Trump's Far-Right Internet Trolls "Summit"

Oct 2014
33,166
6,070
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
Yes, I have. Are you arguing that anti-vaxxers, Sandy Hook Hoax promoters and others who actually harm people are ENTITLED to free and full use of privately owned platforms?

Why would you even WANT to include such horrible people in a group of "conservative voices"? Amazon has pulled self-published books that promote drinking bleach to cure autism in children. Are you also complaining about that?
First, if they are free platforms, then as long as they aren't posting crimes, there's no reason why they should be blocked. If they are publishers of content as implied by "privately owned", then they can block what they want, however that also comes with them taking ownership of all illegal content they publish.

Next, YOU INSERTED THOSE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES AS THOUGH I WAS SPEAKING FOR THEM. I expect better from you, Madeline. I expect that type of disingenuous claims from some of the plebeians around. Or are you simply THAT disconnected to what people who hold other beliefs actually believe?

The issue is not these types of content that, let's call grey area, but rather the content where the left view is completely accepted but the right view cannot be monetized, won't appear in search algorithms without directly and explicitly searching, or will see the video or sometimes the whole channel removed.

In some cases; it's literally where commenting on a statement made by say, Bill Maher, will see the video demonetized or removed... Where the original video of the person maybe saying something appalling will itself still have ads on their channel... Even though the offending comment is in the referenced words.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Madeline
Jun 2014
64,781
39,655
Cleveland, Ohio
First, if they are free platforms, then as long as they aren't posting crimes, there's no reason why they should be blocked. If they are publishers of content as implied by "privately owned", then they can block what they want, however that also comes with them taking ownership of all illegal content they publish.
Banning some content/users could indeed create legal responsibility for illegal content. I am contented that Google, etc., can hire lawyers and lobbyists to cope with this threat.

Also, this is irrelevant to your claim that social media sites are banning LEGAL conservative content.

Next, YOU INSERTED THOSE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES AS THOUGH I WAS SPEAKING FOR THEM. I expect better from you, Madeline. I expect that type of disingenuous claims from some of the plebeians around. Or are you simply THAT disconnected to what people who hold other beliefs actually believe?
I have had arguments here on PH as to whether Sandy Hill hoax claims, etc. are tortious or criminal or protected free speech.

And the examples I gave are the only censorship online issues I know about, aside from copyright.

The issue is not these types of content that, let's call grey area, but rather the content where the left view is completely accepted but the right view cannot be monetized, won't appear in search algorithms without directly and explicitly searching, or will see the video or sometimes the whole channel removed.
Examples? Links? Are we talking about debates over unions or over whether the Holocaust occured?

In some cases; it's literally where commenting on a statement made by say, Bill Maher, will see the video demonetized or removed...
I call bullshit on this claim.

Where the original video of the person maybe saying something appalling will itself still have ads on their channel... Even though the offending comment is in the referenced words.
Assuming this happens, so what? How can you reasonably demand American-style free speech rights on a privately owned, international platform?
 
Feb 2018
2,010
968
Texas
What EVIDENCE do you have to support such a wild accusation? Major social media platforms who WANT to are struggling to prevent their sites from being used to commit or enhance hate crimes. They are struggling to keep Russian bots under control.

But I see absolutely no reason to believe that conservatives' POVs are being forced off the internet.
Then you're blind.