social media free speech - Noam Chomsky

https://www.infowars.com/free-speech...-ban-infowars/
Free Speech Icon Noam Chomsky Says Big Tech Was Wrong to Ban Infowars

MIT professor defends Alex Jones’ right to be offensive.

theres more, Prager U is being targeted for censorship and shadow doxing and demonetized.

https://www.redstate.com/brandon_mor...ck-alex-jones/

I think the social media is being heavily influenced by China's censorship policies being instituted in their panopticon state. now they are extending that practice overseas.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/chines...-american-soil

https://www.infowars.com/free-speech...-ban-infowars/
Free Speech Icon Noam Chomsky Says Big Tech Was Wrong to Ban Infowars

MIT professor defends Alex Jones’ right to be offensive.

theres more, Prager U is being targeted for censorship and shadow doxing and demonetized.

https://www.redstate.com/brandon_mor...ck-alex-jones/

I think the social media is being heavily influenced by China's censorship policies being instituted in their panopticon state. now they are extending that practice overseas.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/chines...-american-soil Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

"shadow doxing" would be an oxymoron. A "shadow ban" implies someone is being censored without their knowledge. They think they are communicating with their followers, but they are not. Their remarks are being hidden by those controlling the social media platform. "Doxing" involves revealing real world info about someone to the public so as to make them targets of harassment, assault and vandalism.

If a substantive link can connect Chinese censorship to the social media's censorship of conservative sites, that would make the social media platforms agents of a foreign state. Interesting concept.

I made a typo, its shadow boxing.

If a substantive link can connect Chinese censorship to the social media's censorship of conservative sites, that would make the social media platforms agents of a foreign state. Interesting concept. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

is there any way to prove this?

the problem here is that facebook & google want to be in the massive chinese market and so they have to accept whatever protocols in order to operate in china.

there's an article about google working on a censorship platform for the chinese governement, apparently there was some sort of revolt by the staff over this matter.

is there any way to prove this?

the problem here is that facebook & google want to be in the massive chinese market and so they have to accept whatever protocols in order to operate in china.

there's an article about google working on a censorship platform for the chinese governement, apparently there was some sort of revolt by the staff over this matter. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

When the quote fits — I recall a provider/contributor who often quoted Chomsky to the utter jeers of the forum. She got run out of here in a matter of months.

So Chomsky is suddenly a good guy? Why so Suddenly?

Jones is not a good guy. His language is traitorous and could classify as words that incite violence. He’s scammed his listening audience with his snake oil sales and should be held responsible.

His mouth may be protected by the First Amendment but his lying ass sure isn’t.

Good riddance.

When the quote fits — I recall a provider/contributor who often quoted Chomsky to the utter jeers of the forum. She got run out of here in a matter of months.

So Chomsky is suddenly a good guy? Why so Suddenly?

Jones is not a good guy. His language is traitorous and could classify as words that incite violence. He’s scammed his listening audience with his snake oil sales and should be held responsible.

His mouth may be protected by the First Amendment but his lying ass sure isn’t.

Good riddance. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

really? got run off just for being a chomsky supporter? wow. guess he couldn't take the heat.


given the new rules, its' prolly safe for him to come back.



regarding chomsky, chomsky is without a question a flaming classic liberal who values free speech yours and others you don't like.


I've not seen any comments by the mainstream media on Chomsky's comment about censorship on social platforms.


a liberal heavyweight like chomsky speaks up particularly on free speech you don't like, its just crickets.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

you got censored?

LOL!

you got censored? Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Is it possible to connect what China is demanding of social media platforms with censorship of conservative sites in the states? Possibly, but who knows?

Chomsky is a lying lib-retard who intentionally distorts history to advance his lib-retard agenda. Anyone who cites Chomsky as their primary source of historical knowledge is a deceived and "#Grubered" chump. Hugo Chávez was one of Chomsky's biggest fans.

Is it possible to connect what China is demanding of social media platforms with censorship of of conservative sites in the states? Possibly, but who knows?
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

just noticing that the behavior is similar to Nazi Germany when they threatened to ban Hollywood movies from being shown in the German market if the movie content wasn't favorable to Germany.


they're doing the same thing with todays hollywood.

Don’t forget the press.

Don’t forget the press. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

what do you mean?

Well it's not a free speech issue at all. Twitter is a private company. There's no state (government) action here. The 1st Amendment isn't implicated one bit here. There's also no discrimination based on a protected class. He violated Twitter's terms of service, simple as that. People need to brush up on their basic constituonal law if they plan on going on and on about it.

Now, that's a separate question from whether Twitter SHOULD suspend Jones or others. Personally, I say no. Let the best ideas win.

So Chomsky is suddenly a good guy? Why so Suddenly?

Jones is not a good guy.... Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Only simple-minded simpletons reduce every debate to good guys and bad guys. Sophisticated folks know good guys sometimes make bad arguments, and vice versa.

Defending the First Amendment doesn't make Chomsky a good guy. It does, however, make the pro-censorship case look weaker.

And btw, I could tell Alan Dershowitz was a "good guy" long before he started defending Trump.

Well it's not a free speech issue at all. Twitter is a private company. There's no state (government) action here. The 1st Amendment isn't implicated one bit here. There's also no discrimination based on a protected class. He violated Twitter's terms of service, simple as that. People need to brush up on their basic constitutional law if they plan on going on and on about it. Originally Posted by alchemist1

Ok, but the government does get involved in regulating public utilities and curtailing monopoly abuses. The internet is still young. I am against unnecessary regulation, but if the social media owners start over-reaching you will see a lot of clamoring for the govt to step in. Then the cure could be worse than the disease.