Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

40 thoughts on “TWITTER VERSUS FREE SPEECH…

  1. David commented that his Twitter followers dramatically slowed their rate of increase after he was “verified” at 50000 followers. What does that mean ? How is Twitter discouraging users from following David’s account ?

    On the main thrust of his speech here I agree with him entitely. Politically correct trends towards censorship on the major social platforms is wrong.

  2. Colm, it means he has fewer Russian bot accounts signing up.

    Russian bots don’t generally follow too many “verified” accounts.

  3. Laura Loomer is not an investigative journalist.

    She’s an alt-right internet personality.

    And a nasty, fame-seeking cunt.

  4. This is an error of fake news and mass disinformation – as promulgated by Alex Jones, Donald Trump, Mike Cernovich, Vladimir Putin. Etc

    This is a fact that should be recognized

  5. Twitter and Facebook are finally cracking down on the tens of thousands fake Russian agitprop accounts. Well overdue.

    Sorry if that impacts your digital popularity, David.

    What’s up with the weird, blank Fox news background?

    Definitely not British.

  6. Twitter, Facebook, and Google everyone of these “free-speech” Guardians have all admitted to censorship.

    They have even made a show of hiring boards to investigate it and improve their “algorithms”.

    They don’t deny that they are doing it, but you deny they are???

    Do you understand how ridiculous that makes you look. There is a massive fight to control the narrative and hide facts and these organizations have their fingers in a thousand of different pies.

    They are dangerous, unmonitored, and have collected more data on everyone than the NSA. But you don’t see any problems.

    It’s not just David calling attention to this issue….. pay attention.

  7. I’ve made this comment here a number of times – that while some will never shut up about government monitoring, they completely ignore the intelligence gathering / buying /selling of personal information, very often without consent by these private companies, by the credit card companies and banks etc

  8. No one is as big as supporter of free speech as myself but, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are all privately owned media sites they have every right to decide who can and can’t place content on there.
    Perhaps more needs to be done to stop these sites having such a monopoly in the realm of social media.
    That being said most of these sites seem to allow a very diverse set of opinions and political views. As Paul has already pointed out, there are postings and videos from the far left and far right, as well as a huge collection of crazy conspiracy theories on all of these media sites.

  9. No one is as big as supporter of free speech as myself but, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are all privately owned media sites they have every right to decide who can and can’t place content on there.

    The internet is effectively a public utility and so if Twitter, Facebook and YouTube really do wish to remove opinions with which they disagree yet which are still protected by (in the US) the First Amendment, then others shall take their place and be allowed to take their place. Here’s an alt-right perspective….

    http://nwioqeqkdf.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-great-digital-leveler.html#more

    It’s hard to think of a more inherently egalitarian invention than the internet, through the internet everybody has a voice, everybody has a platform, everybody who wants one has a stool in the public square to stand on and preach to the masses. The vast majority of people on the internet will be quite rightly ignored because the main bulk of the content on the internet is drivel. But nevertheless, there is equality in opportunity if not outcome.

    The Left should love the internet, it should be their wildest fantasy come true, finally information and opinion has been socialized, handed to the common man. I am the common man, I spend my working life in a factory pressing a button but even I, via this blog, have a platform, a voice. In theory I have attained equality with the editor of The Times or The Guardian, and while their ”news” outlets are multi-million dollar operations with large (though decreasing) readerships their opinions are not more valid than mine because of it.

    The same can be said of social media, Wehrmacht1488 on Twitter has the same square box to write his views and opinions in as Hillary Clinton, J.K Rowling or David Aaronovitch. Once again, equality has been achieved. The liberal Left should be happy that the every-guy has access to the same platforms as his cultural and political elites, but they aren’t.

    In actual fact it’s becoming a Code Red, all hands on deck emergency, the every-man having an opinion and then using the internet to convince others of that opinion is regarded as an existential threat. NGO’s and lobby groups pour ever increasing amounts of hard cash into research and think tanks dedicated to silencing him. Tactical schematics are drawn up in military fashion decoding the strengths and weaknesses of the enemy positions.

  10. Internet service should be regulated as a utility, but I’m not sure that platforms such as facebook, etc should be – despite the deep problems we see with them.

  11. Phantom – any company that operates on the public utility of the internet should simply abide by the First Amendment. And of course, if that applies in the US and the hubs are domiciled there, then these freedoms will be available to all others.

    Every country needs the First Amendment – and the above would ensure that they get it on the internet.

  12. The First Amendment does not apply to the behavior of private companies, internet access policies, etc.

    There are speech issues to deal with, but I don’t think that the First Amendment is at issue here

  13. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

    And the corollary of the above is that Congress shall ensure that freedom of speech is protected on the internet – when it becomes a public utility. If any private service provider refuses, said provider loses licence. That will become a commercial decision, and it’s amazing how money can persuade even the most left-wing corporation

  14. Should a private provider ( or ATW ) be forced to host ( legal ) pornographic content ?

    Should facebook neighborhood / political discussion groups be forced to include UFO/Truther/Nazi/Communist content?

  15. Congress ensures no freedoms because our freedoms don’t come from the Government.

    And what you are advocating for Alan is called the Fairness Doctrine which was law once and what it ensured was just the opposite. It squashed free speech.

  16. No I don’t think so.

    The Fairness Doctrine ( supposedly ) assured that ” both sides ” were given a voice on broadcast media, which then was just TV and Radio, as transmitted on airwaves that belonged to the people, not the licensee that owned the broadcaster

    What Allan seems to say is that every voice should be allowed to speak on any platform.

    Which to me is an entirely different thing.

  17. //If any private service provider refuses, said provider loses licence//

    And when the Daily Mail refuses to print a reader’s letter expressing left-wing views, it should be closed down. Sure.

  18. There’s Big difference between an Internet service provider ( BT, Verizon ) and an Internet publication or site ( ATW, Facebook, Google ) . Even among sites, a world of difference.

    The ISP should be regulated like a utility, like the phone/electric company.

    The other guys, we would need to talk each case through. They’re very different companies.

  19. Allen

    And the corollary of the above is that Congress shall ensure that freedom of speech is protected on the internet – when it becomes a public utility. If any private service provider refuses, said provider loses licence.

    You don’t seem to fully understand how the Internet works Alan. Service providers usually only provide access to the Internet, they are not responsible for the information stored on servers connected to the Internet or indeed policing the content of said servers. Something our government seems to have trouble understanding as well.
    Noel

    And when the Daily Mail refuses to print a reader’s letter expressing left-wing views, it should be closed down. Sure.

    Exactly Noel, and a perfect example. The Daily Mail is a private publication, and as such is free to print what it wants to print, and ignore what it doesn’t. This also applies to private companies on the Internet.
    People seem to have trouble understanding that the definition of freedom of speech is to be able to say what you want Without fear of violence or censorship. It does not mean the private companies have to publish what you say.
    Anyone can set up their own blog on the Internet and publish whatever they like, (in countries that have free speech anyway), which shows that we have freedom of speech.
    (Just a small caveat here, this obviously doesn’t extend to slander and lies about other people.)

  20. no the Fairness Doctrine kept ALL opinion political and otherwise off the radio. If you talked politics the radio stations had to provide equal time for opposing views. Thus rendering it impossible to talk politics. That was the fairness doctrine. So it prevented anyone from talking due to the lack of “fairness” when it was struck from the books was 30yrs ago and the air date of the first rush limbaugh show.

  21. Not true

    I remember political discussion on NY radio before the Fairness Doctrine was repealed

    Bob Grant had a ” right wing ” NY based talk show for at least a decade before Fairness Doctrine was repealed, on powerhouse station WABC

    Limbaugh had great praise for Grant

    And there was lots of political discussion on the radio here well before that, on a number of stations, including WMCA and WBAI, long a left wing station, and on black radio stations etc

    Repealing the so-called Fairness Doctrine was good policy, but the effect of this repeal should not be exaggerated

  22. You don’t seem to fully understand how the Internet works Alan. Service providers usually only provide access to the Internet, they are not responsible for the information stored on servers connected to the Internet or indeed policing the content of said servers. Something our government seems to have trouble understanding as well.

    Dave – the service providers should be merely allowing access to the internet for anybody who wishes to place his/her opinions into the public domain for discussion/debate (see 6.31pm), and it is not their place to censor or ‘de-rank’ any site in the manner that Google is intending with RT

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/21/google-de-rank-russia-today-sputnik-combat-misinformation-alphabet-chief-executive-eric-schmidt

    Eric Schmidt, the chief executive of Google’s parent company Alphabet, has said the search engine is preparing to take action against state-run Russian news agencies, including Russia Today and Sputnik, which are accused of spreading propaganda by US intelligence agencies.

  23. Phantom, on November 22nd, 2017 at 8:14 PM Said:

    What Allan seems to say is that every voice should be allowed to speak on any platform.

    Yes – The internet is the platform

    The Left should love the internet, it should be their wildest fantasy come true, finally information and opinion has been socialized, handed to the common man. I am the common man, I spend my working life in a factory pressing a button but even I, via this blog, have a platform, a voice. In theory I have attained equality with the editor of The Times or The Guardian, and while their ”news” outlets are multi-million dollar operations with large (though decreasing) readerships their opinions are not more valid than mine because of it.

    The platform is not on anybody’s private turf – a different mattter altogether – but on the public utility available to The Daily Mail, the NYT, The WaPo, ATW, each of us and anybody with whom we agree or disagree

  24. Allan

    Should an Internet service provider be forced to give a platform to broadcasts of child pornography? Snuff films? Incitement to murder of individuals or groups?

    There would be some freaks that would regard the stuff as ” speech ” . Not me.

  25. Should an Internet service provider be forced to give a platform to broadcasts of child pornography? Snuff films? Incitement to murder of individuals or groups?

    No – that’s incitement to criminality. Surely that is clear-cut?

  26. In the early 1960s, the very opinionated/political Malcolm X on New York radio station WMCA, on the Barry gray show.

    Barry Gray had many political discussions, with many political leaders of his time, including Robert Kennedy. He did this since his show began in 1950

  27. Phantom there were political shows but very few because the radio companies had to give equal time to opposing views.

    Just another thing you’re not truly informed on.

    So the rebirth of radio didn’t take place after the removal of the fairness doctrine?

    Oh ok that’s right I forget….. You the great NYr know everything, understand everything, and are the source of all knowledge.

    So the fairness doctrine didn’t do what I said.

    Ok….

  28. Fairness Doctrine
    The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the Commission’s view—honest, equitable, and balanced.

    Why was the Fairness doctrine repealed?
    In the 25 years since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed by the FCC, the variety of opinions available in the broadcast media, by almost any definition, has increased remarkably. This is what the First Amendment was intended to encourage.

    Twenty-five years ago this month, the Federal Communications Commission ended the “Fairness Doctrine,” which in the name of “fairness” infringed on the freedom of speech of radio and television stations, in violation of the First Amendment

    Under the doctrine, which was imposed by the FCC in 1949, the holders of federal broadcast licenses were required to devote part of their air time to current issues of importance to the public interest and to air opposing points of view when requested. The stated goal was that broadcast licensees were to provide fair, honest, balanced and equitable time to controversial issues.

    Implementation of the Fairness Doctrine raised serious concerns. Which issues were important to the public and how would those issues be determined? How was advocacy of a particular position to be segregated from simply reporting news? Which opposing point of view should be given equal time in cases where more than one opposing point of view exists?

    But the biggest problem with the Fairness Doctrine was its infringement on freedom of speech — a right the Founding Fathers considered so fundamental that it is enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “Congress should make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Newspapers were not subjected to a “fairness doctrine” requiring that the publishers cover certain subjects or give equal time to opposing viewpoints. Why should broadcast media be any different? Of course, radio and television did not exist when the First Amendment was written, but the development of new technology to spread political opinions does not alter the principle involved.

    https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/12320-recalling-the-end-of-the-fairness-doctrine

  29. the Fairness Doctrine kept ALL opinion political and otherwise off the radio. If you talked politics the radio stations had to provide equal time for opposing views. Thus rendering it impossible to talk politics. That was the fairness doctrine. So it prevented anyone from talking due to the lack of “fairness” …

    Glad we agree that this statement is totally wrong in every way

Comments are closed.