Should internet sites and big tech companies censor or silence ANYONE?

대왕광개토

Not at all. Freedom of speech alone can explain why.

AlofRI

Freedom of speech, like "political correctness", can be carried too far. When it threatens to undermine our democracy something must be done. Without our democracy there will BE no freedom of speech, so, there MUST be limits. Everyone agrees that yelling "FIRE" in a crowded building is one thing not accepted AS a freedom of speech. Libelous slander is another. So, what's the problem with limiting seriously damaging rhetoric that endangers our country? That spreads malicious lies? That allows our enemies to stir up hatred within our country??

Some here do not seem to think that, when 90% of the country's people agree that something should be done, and the leaders of powerful groups override their wish, it's not quelling their speech. That's what is happening with reasonable gun controls. America's freedom of speech is being silenced, largely by the current occupier of the White House and the Senate Majority leader …. " America, WE'LL handle this!" (Paraphrasing, of course ;-). 
"When a people place their privileges above their principles they soon lose both". (D.D. Eisenhower) 

Plaffelvohfen

Freedom of speech only prevents the government from censoring private citizens and rightly so... 

The right to free speech doesn't imply a right to an audience, the right to say something doesn't entail a right to be heard... As a private citizen I absolutely have the right to not listen to anything anyone has to say...

Should I have the right to enter any church and stand at the pulpit to rant and spew anti-church rhetoric, for as long as I want and deny church officials or members the right to remove me from the premises? A church being a private property, they should absolutely have that right to throw me out and prevent me from entering the church again... Same goes for any private entity like Google...

It's like writing a book, anyone has a right to write anything they want but the right to publish (free speech) doesn't entail a right to be distributed, the editor is sovereign when it comes to what it accepts or not to publish... I, on the other hand am free to self-publish... And Google and the others are like bookstores, a bookstore owner is under no obligation to keep every book that exists on their shelves... A library is perfectly within their right to refuse to sell pornographic books for example or even an author they consider to be too controversial if they think it will affect their revenues... You'll just have to go to smaller specialized bookstores to get your hands on some books...

all4actt

Plaffelvohfen

Google in their own mission statement never claims to be puplishers so can not claim the same protections of one.

In case you don't know their mission statement: https://www.google.com/search/howsearchworks/mission/

Their mission statement promotes the organization and decimnation of information not the censoring of any of that information.

Their apparent goal to control the narrative now would seem to go against their own mission statement.

John_C_87

YeshuaBought said:

Don't make me explain the human right to free speech, to you, and you know who you are. #EnoughSaid

The human right to free speech is plagiarism of the United State created by first amendment to American constitution. Meaning the human right to free speech only applies to people who are sure their words spoken have no assigned cost or self-value, also meaning they are worthless.

Can you please explain the meaning again it sounds like you have been saying a human has a right to use self-value to ignore assigned cost? In a comparison to stating a grievance as a verbal filing process to openly dispute an assigned cost, public as in taxation, private as in payment to another person or company.

Plaffelvohfen

all4actt said:

Plaffelvohfen

Google in their own mission statement never claims to be puplishers so can not claim the same protections of one.

In case you don't know their mission statement: https://www.google.com/search/howsearchworks/mission/

Their mission statement promotes the organization and decimnation of information not the censoring of any of that information.

Their apparent goal to control the narrative now would seem to go against their own mission statement.

Who said they claimed to be publishers? I compare them to a bookstore, and those are not publishers they're more like distributors... 

And whether they are consistent with their mission statement is irrelevant as they are entitled to change them arbitrarily at anytime, it's a free service you don't like it use another... They owe their shareholders no one else... 

ANY private entity can censor unprotected class citizens... The right to say something doesn't entail a right to be heard...

Vaulk

The only caveat I have to this argument is that, while freedom of speech is a large and complex issue within the business sector, the consideration of corporate laws and regulations have to be taken into consideration as well when discussing what a company can and cannot do in regards to freedom of speech.

Upon incorporating, the U.S. Government gains access and control over the company in question and the freedom of speech mutates into what's called corporate speech guidelines which don't have nearly the amount of protections that the 1st Amendment offers.  Corporations are subject to heavy restrictions in regards to what they can and can't say and ALSO what they can allow to exist in their domain.  This means not only does Google, Youtube, Reddit and other public domains have the right to restrict certain types of speech within their domain but the U.S. Government has the right to regulate these companies and ensure that they actually DO restrict certain types of speech. 

Most of the restrictions are common sense like the restriction against child pornography existing within their domain.  Others however, are vague and open ended like the restriction against "Offensive speech" which, in today's world, can literally be taken any way you choose.

MayCaesar

Should you be able to ask anyone who comes to your house and starts saying things that you dislike to be silent or leave? Obviously: it is your property, and you set your own rules there.

Same applies to private websites. You can decide what people visiting your platform can or cannot say there.

I may not like the censorship culture and practices of websites such as Youtube or Twitter, but ultimately it is up to them what to do in this regard. If I strongly dislike their practices, I can always move on to a different platform, or to build my own. The government should stay out of this matter either way.

대왕광개토

@MayCaesar I think the reason why people find this issue problematic is because big media platforms such as Youtube have huge influence over people. If all the big media platforms start to silence anyone they don't like, then it is likely that our society will become biased. I think the censorship problem is about freedom of speech vs freedom to choose what one wants to do without violating legal obligation.

CYDdharta

MayCaesar said:

Should you be able to ask anyone who comes to your house and starts saying things that you dislike to be silent or leave? Obviously: it is your property, and you set your own rules there.

Same applies to private websites. You can decide what people visiting your platform can or cannot say there.

I may not like the censorship culture and practices of websites such as Youtube or Twitter, but ultimately it is up to them what to do in this regard. If I strongly dislike their practices, I can always move on to a different platform, or to build my own. The government should stay out of this matter either way.

That's a silly analogy.  Are there 1.17 billion people in your home?

The problem is that once a new social media platform starts attracting a significant number of users, one of the tech giants buy them out, either to incorporate them or to crash/consolidate them.

Plaffelvohfen

@CYDdharta

대왕광개토 said:

@MayCaesar I think the reason why people find this issue problematic is because big media platforms such as Youtube have huge influence over people. If all the big media platforms start to silence anyone they don't like, then it is likely that our society will become biased. I think the censorship problem is about freedom of speech vs freedom to choose what one wants to do without violating legal obligation.

But the censorship here is not actually a problem in the sense that the only entity that can ever impede free-speech is the government, that's it... Everyone else is, and should always be, entitled to censor anything they don't like...  You should always be allowed to censor (as in refuse to hear what they want to say) a salesman, a Scientologists, a Jehovah's Witness, a political militant, a flat-earther, etc...  

What you are saying is that because youtube is popular we should deny them their right to manage their business as they see fit?? How can "popularity" be used as a criteria to justify removing any rights from anyone? 

Let's take another example... Am I entitled to CNN, BBC or FOX's platform to spread my message or is that their prerogative to allow me to do so or not? Would CNN or FOX be impeding my right to free-speech by denying me air-time to rant about the round-earth conspiracy? No because ONLY the government can be said to have the ability to impede free-speech... 

MayCaesar

@대왕광개토

Oh, I am not denying that this is problematic, and I talked about it in detail in a different thread here. I believe that the censorship culture has to be criticized and attacked by voting with one's wallet. However, the government should stay away from it; the government deciding who should allow or disallow what speech is the first step towards authoritarianism.

@CYDdharta ;

And there is nothing wrong with that: people can decide between themselves how to trade their property. If someone wants to sell their platform to a big tech company, then they are free to do so. Nobody is forced to do so though: you are free to open your own platform and to never sell it to anyone. Look at Jimmy Wales, who has been receiving countless offers to commercialize / sell Wikipedia, yet he has been consistent in defending its independence, because of his vision of freedom.

Just because you do not like it what people do with their property, does not mean you have the right to dictate how they do so. As long as they do not infringe on anyone's rights, everything is a fair game.

CYDdharta

Plaffelvohfen said:

@CYDdharta

대왕광개토 said:

@MayCaesar I think the reason why people find this issue problematic is because big media platforms such as Youtube have huge influence over people. If all the big media platforms start to silence anyone they don't like, then it is likely that our society will become biased. I think the censorship problem is about freedom of speech vs freedom to choose what one wants to do without violating legal obligation.

But the censorship here is not actually a problem in the sense that the only entity that can ever impede free-speech is the government, that's it... Everyone else is, and should always be, entitled to censor anything they don't like...  You should always be allowed to censor (as in refuse to hear what they want to say) a salesman, a Scientologists, a Jehovah's Witness, a political militant, a flat-earther, etc...  

What you are saying is that because youtube is popular we should deny them their right to manage their business as they see fit?? How can "popularity" be used as a criteria to justify removing any rights from anyone? 

Let's take another example... Am I entitled to CNN, BBC or FOX's platform to spread my message or is that their prerogative to allow me to do so or not? Would CNN or FOX be impeding my right to free-speech by denying me air-time to rant about the round-earth conspiracy? No because ONLY the government can be said to have the ability to impede free-speech... 

I can agree that censorship isn't necessarily the problem, but size, scope and reach is definitely a problem.  Big tech companies are monopolies and should be broken up the way Ma Bell was broken up in 1984.

Dee

They can do as they wish with their company and silence who they wish , they all have their working rules and regulations posted on their site pages if you don’t like it find another site.

Plaffelvohfen

@CYDdharta

I can see how size, scope and reach can be considered problematic but I would argue that the people are the problem, not Google or Facebook, even if we separate Youtube from Google, the problem remains, I don't know that it would solve the perceived (because it's not) free-speech issue... YouTube can't be said to be a monopoly, there are many competitors (Dailymotion, Vimeo, Metacafe, Switch, etc, the list goes on...), Same goes with Google's search engine (Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, Qwant, Swisscows, Startpage, etc...). Same goes for Facebook (Gab, Diaspora, Ello, Minds, etc)

If someone wants an alternative, plenty of them already exists... Do you want the government to coerce users into using a particular service over another? 

The problem seems to be the people tendencies to go with what is popular, not the companies themselves... How can you justify coercing people into using one service over another? You cannot objectively regulate popularity imo...  

Plaffelvohfen

Dee said:

They can do as they wish with their company and silence who they wish , they all have their working rules and regulations posted on their site pages if you don’t like if find another site.

And I would add that they are also entitled to change those rules and regulations at anytime and at their sole discretion, like anyone else with regard to their private property...

Honestly, the only way to prevent the issues raised here, would be to nationalize "internet", which sounds even more problematic, conceptually and practically... 

CYDdharta

Plaffelvohfen said:

@CYDdharta

I can see how size, scope and reach can be considered problematic but I would argue that the people are the problem, not Google or Facebook, even if we separate Youtube from Google, the problem remains, I don't know that it would solve the perceived (because it's not) free-speech issue... YouTube can't be said to be a monopoly, there are many competitors (Dailymotion, Vimeo, Metacafe, Switch, etc, the list goes on...), Same goes with Google's search engine (Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, Qwant, Swisscows, Startpage, etc...). Same goes for Facebook (Gab, Diaspora, Ello, Minds, etc)

If someone wants an alternative, plenty of them already exists... Do you want the government to coerce users into using a particular service over another? 

The problem seems to be the people tendencies to go with what is popular, not the companies themselves... How can you justify coercing people into using one service over another? You cannot objectively regulate popularity imo...  

The "competition" is only there as long as Google and Facebook allow it.  If it looks like a site my turn into actual competition, Google or Facebook buy them out or disallow them in the first place.  Why should these companies be allowed to stifle the competition?

Dee

@Plaffelvohfen

I agree. It seems to be mostly Americans who constantly demand freedom of speech and demand it should be applicable across the board no matter what 

Plaffelvohfen

@CYDdharta

?? How can Facebook or Google "disallow" competition? What characteristic do they possess that others don't and that would enable them to "disallow competition"?

They don't force anyone to sell them their assets (whether it's an algorithm or something else), any offer can be refused. I fail to see how they could coerce anyone into selling them their business... Unless one argues that a high enough price offer for something can somehow be considered coercitive with regard to the selling of said thing, but that would be a ridiculous claim imo and I think that's not what you're saying...

Honestly, to me it sounds like some people on the right field are in essence complaining that some of their views/opinion/ideas are not popular enough... Well, can it be that it's because these views/opinions are kinda shitty to begin with? I'm not saying they actually are, just asking if that could be the case... Like, there's probably a reason why jalapeno-shrimp-strawberry ice cream is not popular... Could you blame ice cream manufacturers for that unpopularity? To me that is what some are trying to do, blame Google et al, because their opinions/views/ideas are not popular... 

CYDdharta

Plaffelvohfen said:

@CYDdharta

?? How can Facebook or Google "disallow" competition? What characteristic do they possess that others don't and that would enable them to "disallow competition"?

They don't force anyone to sell them their assets (whether it's an algorithm or something else), any offer can be refused. I fail to see how they could coerce anyone into selling them their business... Unless one argues that a high enough price offer for something can somehow be considered coercitive with regard to the selling of said thing, but that would be a ridiculous claim imo and I think that's not what you're saying...

Honestly, to me it sounds like some people on the right field are in essence complaining that some of their views/opinion/ideas are not popular enough... Well, can it be that it's because these views/opinions are kinda shitty to begin with? I'm not saying they actually are, just asking if that could be the case... Like, there's probably a reason why jalapeno-shrimp-strawberry ice cream is not popular... Could you blame ice cream manufacturers for that unpopularity? To me that is what some are trying to do, blame Google et al, because their opinions/views/ideas are not popular... 

Start here;

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/google-chrome-becomes-gatekeeper-rivals-110000402.html

If the ideas were so unpopular, there would be no need to censor them.

Plaffelvohfen

@CYDdharta

This article provides good points and highlights some of the real problems, there's no denying those... But at the same time, why don't we blame web developers who often don’t even bother to test their sites on competing browsers?? Is laziness an excuse for not coming up with an alternative to Chromium? And those problems are not really related to the free-speech issue imo... 

I guess that at some point in time, states will have to nationalize in some ways, some part or structures of the "internet" as it will become as essential as roads or bridges... But that is a whole different can of worms... 

As for your: "If the ideas were so unpopular, there would be no need to censor them." remark...  The need to censor them is mostly dictated by revenues... It's mostly a question of money imo... The company gets enough complaints that its bottom line is affected so from a business point of view, it makes sense to remove the cause of this loss of revenue and after a statistical analysis, they can do it preemptively... And it still doesn't affect the fact that as a private entity they are free to discriminate against non-protected class of citizens... That is something we cannot evacuate I'm afraid, it's the core of the matter I think...  

대왕광개토

@MayCaesar I agree with your claim that government can become too powerful once they start to force big media platforms like Youtube to . I personally think that the only scenario in which government should absolutely protect freedom of speech is when the society does not allow more than one interpretation of any event or opinion(just like the time when Fascism swept over Italy and Germany).

YeshuaBought

@대왕광개토 Cool name, I agree. What language is your name.

대왕광개토

@Plaffelvohfen I would equate "huge influence over people" to "ability to bias people's viewpoints". Therefore, I did not have any intention to simply imply that "popularity" is a criterion that justifies us in preventing censorship from happening. After considering your argument, I made some changes on my viewpoint. I agree that right now, media platforms have right to censor anyone they don't like since media platforms like Youtube and Google have no legal obligation to abide by the first amendment. The reason why I claimed that we should not let media platforms censor anyone they don't like is because the ramification of censorship can be dangerous.

Let's assume that most of mainstream media platforms censor anything related to right wing ideology. If that happens, then a lot of people who use those mainstream media platforms will have biased left wing ideologies and there will be no opposition to them. If there is no opposition at all, people who use MMP(abbreviation of mainstream media platform for simplicity) will consider their ideologies to be absolutely true and right wing ideologies will be considered immoral. Under such kind of circumstance, if any problem whose solution  requires at least part of right wing ideology arises, then the society will be at stake. Such kind of scenarios should be taken into account when we discuss media platforns censoring freedom of speech.

대왕광개토

@YeshuaBought South Korean

YeshuaBought

@대왕광개토 Beautiful. I used to watch South Korean music videos, and shows, as a teen, I like a Korean song.

대왕광개토

@Plaffelvohfen I personally think that there are several reasons why web developers do not create good alternative to Chrome. Firstly, there may be too many copyrights that prevent web developers from making a web browser that has a system similar to that of Chrome and other web browsers. Secondly, even if they make an alternative to chrome, it is unlikely to be able to compete Chrome because Chrome has already gained countless people. Thirdly, Chrome might eliminate its competitors by hiring web developers who have potential to make rival web browser by paying them high salary. All I have mentioned above may be wrong since I am not an expert.

대왕광개토

@YeshuaBought Nice to meet a person who appreciate Korean culture . If you have enough time and will, I recommend that you study(not literally learning Korean language but study about it) Hangul(Korean language). It is very scientific language.

YeshuaBought

@대왕광개토 You make good point, but competition, within industries, combats a corrupt monopoly. Unchecked power for anyone other than Yahweh/God,  leads to corruption.

대왕광개토

 @YeshuaBought I totally agree that unlimited censorship is problematic and should be discussed by intellectuals. But right now we can't really do something because they have no obligation to abide by the first amendment since they are private entities......

대왕광개토

@YeshuaBought But as I said somewhere above, government should be able to protect free speech when the society does not accept opinions contrary to mainstream opinions.

YeshuaBought

@대왕광개토 American sites are actually obligated to uphold American Constitutional Law, or there is no point in having these laws in the first place.  I still do love and respect you, I just disagree.

대왕광개토

@YeshuaBought Wait, are you sure that American sites are obliged to follow the laws? If that is the case, then I would undoubtly support freedom of speech.

YeshuaBought

@대왕광개토 By Constitutional standards, human rights have to be respected everywhere, on and offline. The Fouding Fathers said: We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, such as life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness.
Now, tell me how one can have liberty, without liberty of speech? Why do you need a law to reflect what beliefs you should and should not have? Do or do not support an issue, but don't be a slave to any government, including mine.
In conclusion, if you want to hold the personal belief that liberty of speech, and other things are human rights, just do it. You are an amazing person, and an excellent debater, and one would be remiss to let any government American or otherwise, have any say, in what beliefs one should hold.

MartinGocic

@YeshuaBought Yes,but they should censor only those who post content that would harm people directly, since a lot of posts on the internet may indirectly offend someone. Now,being that free speech is a guaranteed right, that is why i am stating that someone may be censored only if harming a certain individual or group. Free speech does not imply that a person can direcly threaten or pose harm to others, since they may break the law or moral codes. Those people who do not do that should not be censored. A line must be drawn here,there needs to be a balance of law abiding and our own personal morals regarding this topic since it is a quite sensitive one in order to find the correct answer.

John_C_87

Should internet sites and big tech companies censor or silence ANYONE?

If you place a post on the internet will it become part of a internet search request ?
------>The inter net <------          ------> A tech companies piece of the net<------

CYDdharta

Plaffelvohfen said:

@CYDdharta

This article provides good points and highlights some of the real problems, there's no denying those... But at the same time, why don't we blame web developers who often don’t even bother to test their sites on competing browsers?? Is laziness an excuse for not coming up with an alternative to Chromium? And those problems are not really related to the free-speech issue imo... 

I guess that at some point in time, states will have to nationalize in some ways, some part or structures of the "internet" as it will become as essential as roads or bridges... But that is a whole different can of worms... 

I'd say it's more due to practicality that developers don't bother with unpopular browsers.  Why bother testing compatibility with a platform that no one uses?  And Google and Microsoft make sure no one uses the other platforms or develops a competing platform.

As for your: "If the ideas were so unpopular, there would be no need to censor them." remark...  The need to censor them is mostly dictated by revenues... It's mostly a question of money imo... The company gets enough complaints that its bottom line is affected so from a business point of view, it makes sense to remove the cause of this loss of revenue and after a statistical analysis, they can do it preemptively... And it still doesn't affect the fact that as a private entity they are free to discriminate against non-protected class of citizens... That is something we cannot evacuate I'm afraid, it's the core of the matter I think...

Forgive me for being blunt, but this is silly.  Roughly half the country disagrees with leftist ideology.  Fox News is consistently the most viewed news source on TV, while CNN has fewer viewers than the Home and Garden Network. The New York Times has dropped from the most circulated newspaper to number 4, being replaced by the Wall Street Journal.  If these companies were actually profit-driven, they'd be trying to emulate Fox News' and the Wall Street Journal's successes in tapping into that huge and profitable market.

John_C_87

 Search engine. Web server.

piloteer

Yes. Internet sites and big tech companies should flex their freedom of private property, economic freedom, and freedom of expression by silencing who they feel fit. The constitution doesn't guarantee our freedom of speech on privately owned websites, or private property! 

jesusisGod777

Limiting access to information, censorship, and it's origins, are the result of why the company intends to limit the scope of what information is available to the public.

It is intended to form special or specific interests and repeat a message as a way to indoctrinate listeners.

The reason that people are censored is because of how their information effects the public.

They're just mad Jesus is God.