Make speech politically correct again

[nikcers]

Can you make an internet that doesn't have stuff on it that "old" people don't like to see? I was asked that once, in a very matter of fact non quizzical tone of voice. It was more of a demand rather than a question.

When I look at the demand for more censorship on the internet it frightens me, people are already censoring themselves ever since the stuff about wikileaks came out.

This isn't going away any time soon so what is the libertarian answer to a society that shuts down competition to platforms and censors those platforms, is my understanding of this issue flawed because I am thinking about it from the wrong paradigm?

Would regulation, if any on the manipulation of someone's speech or intellectual property be a regulation on freedom or liberty or would it be a regulation on the tyranny that we already have?

[ATruepatriot]

Facebook Censorship BACKFIRED, Major Brands FLEE Platform

Facebook Censorship BACKFIRED, Major Brands FLEE Platform. As Predicted Facebook Censorship Is DESTROYING The Company. CrossFit just announced they are shuttering their Facebook and instagram due to censorship. Facebook recently banned on of their affiliate pages without reason or warning. They go on to cite other unethical behavior facebook has engaged in around data rights.

The issues raised by CrossFit reflect perfectly conservative concerns over free speech and social media censorship and bias. it seems that in their quest to satiate the outrage mob they started banning too many accounts. When you ban one group then people demand you ban another group and it never ends.

Like dominoes falling over Facebook caving to the far left outrage mob has resulted in their steady decline. Young people are fleeing the platform and now the government is targeting them with anti-trust measures. As more people and groups get banned on facebook more people decide to leave.

Could this be the beginning of the end for Facebook?

https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/...-for-facebook/

[nikcers]

Facebook Censorship BACKFIRED, Major Brands FLEE Platform

Facebook Censorship BACKFIRED, Major Brands FLEE Platform. As Predicted Facebook Censorship Is DESTROYING The Company. CrossFit just announced they are shuttering their Facebook and instagram due to censorship. Facebook recently banned on of their affiliate pages without reason or warning. They go on to cite other unethical behavior facebook has engaged in around data rights.

The issues raised by CrossFit reflect perfectly conservative concerns over free speech and social media censorship and bias. it seems that in their quest to satiate the outrage mob they started banning too many accounts. When you ban one group then people demand you ban another group and it never ends.

Like dominoes falling over Facebook caving to the far left outrage mob has resulted in their steady decline. Young people are fleeing the platform and now the government is targeting them with anti-trust measures. As more people and groups get banned on facebook more people decide to leave.

Could this be the beginning of the end for Facebook?

https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/...-for-facebook/

From what I saw Facebook is being forced by governments world wide to censor their platform or they will block them off the internet but the idea that people are paying to advertise on there and getting censored or they are advertising to fake people is what is causing people to stop supporting it. I think even if all of the private companies left facebook they would still get a lot of money from the government, and from political ads and political campaigns that advertise on there.

[ATruepatriot]

From what I saw Facebook is being forced by governments world wide to censor their platform or they will block them off the internet but the idea that people are paying to advertise on there and getting censored or they are advertising to fake people is what is causing people to stop supporting it. I think even if all of the private companies left facebook they would still get a lot of money from the government, and from political ads and political campaigns that advertise on there.

They would not be able to survive in whole, especially if stocks get hit because sponsors are leaving. The only reason they can hide the money they get from the government is because it is diluted and unnoticed among the rest of the sponsors. If their private sponsors all dump them and yet they remain as big and strong as they are, there would be a whole lot of digging into why and how they did remain stable. Right now it is not obvious so there are no questions being asked, If the previous happened then everyone would be looking for answers and the scam might be exposed for what it truly is.

Too bad no one will get off their ass and commit to a serious boycott email campaign, the time is perfect for mass emails to their sponsors denouncing their activities and a true boycott of those sponsor's products and/or services that support them. Everyone bitches, but they are too lazy make the personal effort let alone slightly inconvenience themselves and actually do without those products and services.

[nikcers]

They would not be able to survive in whole, especially if stocks get hit because sponsors are leaving. The only reason they can hide the money they get from the government is because it is diluted and unnoticed among the rest of the sponsors. If their private sponsors all dump them and yet they remain as big and strong as they are, there would be a whole lot of digging into why and how they did remain stable. Right now it is not obvious so there are no questions being asked, If the previous happened then everyone would be looking for answers and the scam might be exposed for what it truly is.

Too bad no one will get off their ass and commit to a serious boycott email campaign, the time is perfect for mass emails to their sponsors denouncing their activities and a true boycott of those sponsor's products and/or services that support them. Everyone bitches, but they are too lazy make the personal effort let alone slightly inconvenience themselves and actually do without those products and services.

Most people use their email addresses that are maintained and controlled by the people doing the censorship though, they did so much censorship in the midterm elections that the democrats won the house back. They are blaming spam filters but it is much worse than that, in their minds they own those email addresses and have every right to manipulate them.

[ATruepatriot]

Most people use their email addresses that are maintained and controlled by the people doing the censorship though, they did so much censorship in the midterm elections that the democrats won the house back. They are blaming spam filters but that its much worse then that, in their minds they own those email addresses and have every right to manipulate them.

Before I share a short true story are you talking about control over outgoing emails by those who provide the email server accounts? Or those who would be receiving the emails?

[nikcers]

Before I share a short true story are you talking about control over outgoing emails by those who provide the email server accounts? Or those who would be receiving the emails?

Most people don't have their own email servers like Hillary Clinton, they are not any harder to hack in to either. Email has long been manipulated but instead of spamming people they can filter and control what information is on there in real time.

The main thing that I saw was google blocking emails from being received or putting them into a void that no one checks, they have a spam filter folder with a default setting to delete messages that no one checks, most people don't even check their inbox unless they are expecting an email nowadays.

Google and DOD/government/corporate emails which are the most commonly checked emails were obviously targeted that's why emails with attachments on gmail can take an hour to be received. Most of the time they blame it on malicious users but I bet there is even more going on that I didn't see but thats just because there are a lot of moving parts to email delivery.

[ATruepatriot]

Most people don't have their own email servers like Hillary Clinton, they are not any harder to hack in to either. Email has long been manipulated but instead of spamming people they can filter and control what information is on there in real time.

The main thing that I saw was google blocking emails from being received or putting them into a void that no one checks, they have a spam filter folder with a default setting to delete messages that no one checks, most people don't even check their inbox unless they are expecting an email nowadays.

Google and DOD/government/corporate emails which are the most commonly checked emails were obviously targeted that's why emails with attachments on gmail can take an hour to be received. Most of the time they blame it on malicious users but I bet they are even more going on that I didn't see but thats just because there are a lot of moving parts to email delivery.

Thing is... By law, every website on the internet has to have a viable and strictly monitored contact form or email account. So spam or not... Each has to be reviewed by a human spam or not or they could be looking at multimillion dollar law suits if they missed something. They could put filters in place, but only an idiot would do this because of the huge legal risk involved if someone had a just legal issue to resolve such as copyright infringement or liable. For this reason anyone who has a webpage better indeed check that one contact account diligently. We are all stuck between a very inconvenient rock and a hard place with this legal contact requirement if we own a website or domain. So because of this mass emails to a company will indeed be looked at and assessed for a common complaint. Risk management would insist it be addressed and at least considered.

As for outgoing emails? Everyone talked the boycott talk during Ron's last run. And a similar concern came up about control over outgoing emails to these companies. So I personally bought a couple domains, bought premium hosting with a very secure legal contract and put up a public email server on one of them. So I supplied an unbiased legal secure email service for us all to use with business license, protected contract, and all the legal protections afforded by commercial law. And as the business owner I would have had to legally be personally physically served with a warrant before they could be legally accessed.

So what happens? All those who were gung ho about making this very effective serious mass boycott effort by talking the talk chicken $#@!ted out and would not walk the walk. Two other than myself actually made the dedicated effort, and we supplied everyone with all the companies and contacts in a comprehensive and updated list that in it's self took hours and hours invested everyday to research and keep updated. "well... I should boycott them too, but I just can't live without my stuff and addictions", "But what you are proposing is a COLLECTIVE and I will have no part of it". And folks try to accuse ME of not being dedicated to Ron's message? There are very few who put in the true personal time, effort, and sacrifice I did to help that man get elected. I even filed several personal FCC and FEC formal complaints against news organizations for violations and election rigging.

Until everyone can get over the anti-collective hang up and become serious about productive concerted efforts in mass it ain't going anywhere. I saw this reality years ago.

[nikcers]

Thing is... By law, every website on the internet has to have a viable and strictly monitored contact form or email account. So spam or not... Each has to be reviewed by a human spam or not or they could be looking at multimillion dollar law suits .

They get to print money and decide what it gets spent on, I am sure this is something they pass the cost down to us on.

[tod evans]

Can you make an internet that doesn't have stuff on it that "old" people don't like to see?

I are an "old person" and I'll betcha a dime to a dollar I'm far more offensive to young people than any of you pups are to me....

[nikcers]

I are an "old person" and I'll betcha a dime to a dollar I'm far more offensive to young people than any of you pups are to me....

Yeah I'm not sure what he meant when he said that but at the time I had assumed he meant old as in old money.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Can you make an internet that doesn't have stuff on it that "old" people don't like to see? I was asked that once, in a very matter of fact non quizzical tone of voice. It was more of a demand rather than a question.

When I look at the demand for more censorship on the internet it frightens me, people are already censoring themselves ever since the stuff about wikileaks came out.

This isn't going away any time soon so what is the libertarian answer to a society that shuts down competition to platforms and censors those platforms, is my understanding of this issue flawed because I am thinking about it from the wrong paradigm?

Would regulation, if any on the manipulation of someone's speech or intellectual property be a regulation on freedom or liberty or would it be a regulation on the tyranny that we already have?

I used to have a bunch of conservative stuff to watch on youtube, now I can only find the most tamest of stuff. I liked the crazy stuff. Grade A entertainment.

[Swordsmyth]

Former FEC Chair says the First Amendment allowing free speech produces more violent hate crime than terrorism