Leftists Want To Ban Speech...

[Sparko]

Yes, I know. And, as I said, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of what "Net Neutrality" is about. And if we see a rash of articles tomorrow about how abandoning "Net Neutrality" will mean fishermen will start attacking the fishing nets of other fishermen, that will ALSO be a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of "Net Neutrality."

Let me try again. I AGREE that Net Neutrality is not about free speech, but about traffic flow. Totally agree. The fact remains that a LOT of people believed it was about free speech and were outraged and wanted to fight for net neutrality because of "free speech" and being able to access information freely, even though they were wrong in that it would not affect such. OK?

But those same people who were so worried about the ISPs controlling their information are actually cheering on Youtube, Twitter, etc controlling their information.

[carpedm9587]

Let me try again. I AGREE that Net Neutrality is not about free speech, but about traffic flow. Totally agree. The fact remains that a LOT of people believed it was about free speech and were outraged and wanted to fight for net neutrality because of "free speech" and being able to access information freely, even though they were wrong in that it would not affect such. OK?

Got it!

But those same people who were so worried about the ISPs controlling their information are actually cheering on Youtube, Twitter, etc controlling their information.

Not exactly. They are cheering, as best I can tell, that these public platforms are willing to say, "not here - peddle your hate elsewhere" to people like Jones. In this country, people have a right to speak. They just don't have a right to be listened to, nor to use someone else's platform to distribute their speech. In other words, even though they have net neutrality wrong, their "wrong" opinion is that "company X should not prevent me from getting to information hosted by company Y." That is not the same as "Company Y doesn't want their servers and applications to be used to distribute messages that transgress their corporate culture/ideals/morality." No one has a "right" to do anything they want on Facebook, or any other platform owned/operated by someone else.

[Sparko]

Got it!



Not exactly. They are cheering, as best I can tell, that these public platforms are willing to say, "not here - peddle your hate elsewhere" to people like Jones. In this country, people have a right to speak. They just don't have a right to be listened to, nor to use someone else's platform to distribute their speech. In other words, even though they have net neutrality wrong, their "wrong" opinion is that "company X should not prevent me from getting to information hosted by company Y." That is not the same as "Company Y doesn't want their servers and applications to be used to distribute messages that transgress their corporate culture/ideals/morality." No one has a "right" to do anything they want on Facebook, or any other platform owned/operated by someone else.

I totally agree that Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook have a right to limit what speech they allow. They are privately run companies. Just like theologyweb. I just think that it is ironic that many of the same people who were worried about ISP's controlling free speech are happy when Social Media platforms do it.

It also goes back to the whole billboard and cake issue. Nobody should be able to tell a privately-ran (civilian) company what speech they must allow or endorse.

[carpedm9587]

I totally agree that Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook have a right to limit what speech they allow. They are privately run companies. Just like theologyweb. I just think that it is ironic that many of the same people who were worried about ISP's controlling free speech are happy when Social Media platforms do it.

Again, it's a distinction between roads and destinations.

It also goes back to the whole billboard and cake issue. Nobody should be able to tell a privately-ran (civilian) company what speech they must allow or endorse.

I'm still sorting through the billboard issue. As I have noted before, the cake issue is separate/different entirely. But we're not going to agree on that.

[Sparko]

Again, it's a distinction between roads and destinations.



I'm still sorting through the billboard issue. As I have noted before, the cake issue is separate/different entirely. But we're not going to agree on that.

All messages are not in print

[rogue06]

Let me try again. I AGREE that Net Neutrality is not about free speech, but about traffic flow. Totally agree. The fact remains that a LOT of people believed it was about free speech and were outraged and wanted to fight for net neutrality because of "free speech" and being able to access information freely, even though they were wrong in that it would not affect such. OK?

But those same people who were so worried about the ISPs controlling their information are actually cheering on Youtube, Twitter, etc controlling their information.

That is the part that carpe is trying so hard to distract and deflect attention from for whatever reason.

Many of his fellow travelers on the left who were so worked up about huge corporate entities suppressing free speech are now applauding huge corporate entities actually suppressing free speech.

[carpedm9587]

All messages are not in print

I did not claim they were. No one is ever "forced" to give a message they do not want to give.

[carpedm9587]

That is the part that carpe is trying so hard to distract and deflect attention from for whatever reason.

Many of his fellow travelers on the left who were so worked up about huge corporate entities suppressing free speech are now applauding huge corporate entities actually suppressing free speech.

I am not making any attempt to distract/deflect (Public note to self: It's long past time to stop wasting energy responding to these somewhat ridiculous assertions. It's fairly clear, at this point, that anything I say will not be believed and people will continue to prefer assuming they are "reading my mind" correctly. Stay focused on the discussion.).

I have outlined why the two situations are different. One is about the right of a person to use someone else's platform to promote a message. The other is about the right of a transport provider to control which user can get to which platform. There is a huge difference between, "I am not going to let someone use my servers to promote message X" and "I am not going to let people use my network to get to to FaceBook." The former is about the destination; the latter is about the highway.

[Sparko]

I am not making any attempt to distract/deflect (Public note to self: It's long past time to stop wasting energy responding to these somewhat ridiculous assertions. It's fairly clear, at this point, that anything I say will not be believed and people will continue to prefer assuming they are "reading my mind" correctly. Stay focused on the discussion.).

I have outlined why the two situations are different. One is about the right of a person to use someone else's platform to promote a message. The other is about the right of a transport provider to control which user can get to which platform. There is a huge difference between, "I am not going to let someone use my servers to promote message X" and "I am not going to let people use my network to get to to FaceBook." The former is about the destination; the latter is about the highway.

Facebook says we are going to block any access to Infowars content.

ISP says we are going to block any access to Infowars content.

How is that different?

[rogue06]

I am not making any attempt to distract/deflect (Public note to self: It's long past time to stop wasting energy responding to these somewhat ridiculous assertions. It's fairly clear, at this point, that anything I say will not be believed and people will continue to prefer assuming they are "reading my mind" correctly. Stay focused on the discussion.).

I'm not trying to read your mind but simply describing what you are in effect doing.

It does not matter whether net neutrality suppresses free speech but rather that many of those on the left who think it does and complained about large corporations controlling speech are now applauding exactly what they said they didn't want -- large corporations suppressing free speech.

You keep trying to draw attention away from that and seek to instead to lead the discussion away to arguing about net neutrality itself. That is why I said you are seeking to distract and deflect attention and what makes your sentence "Stay focused on the discussion" disingenuous at best.

[NorrinRadd]

...

But then instead of ISPs doing that, it seems the various services themselves are determining what information we can get. Take the recent ban of Infowars. Technically as private services they can do so with impunity. But when they become such a widely used platform that they are practically the defacto communications channels on the internet, the case can be made that they must allow free speech unhindered. I am on the fence about it right now though.

That's the part that bothers me, too. I'm pretty libertarian and don't trust government. But I also don't trust businesses with as much unfettered control as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Google have.

[Terraceth]

Facebook says we are going to block any access to Infowars content.

ISP says we are going to block any access to Infowars content.

How is that different?

It's a whole lot easier to go to a different website than it is to get a different Internet provider (in some areas where only one ISP is available, the latter is outright impossible).

[Charles]

It's a whole lot easier to go to a different website than it is to get a different Internet provider (in some areas where only one ISP is available, the latter is outright impossible).

I completely agree. It is a big and very important difference.

[carpedm9587]

Facebook says we are going to block any access to Infowars content.

ISP says we are going to block any access to Infowars content.

How is that different?

The first is a statement that has been made, and relates to the right of a property owner to control what is displayed on their property. It is analogous to the billboard argument.

The second is a statement that has never been made by any carrier I know of. So it is FUD. What the ISPs are trying to do is enhance performance of traffic to the services they offer and denigrate the flow of traffic to competition.

Apples and oranges.

[carpedm9587]

I'm not trying to read your mind but simply describing what you are in effect doing.

It does not matter whether net neutrality suppresses free speech but rather that many of those on the left who think it does and complained about large corporations controlling speech are now applauding exactly what they said they didn't want -- large corporations suppressing free speech.

"Free Speech" is a right recognized in the constitution as applying to what the government can and cannot do. For a corporation to say, "not using my resources" is not a suppression of free speech. Jones continues to have the right to speak. Facebook saying, "not on my site" is not a suppression of free speech. It is a company saying, "not using my resources."

The Net Neutrality "free speech" argument is based in a misunderstanding. It isn't even coherent, IMO.

You keep trying to draw attention away from that and seek to instead to lead the discussion away to arguing about net neutrality itself. That is why I said you are seeking to distract and deflect attention and what makes your sentence "Stay focused on the discussion" disingenuous at best.

Your opinion is duly noted. You do not have what I am saying or doing correct.