What are you talking about when you mean "freedom of speech"? Because I said "the principle of free speech". You seem to be talking about the constitutional right that applies to government not censoring the public. I'm talking about the principle behind that right.
That's a claim, not an argument.
Yep, I read that the first time. And yep, I stand by what I said, the principle of free speech does not make exceptions.
You're splitting hairs in a manner that doesn't apply to this conversation. The principle of free speech is not and has never been that you should be able to say whatever the hell you want without fear of consequence. That's nothing more than the flailing excuse of a bully who is upset that their victim actually fought back. The principle is that you should not fear persecution for a simple difference of opinion. No more, no less. Exactly what it says on the tin. As the old adage goes: "Your rights end where mine begin", or to set a better visual: "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins". Or to be more direct about it, the exercise of freedom of speech comes with duties and responsibilities and, as consequence, restrictions. It's part of the social contract that allows a community and society to function.
As was your post that I was responding to. I believe that I've demonstrated time and again that I'm quite willing to speak at length on any number of topics. Heck, more than a few times I've had to truncate or scrap posts responding to you specifically because I'd gone well over the character count limit. That said, I'm under no obligation to hold myself to a higher standard than you hold yourself to.
Do you have any evidence for that?
I did.
You mean besides the fact that no culture in history has ever had unlimited free speech? Besides the fact that "you should be able to say whatever the hell you want without consequences" by its very nature creates an impossible situation wherein not only can no action be taken because any rando on the street can say it was to punish them for what they said, but the rule of law breaks down because with perjury and bearing false witness being open season there's no way to reliably ascertain the truth? Besides such a system paradoxically mandating that you can't so much as give someone a stern talking to (much less fire them) if they lie about their qualifications or plagiarize other's works? Besides making bartering, contracts, and any other form of credit or economy fundamentally impossible because there's no way to guarantee any form of payment? Besides such a system fundamentally undermining the very idea of a vow? Besides all that and so much more that makes "never any consequences for speech" fundamentally both idiotic and impossible? You do realize that you are literally asking me to prove a negative, do you not?
No culture in history has ever not committed murder either. Failing to adhere to an ideal doesn't mean that the ideal needs to be redefined to match how it works in practice.
I am not. You are the one who claimed "Freedom of speech is not and has never been unlimited...", so prove it. I already showed you Wikipedia definition that does not say anything about it being limited. Where's yours?
Yes you are. Read that line again. "is not and has never been". You are demanding that I show you that something is not and has never been the case. That is asking that I prove a negative.
He's playing pedantic games because his prepared talking points (mostly taken from places like 4chan and reddit) don't cover how to respond to your original post. It's his typical MO to attempt to derail the thread until either his sources get updated or the topic is dropped entirely.
When people say something is a right, usually it means something is a basic need. Arguing that something is not a basic need is very easy. I could apply the same argument to almost anything, because most things in this world are not basic needs. It is the equivalent of saying "Who cares."
November is 1-2 months ago, depending when in November this occurred. A quick google tells me Parler only has 30 employees and they don't sell ad space. During that 1-2 months time they were working on an algorithm to detect hate speech. They were also not expecting this to happen, so it probably was not priority enough to rush to production. If you take their word, and given the short timespan and lack of resources, I would not expect much.
They were also refused by Azure and Google Cloud without any contract, which locks them out of major US cloud servers. That is not just a breach of contract between two parties, which is within their right but besides the point entirely.
Twitter hadn't been making money for years, and now they were benefiting from Trump's presence, since his tweets make national headlines and enrages millions to engage. If they banned Trump, he would have stopped or worse, moved elsewhere, then Twitter wouldn't have the relevance and revenue it has today.
No, it's very specifically saying it's not a right. That you personally feel "not a right" = "who cares" is weird, but no one else is beholden to your view on that.
Alleging that "not removing companies' right to free association" is similar to "PMCs being free to fire on civilians" is overplaying your hand a bit, don't you think? You conveniently make that insinuation followed by handwaving towards "issues we are not addressing" while failing to name any of those actual issues. I'll admit it's decent rhetoric; you'd fit right in with the "classical liberal" faux intellectual youtuber crowd.
That's Parler's own fault. They should never have gone live without content monitoring systems in place. It's like a restaurant opening without kitchen sanitizing procedures then whining about the health inspector shutting them down because how could they possibly have known sanitization would be needed.
Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr all have content monitoring systems in place that meet the required standards. Parler does not; that's all there is to it.
You're claiming breach of contract here. Please provide proof.
None of this is relevant to Trump having been in continual violation of Twitter's policies for years now...
Emphasis minehttps://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/#:~:text=Article%2020. said:
Notice how you move the goalposts from "it's not a right" to "it's not an absolute right".
Getting banned from social media is a first world problem. It's unimportant. Why are you arguing something so ridiculous. Who cares. This is used to downplay what actually happened, which was a crackdown on social media. Was it a pro-Dem operation, or was it a PR stunt to avoid the ire of the angry media heads and trust-busters, or a triumph of truth and journalism? Who knows but I'm still going to criticize them.
First, thanks for the insult. No it's not overplaying, because I am criticizing the defense of censorship by lawfulness. I never said corporations should not have the freedom of association. I am criticizing their decision in blacklisting Donald Trump, which they are perfectly allowed to do.
It is Parler's fault yes.
Facebook and Twitter own their servers, while Tumblr was destroyed for CP. Twitter and Tumblr also have bad porn detection, hence the unenforced no-porn policy. Then there is the tons of copyrighted material stored or linked which plagues many sites, where removal requires a manual DMCA claim. In the end you have ad unfriendly/illegal things sitting for years on US servers because they have some plausible deniability.
With Amazon? Perhaps you misread. Azure and Google Cloud did not breach any contracts with Parler. There is a Office 365 contract that may be canceled in the future, but beyond that I don't know of anything. Right now they are hosting on Russian servers.
Twitter gave him a free pass for a reason, probably one that's not so benevolent.
I'd argue that their competition, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc., was watching them like a hawk, wanted to see them fail, and tried their hardest to make that a reality so that they can maintain their spaces in the market.
The market doesn't want total and utter 'free speech.' Blame the tech companies all you want but society doesnt want Parler either
