SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Job]

Thats a piffling amount compared to HS2.

 

[Job]

View: https://youtu.be/DVngunV-wi0

 

[Gwadien]

Why are people associating Facebook with freedom of speech? It's their website, you follow their rules or you leave, it's as simple as that, if you don't like it, don't use it.

They have the right to ban people for whatever reason they see fit, much like @Deebs can.

 

[Scouse]

Why are people associating Facebook with freedom of speech? It's their website, you follow their rules or you leave, it's as simple as that, if you don't like it, don't use it.

Sorry. When facebook cornered the market in idiots as a mass communication platform then what happens on that private company "website" (which is what it isn't really - it's a closed-off portal to a private company, which, unfortunately, is the majority of sites nowadays) then freedom of speech issues become absolutely paramount.

Freedom of speech is freedom to say shit you don't like Gwadien. If you gave a shit about that you'd be concerned by this idiot's removal.

If he'd done what people were accusing him off (inciting violence) then he'd have been arrested.

So - if he's not committing criminal activity, it's even worse that facebook removes him.

 

[Gwadien]

Sorry. When facebook cornered the market in idiots as a mass communication platform then what happens on that private company "website" (which is what it isn't really - it's a closed-off portal to a private company, which, unfortunately, is the majority of sites nowadays) then freedom of speech issues become absolutely paramount.

Freedom of speech is freedom to say shit you don't like Gwadien. If you gave a shit about that you'd be concerned by this idiot's removal.

If he'd done what people were accusing him off (inciting violence) then he'd have been arrested.

So - if he's not committing criminal activity, it's even worse that facebook removes him.

Nah, I don't buy it.

The Internet is meant to be free from Government control - meaning that you can do pretty much whatever you want.

If I went to Stormfront as Communistlover2019 and then called everyone Nazis, would I be banned?

 

[Gwadien]

You're essentially saying that we should have Government regulation of the internet in order to preserve 'freedom of speech' which is utterly bollocks.

I'm sure the Right would love this idea under a Far-Right Government.

 

[Scouse]

Facebook as keeper of freedom of speech is simply handing the keys to zuckerberg so he can decide what flies on his whim.

No democratic oversight, just the whim of some cunt holding the minds of half the planet.

If you can't see the obvious and massive issues with that then there's no hope for you. Pony up your mind for slavery, which is effectively what you do.


Actual freedom of speech - guaranteed total freedom of speech - is the only way to combat that. But then twats will whinge like endless children that there's stuff they don't like on there and that it should be "banned". Rather than being adults.

Censorship infantilises human interaction.

But if you're OK with a private company treating us like babies then fair enough.

 

[Ormorof]

Its a private company and technically a private platform they absolutely have the right to censor whoever they please

 

[Scouse]

Its a private company and technically a private platform they absolutely have the right to censor whoever they please

Yes. Yes they do. I said exactly that quite clearly.

I'm saying they're such an important communications platform that they shouldn't have.

 

[Ormorof]

Why? If you are in a pub and stand on a soap box and start mouthing off and pissing off paying customers they can and should throw you out. You are interfering with smooth running of their business

Facebook is not corner of a publically owned park

 

[Ormorof]

Now on a different subject i encountered a nice bureaucratic loop today

I had to register my intent to vote in EU elections where i live because im technically eligible to vote elsewhere, but had to also state where i last voted in EU elections, which is here where i live, but that section of form cant contain same country that form originates from so had to go do it in person and queue. V nice lady at the office couldnt figure out why i had been sent the form at all (only meant to be needed once) but registered me anyway

 

[Job]

Im taking an educated guess that they are using comments on the post as evidence.
This shot doesnt do anyone any good.

 

[Scouse]

Facebook is not corner of a publically owned park

No. No it isn't is it.



It's reach means that every single decision that's made about what can and cannot be discussed has hugely disproportionate consequences.

This isn't a discussion in a pub. This is a global communications company. If you can't see the intrinsic and dangerous problems here then there's no helping you.

 

[Deebs]

Freedom of speech? lol. No such thing in the UK and private companies are under so many regulations nowadays to stop/block posting of questionable content in the country it is displayed.

Internet censorship is only going to get worse over the next few years.

 

[Gwadien]

So who do you want to regulate it @Scouse the US Government?

I'm not sure who Tommy Robinson hates more, Facebook, the Government or the 'Left' (funded by George Soros)

 

[Ormorof]

No. No it isn't is it.

View attachment 39789

It's reach means that every single decision that's made about what can and cannot be discussed has hugely disproportionate consequences.

This isn't a discussion in a pub. This is a global communications company. If you can't see the intrinsic and dangerous problems here then there's no helping you.

I agree its dangerous and not a good thing but under current structures theres no good way of regulating it

Their reach now is much like religions have had in the past

 

[Scouse]

So who do you want to regulate it @Scouse the US Government?

Personally, I wish it didn't exist. I think it's abhorrent.

But if you must have regulation (which is bullshit - the only regulation it should need is to ensure that only illegal content can get taken down - thus preserving democratically accountable freedom of speech) - then the US, with it's first amendment laws and the fact that facebook is based there (so IS regulated by the US government) is better than a private individual.

Interesting that you trust private corporations, which we have little control over, more than governments, that we've got a measure of electoral control over.

It's like a massive gap in your mind there @Gwadien.

 

[Scouse]

I agree its dangerous and not a good thing but under current structures theres no good way of regulating it

Agree. There is no good way of regulating it.

But then there no good way of regulating what humans are and aren't allowed to say to each other.

No good way at all. So we shouldn't criminalise that. The only rational option is to allow all forms of speech, regardless of what we think about them.

It's just a shame that we're such a dumb fucking animal

 

[DaGaffer]

Why? If you are in a pub and stand on a soap box and start mouthing off and pissing off paying customers they can and should throw you out. You are interfering with smooth running of their business

Facebook is not corner of a publically owned park

Problem is Facebook is constantly trying to have its cake and eat it. It constantly wails to regulators that it is not a publisher (with the all the rights and responsibilities that come with that definition) but is instead a platform. If its a platform then it is subject to the First Amendment (at least in America) and is actually not supposed to censor (the “private company” argument doesn’t fly because Facebook is claiming it can’t discriminate content) but if its a publisher it has an obligation to censor (even in the US) because of libel laws (yes, America has them).

Of course the other problem Facebook has is that each individual country has its own freedom of speech laws and its nearly impossible for a single “platform” to support all of them without breaking the law somewhere. So now Facebook is moderating content which makes it a de facto publisher, and its fucked basically, because it will always get it wrong, its absolutely inevitable, there’s just too much content, which is why they wanted to stay a platform in the first place.

 

[Gwadien]

Personally, I wish it didn't exist. I think it's abhorrent.

But if you must have regulation (which is bullshit - the only regulation it should need is to ensure that only illegal content can get taken down - thus preserving democratically accountable freedom of speech) - then the US, with it's first amendment laws and the fact that facebook is based there (so IS regulated by the US government) is better than a private individual.

Interesting that you trust private corporations, which we have little control over, more than governments, that we've got a measure of electoral control over.

It's like a massive gap in your mind there @Gwadien.

Why do you always resort to digging at people whenever you discuss something, just because someone has a different opinion to you, I think that's a massive gap in your mind.

I don't trust private corporations more than the Government, I distrust them both equally. The difference being is that I accept when I use an online platform that it's usually owned by someone who has set down rules which you have to follow, even then you don't have to follow rules, they don't need an excuse to remove you if they see it as necessary.

If Tommy Robinson and the FREEDOM OF SPEECH crew (btw a new great way for Tommy to make some £££) don't like Facebook because what they're doing then don't use it! It's as simple as that, they could setup their own platform to have a circle jerk.

IF it did become Government regulated, I'm fairly sure the FBI would take up lots more office room in the Facebook HQ than they already do.

 

[Scouse]

I accept when I use an online platform that it's usually owned by someone who has set down rules which you have to follow

I'm sorry - the statistics above invalidate this argument.

Facebook's size alone makes it too important a communication medium. It's the pub argument that was made above - yep, you can get chucked out of a pub for <whatever> but if the pub is 75% of your world (as facebook is in the US) then it *must* be regulated in a different way than having a private landlord making all the decisions.

The internet demands new models of thinking generally. Pub analogies don't work any more.

 

[Gwadien]

Then you're opening the doors for the Government to regulate everything on the internet, gg wp.

 

[Scouse]

Then you're opening the doors for the Government to regulate everything on the internet, gg wp.

Newsflash: They already do, on a country-by country basis.

And that's better than leaving it to private companies - because government is (notionally) accountable to us.

 

[Gwadien]

So you're telling me to put more trust in the Tories/Trump than private companies.

Riiiiggggghhhhtttttttttt

 

[Scouse]

So you're telling me to put more trust in the Tories/Trump than private companies.

Riiiiggggghhhhtttttttttt

Fucking ROFL!

Trump/Tories puts power in the hand of private companies (and their mates) - however, it's the private companies that are the cunts (lobbyists who own politicians).

We can vote governments out. We've at least got a say in government. If you put the power into the hands of private companies we no longer have a say.


It's not a question of trust. Even phrasing this argument in terms of trust is to misunderstand the entire situation. If you trust either governments or private companies you're a fool. But if you've got a say in where power goes, then you put it somewhere you can at least potentially have influence: i.e. government.

 

[Gwadien]

Okay, cba to continue to discuss this with you, if you think I have some kind of diminished intelligence because of my point of view then this is pretty pointless to continue to talk about.

 

[Scouse]

Okay, cba to continue to discuss this with you, if you think I have some kind of diminished intelligence because of my point of view then this is pretty pointless to continue to talk about.

You're not putting any reasoning for your point of view Gwadien. You're just saying "I don't trust governments or Trump or the Tories". At least I've justified my point of view, given facts and figures. You're just saying "no".

Why should we allow private companies to censor speech?
Why should we give up our limited control over censorship which democracy gives us via elected representatives?
What advantages are there leaving censorship in the hands of a single man - the twat zuck?

Justify your point of view. Come on - you ask your kids to do that all the time.

 

[Gwadien]

You reap what you sow.

 

[Scouse]

You reap what you sow.

That's a cop out. I've given reasons all along. You've given none. Making that my fault is just a way for you not to critically evaluate your own argument.

 

[Scouse]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBtd3H3Qdi8