Companies Censoring Speech

If that is what you got out of what I wrote, I must :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: at you.

K: I didn’t “Lump all protesters into a terrorist group”…
I lumped neo-nazi’s and white nationalist and KKK as members
of a terrorist group… and they are…they peddle a message of
hate and violence and racism/sexism/ageism/anti-Semite message…

and that is no different then the message of Muslim terrorist…
a another message of hate and violence and racism/sexism/ ageism/ ant-Semite…

if you are not of us, you are against us… is the message of the Muslim
terrorists and the same message of hate and violence and racism/…
and the same message from white nationalist/neo-Nazi/KKK…terrorists…

call them what they are… TERRORISTS… and get it over with…

Kropotkin

K: as I am hearing impaired, I am very aware of the message people send and your
message is quite clear… you defend the message of hate and violence and racism/…
because you approve that message and your message was received quite clearly…

I would suggest you remain with the denial phase… it really works for you…

Kropotkin

So, there is no middle ground with you. You are an extremist on the left and if I do not agree with your extremism, then I am on the right extreme? #-o I need another V-8 and I’ll add some Vodka (God knows you drive sane people to drink.)

K: first of all, you think inside your head that because I am of the left, I MUST be an extremist
and I am not… I am actually a moderate… but because of your vision and message
about yourself, you just think I am an extremist…so we are clear… how is my message
of love and tolerance and understanding… EXTREME? that is my message and your message
is of hate and violence and racism/…so who here is really extreme?
love or hate? that is the both the question and the answer… I pick love and you have
picked hate… so is my message of love really extreme and if you think love is extreme,
then you really, really, REALLY, need to rethink your understanding of the universe…

Kropotkin

You put words in my mouth Peter which is extreme and your words do not encourage love, tolerance and understanding. I have not stated that I support hate, violence, or racism, yet you state that I do. I know, you accuse me of preposterous things in the name of your kind of higher love and tolerance, and understanding. You are amusing. :laughing:

Wendy, you sound a lot like you support white nationalism, how is that not a racist ideology?

Supporting the health of your race does not harm another race and its a far cry from terrorism. I would like to see white Americans remain in America by coupling and reproducing and creating healthy families as any race wishes for their own race. I don’t wish for any race to be illegitimized and kept from enjoying their race.

I disagree that “any race wishes [that] for their own race”. I don’t think most people have any particular allegiance to their own race, and I don’t think people should. Moreover, it seems racist to say that white people should only marry white people (anti-miscegenation usually being part of white nationalism). It seems racist to say that we should prioritize white culture over the many other cultural heritages of the US. It seems racist to say that we should have monuments to people whose sole fame was in betraying the US in order to protect the obviously racist institution of chattel slavery.

All of that seems pretty damned racist. And that’s all entailed by the normal understanding of white nationalism (and that’s leaving alone the common white nationalist position that people that aren’t white should leave the US, which is super duper damned racist).

K: the problem with your post is simply this… there is not such thing as pure race…just
about every human being alive is a mix of everything… I am a mix of English and Irish
and welsh and French and even some African… I cannot claim to be “pure” and virtually
no one else on planet earth can claim to be “pure”… race is a mixed thing and
so to enjoy “race”, which race would you suggest we enjoy? the so called “White” race
really doesn’t exists as we are a mix of all kinds of races…

white power is really about mix race power… which mix race do you wish to enjoy
and create new little mix race children?

Kropotkin

No, your points are so easily detected that even the dumbest of four year olds can comprehend them but comparing your views to four year olds is a insult to four year olds everywhere.

Entering the next epoch of centralized neofeudalism (under the control of international banks and corporations) is one that is controlled by corporations, let us call it corporate neofeudalism.

So what you are saying is that you are ashamed of white people and don’t believe that white people have the right to exist without harassment by folks like you, folks who are racists against whites?

So are you white or some other more acceptable race? You can’t be white, you are not allowed to identify as such or you are a racist white nationalist terrorist?

Quote me where I said that white people SHOULD ONLY marry white people. I did say that I would like to see whites in America fifty years from now, I did say something along those lines. Stop projecting what you want me to have said rather than what I actually said.

What cultural heritages are being overlooked? The Native Americans? The left needs to disassemble all of the monuments and history to those praised for their leadership while they committed genocide against the many Native American tribes. None of the Presidents should be memorialized without being condemned equally for their parts in genocides across this country, same goes for the military commanders. While we are on the subject of condemnation, we need to prosecute all living political figures who took part in condoning strikes which killed civilian populations of countries all over the globe. They all need to be tried for war crimes, crimes against humanity. Doesn’t any of that matter because people are dying now due to it, killing other civilians, other races indiscriminately?

Carleas, I’m a white European separatist not a national socialist, supremacist, or any other kind of affiliation. I would debate you if you accepted to debate me on this whole issue as I find your overall views or beliefs skewed.

Add PayPal to the list. There are a few things to separate.

Companies should be able to pursue their values & interests, within the law. To that end, every business has the duty to notify its clients/users of their terms of service (e.g. acceptable use policy) and the freedom to act on it.

Like people, companies should be consistent and keep their end of a bargain, but they must also have the freedom update their policies and terms.

Protections against censorship are not absolute, perhaps cannot be. We would like to see bad ideas defeated by good ideas, not censored. But ideas often alight far too quickly, and at scale, for the war of ideas to play itself out.

Governments most of all should endeavor to preserve (or to enable people to preserve) the delicate balance between sufficient freedom to and sufficient freedom from, for all citizens. Freedom isn’t free, not only because it must sometimes be fought for but also because to preserve it is to steward and rein it. It is backbreaking toil, labor, and commitment to cultivate civilization; it demands vision for the future and self-law to ensure that that future isn’t sacrificed for lesser, fleeting passions.

Yep. The problem is that people too often idealize freedom while having little respect for the autonomy of others to speak and act. Companies should have those powers, and those powers should be bounded by limits and checks.

Some things I wonder about - Is net neutrality an anti-corporate position? What is the extent to which companies can control their participation in unacceptable speech?

Please define what you believe to be unacceptable speech. Is it any speech which triggers a negative reaction in the listener?

It stemmed from Carleas’ phrasing “arbiters of acceptable speech.” To rephrase the question I would say “…speech they don’t agree with” or something similar.

But it’s not just speech that they don’t agree with, it’s past history, it’s the right to assembly, its any oppositional ideology. It is a new form of discrimination which we must address, the discrimination of ideology.

Companies are individual citizens (given those rights through governmental laws) and act independent of the populace of individual citizens when it suits them, thus companies are playing both sides of the fence by unjustly discriminating against their customers based on their both personal and corporate preferences. This is actually a good example of a way to reverse the egregious powers given to today’s corporations.

Are the terms of service law abiding, particularly non-disciminatory?

We’re basically looking at the privatization of the internet by corporations. The internet is becoming less of a global public venue each year.

If you have views that a corporation doesn’t like you either get censored or moved into an internet ghetto where there is very little internet traffic and publicity.

Fuse, you make a number of good points. I agree that consistency is important, as is having a clear policy presented up front on which these kinds of decisions are made. I found GoDaddy’s rationale a little troubling because of how they twisted their policy and what the website was doing to justify their actions. It would have been one thing for GoDaddy to have a “no hate speech” policy, but they instead relied on their “no terrorism or violence” policy, and I think that’s a stretch (they reacted to the site mocking a victim of terrorism, which is crass and hateful but only incidentally furthers terrorism itself).

That said, I think a “no terrorism or violence” policy is quite easy to justify when properly applied. I even think the government would be permitted under current First Amendment interpretation to prohibit that kind of speech. For example, if the site were trying to coordinate a riot, or to raise funds that would go towards buying guns with which to commit specific acts of violence, those would probably be allowed under ‘incitement’ doctrine and similar recognized exceptions.

Could you explicitly lay out the syllogism that leads to this conclusion? What specifically did I say that you see as the equivalent of saying “I’m ashamed of whites and don’t think they have a right to exist”?

You’ve described yourself as a white nationalist, and white nationalism is not a concept you invented or that you get to define however you want. White nationalism generally entails being anti-miscegenation.

But I also think it follows from things you have said, e.g. if you’re worried about white people going extinct (which is absurd just based on population statistics, even ignoring the social fact that most coupling is assortative by race), I would expect you to see mixed race couples as a threat. If you don’t, could you explain?

Saying that we should not prioritize culture X over culture Y is not equivalent to saying that we should prioritize culture Y over culture X.

There is a meaningful difference between commemorating someone for the good things they did, even though they happened to do bad things as well, and commemorating someone for the bad things they did. It doesn’t follow from the belief that we shouldn’t celebrate people whose only claim to fame was treason against the US in support of slavery, that we shouldn’t celebrate anyone who ever did anything bad (or specifically slavery related). Confederate monuments are monuments to people who are famous for being confederates, and the monuments celebrate their role as confederates. The monuments generally depict them in their confederate dress regalia, and identify them as confederate officers and war heroes. We should not honor that. And that says nothing about people who founded the US, who are celebrated for founding the US. If there’s a statue of Washington anywhere that glorifies him specifically for his ownership of slaves, we should absolutely tear it down. I doubt such a monument exists.