But I DIDN'T say the government should govern private entities communications. You are arguing against a straw man. I have said repeatedly that as a private business they (Google, twitter, ClutchFans, the NYT, etc.) are free to censor as they like.
Let's just say Biden, as of now, would be in the same party and category as Romney if it were 10 years ago as a Republican. That's how much it's changed.
Sure you are free to criticize them just as you are free to criticize me for not allowing someone to say whatever they want on my front yard. The question I'm asking you is what do you think is more important? Property rights or a universal free speech right? Note preventing speech that I might find offensive on my property could also be considered an aspect of free speech as whether I'm enabling and therefore tacitly supporting that speech. Let me be clear on this. It is your contention that if someone on their yard were to not allow someone to say something they might find offensive you consider that censorship? He was kicked off for violating the terms of service of the sites. Do you think that property owners shouldn't be able to enforce their rules to protect unpopular things? Do you think content that is both unpopular and violates terms of service might affect the profitability of a private company? I've never used ignore and for that matter have never unfriended anyone on other social media sites. In principle I could agree that we could have a free for all and even suggested that once. That said I recognize that this is Clutch's cyber property. To me the right of Clutch to decide what goes and what doesn't is far more important than the right or me or others to express an unpopular opinion or one that is against Clutchfans terms of service, which I've agreed to abide by. To me the solution is the market. If I don't like how Clutchfans is moderated I can always leave. There is no right to Clutchfans, Facebook, Twitter or any other social media site. I can go Reddit, Parler or another site or even start my own.
We see another example again where the right is. Rather than trust the market they are more interested in criticizing and compelling existing companies to make decisions not because the market wants it but because the market doesn't want it. Again they are losing the culture war and are now looking to the courts and other regulatory means to protect them. Note for @StupidMoniker this isn't directed at you but regarding Trump's lawsuit and others.
Then I don't understand what you are arguing for. If you are saying that private enterprises should act against their best interest and allow any speech on their platforms so long as it doesn't violate the law, you are basically saying that free speech should trump profit - the only way to get businesses to do that would be through the law.
they're both ****ing stupid, the reality is that some of these benefits are ridiculous and promote staying unemployed and taking them away completely for people that need them is also dumb. Boebert though man I just can't listen to her, she tries so her hard with her shtick and its cringeworthy.
Hilarious how the mega turds always blame the person getting shot by cops. "Cop was justified to shoot him they were endangered for their lives !!!" "Back the blue at all expenses!" when you're committing a felony you still have more rights than a black person getting shot by a cop . It's just funny watching the GQP self implode while mega scum are making excuses to keep backing them. Your party is a damn joke
Don't forget she her restaurant took in hundreds of thousands of PPP money last year and now she's against government welfare Mega turds brainwashing their low iq cult turds to worship them is hilarious
The article is about Jenner and the reaction from those attending CPAC but this is the more interesting part. The continued adoration for Trump and support for racist insurrectionists blows my mind. https://www.dallasnews.com/news/pol...s-cpac-displays-a-full-conservative-spectrum/
Trump was most definitely kicked off for illegal speech. This is why I question your truthfulness, you say stuff like that like its fact when its only your interpretation of the facts. So your beef is based on what you believed happened and not what actually happened. How the hell do you know what most people are kicked off for, do you have a spreadsheet?
I guess I would rank property rights above free speech. Hence my refusal to support government mandates that private corporations allow unlimited speech. Yes. Here is the definition of censorship that I am using: Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. Now obviously you censoring someone on your front yard is going to have less impact than Clutch censoring curse words on ClutchFans, which will have less impact than the US government censoring the airwaves. All are suppression of speech, public communication, or other information though. You and others have asked this, and I have already answered it. See above. It may or may not. p*rnography is sometimes considered unpopular and Tumblr changed their ToS to ban it. I don't have access to their revenue numbers, but traffic apparently dropped significantly. Tumblr Traffic Plummets After p*rn Ban | PCMag Then you don't really disagree with me at all, except perhaps in adverbs. I'm arguing that free speech is an ideal that exceeds the law. No one should force any private entity not to censor, but we are free to criticize when they censor. Moreover, I believe that many censorship decisions of private actors are not based on profitability. Do you think twitter makes more money because they banned Trump? It seemed like he was a strong driver of traffic, both from those who agreed with him and those who hated him. Trump was allegedly removed from twitter for three tweets, none of which were illegal. Twitter bans Trump: What tweet got the president banned (courier-journal.com) As for how I know what most people are kicked off for, I guess it would be observation. I would clarify I mean most high profile people, not an egg that gets banned for child p*rn or something that 99.999% of users never see.
Twitter absolutely makes more money after banning Trump. The loss in traffic is by far more than compensated by greater interest from advertisers which raises their profitability.
"Public communication" is a key term. Should we start considering private spaces with public spaces including cyber spaces? For reference there was a case a few years ago regarding whether the Mall of America should be considered a new town square and as such First Amendment speech protections should apply. The MN Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment doesn't apply. First off I don't think p*rnography is unpopular. It wouldn't generate so much revenue and you wouldn't see the direction of even over-air media going towards more lax standards on nudity and sexual situations if that was the case. Secondly though as others have noted this isn't just about traffic but about advertisers. With sites like FB, YouTube and Twitter they aren't generating revenue from views but advertising so once advertisers started threating to pull revenue that would be a direct threat to their revenue. I don't think we're too far off but am curious about where your views are. Again this is about advertising. Further while people might be interested in the salaciousness of Trump there are certainly many who are turned off by Trump. IN the case of FB where their model less stream of consciousness wide cast posting like Twitter but more about keeping up with friends and family there have been people who have quit because of all of the hyper politicized, aggressive, conspiracy and other content. Also FB, Twitter and Alphabet are all publicly traded companies. As such their primary concern is profitability. Decisions to moderate content and remove users ultimately come down to profitabilty. If Trump and others on the Right were seen as vastly more profitable than their critics it's doubtful that they would remove them. As noted with other companies like Delta and Target, these type of decisions end up being made not out of "wokeness' but because they understand that the culture and the numbers have shifted. To put it very bluntly 7 million more consumers voted against Trump than for. Trump got banned for violating Twitter's terms of service. That's all that matters from a business standpoint and since using Twitter you have to agree to those terms of service you've already entered into a contract with them.
