It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
How to watch the NASCAR Xfinity Series Race at Iowa Speedway today
Spend Saturday with NASCAR. Find out how and when to watch the Xfinity Series Race at Iowa Speedway...
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 19%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 3.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Freedom of speech         
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
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)
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
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...
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: private citizens    Freedom of speech   free speech   private citizen  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.94  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: own mission statement    mission statement   protections of one.In case   decimnation of information  
  Relevant (Beta): 28%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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...
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: practices of websites    censorship culture   different platform   own rules  
  Relevant (Beta): 52%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: big media platforms    huge influence   freedom of speech   censorship problem  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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...
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: government    Jimmy Wales   sell Wikipedia   countless offers  
  Relevant (Beta): 74%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 64%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: working rules    site pages   company   silence  
  Relevant (Beta): 53%  
  Learn More About Debra
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...
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Google's search engine    problem remains   particular service   nbsp  
  Relevant (Beta): 16%  
  Learn More About Debra
Honestly, the only way to prevent the issues raised here, would be to nationalize "internet", which sounds even more problematic, conceptually and practically...
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 63%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: demand freedom of speech    Americans   board   nbsp  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
?? 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...
  Considerate: 56%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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...
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: only scenario    freedom of speech   interpretation of any event   government  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 26%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 1.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: ëŒ€ì™•ê´‘ê°œí† Cool name         
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 74%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 67%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: South Korean         
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 40%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Korean music videos    teen   Korean song   South  
  Relevant (Beta): 21%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: web developers    web browser   good alternative   web browsers  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 56%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Korean culture    enough time   Korean language   study  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Unchecked power    good point   competition   Yahweh  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: private entities    unlimited censorship   first amendment   obligation  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: free speech    government   society   opinions  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 50%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: American sites    American Constitutional Law   point   laws  
  Relevant (Beta): 59%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: American sites    case   freedom of speech   laws  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: human rights    amazing person   personal belief   Fouding Fathers  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: free speech    pose harm   balance of law abiding   own personal morals  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
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<------
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 76%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: internet sites    big tech companies censor   part of a internet search request   internet  
  Relevant (Beta): 4%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 22%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 80%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Web server    engine   nbsp    
  Relevant (Beta): 14%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Internet sites    freedom of private property   economic freedom   private property  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: scope of what information    specific interests   listeners.The reason   information  
  Relevant (Beta): 36%  
  Learn More About Debra