have there been any? If not, why not, if the arbiters of speech are being fair. The New York Post gets temporarily censored while I suspect Louis Farrakhan and his bigoted rants towards whites and Jews go on unabated as they should be allowed to IMO. Have any pro Marxist sites been shut down? Doubt it. Maduro is a tyrant in Venezuela, yet is free as a bird to express himself.
I no longer deal with Twitter nor Facebook other than to occasionally buy things from guys on FB who don't have a website. If you haven't watched the documentary Social Dilemma, I would strongly encourage watching it. Chilling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
One step of progress is that the discussion has at least
Jan 9, 2021, 10:35 AM
|
|
moved from "no, they are not censoring" to "private companies have a right to." That's progress right there, finally admitting to it.
Whether they have a right to would seem to me to be determined by the degree to which access to internet bandwidth is governmentally provided. Maybe not a bit. I'm not familiar enough with the details to know. But if its like airwaves, then its like the 10 Commandments on a courthouse. We can then argue about how free speech and the establishment clause are tied together in the same amendment, but that's what the argument will be about.
If none of that is an issue - if they are totally private using no government provided means of being in business - I dont see what the issue is.
Except for one thing. They have dodged responsibility for some serious things by claiming to not be a content provider. They are now clearly providers. They are being used by some bad actors. Once they ban one and not the other, they become responsible, do they not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42151]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38237
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: One step of progress is that the discussion has at least
Jan 9, 2021, 10:42 AM
|
|
Hey, look, we agree.
To your point on the last line, I think one of the big factors we're overlooking here is luxury choice. Social media platforms have not yet hit the realm of "necessity" the same way electric, telephone, even Internet, etc. have become. A person can, if he so chooses, never use a single social media platform and function just fine. One might argue this isn't true with businesses, but a savvy business with a good web presence probably still could avoid certain platforms.
As long as they remain luxury/entertainment choices, I don't think any sort of First Amendment discussion can be entertained with how they manage content.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155886]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65807
Joined: 5/6/13
|
I think an interesting next-level tangent discussion of all
Jan 9, 2021, 11:43 AM
|
|
this are the Google and Apple app stores. Ok, yes if you're a jailbreak nerd (no offense soccrcrzy) or whatever you have alternatives, but for 95% of smartphone owners, that's your one place to get apps. There have already been many, many lawsuits regarding the basic monopoly Apple and Google have in these arenas.
With Google banning Parler yesterday and Apple threatening to do the same, it seems a lot more complex a case to me than the "they're private and can do what they want...." one that I agree with for the likes of Twitter.
Sure if you don't like Twitter, you can go to Parler. But Apple and Google says you can't get Parler...now what?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: One step of progress is that the discussion has at least
Jan 9, 2021, 11:42 AM
[ in reply to One step of progress is that the discussion has at least ] |
|
Should the bandwidth be regulated as a public good much like the airwaves ?
If so, do we trust the government to regulate any more than we trust the oligarchs (is there really any difference ?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42151]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38237
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: The balancing act...sedition versus free speech
Jan 9, 2021, 10:46 AM
|
|
Great post, and I see your concerns. As you said clearly, right now, the social media conglomerates are on the right side of history. But we shouldn't quickly forget that Facebook is run by as dishonest of weasel as they come, a man who stabbed his own best friend in the back to take full control of the company.
As I mentioned in my reply to Tulsa, these platforms still remain luxury commodities. There is not necessity to use them, thus those who do make the choice. Until social media becomes a required tool for business or our daily lives, I think we're still okay and First Amendment discussions can't be entertained.
I will, however, point toward some of their dirty tricks, particular Facebook. Facebook opened up the doors for businesses to create free pages to sell goods, find customers, etc. These thrived and businesses really boomed basing their content strictly through Facebook. Then, of course, Facebook dropped the hammer on them: suddenly implementing fees to continue to operate. Essentially, holding these businesses hostage, forcing them to pay up or lose their site and all their customer traffic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 28
| visibility 786
|
|
|
50
