🇳🇱
Alex Jones is a disgusting human being, with a disgusting message. I in no way support anything he has ever said; I do however support his right to say it.
I also support net neutrality and just as an ISP runs its own private hardware but can not sensor the content over its network (if net neutrality is enforced) I see social media in much the same way, it should be protected from censorship.
@freemo free speech does not mean you can say anything you want without consequence. He does not have a right to lies and slander, either.
@bnys Correct, and I would entierly support any court case brought against him that makes a valid case of slander. Though slander is NOT simply saying something untrue no matter how outlandish. It has certain criteria.
For example saying "Bob is a lizzard man" while a complete lie is not considered slander. However if you said "I was talking to bob and he admitted to me he was a lizard man" IS slander.
As far as I know he has said a lot of untrue things but I dont know of a specific case where he committed slander. I'm not saying it never happened, I dont watch his show so its entirely possible. But again that should be for the courts to decide, and therefore does not excuse what ha happened with Alex (which is censorship by a moderator, not through court order).
@freemo the consequence of being a reprehensible human being is getting told to go away. He still has his website and his podcasts are out there, even if they’re harder to find now. The government hasn’t censored him. I understand your concerns but getting booed off stage and banned from performing at a certain venues isn’t quite censorship.
@bnys You are misrepresenting my argument (called a strawman fallacy).
I dont mind that people are booing him, I dont mind if you decide to personally block his posts so you dont read it. I dont care if you decide to not watch his show.
None of that however is an argument for someone to have the right to block/censor on a public social media network.As I stated in my original post I view social media with **public registration** the same as the internet in terms of being treated as a shared communication medium (a legal term in several countries). This means that by the same logic that an ISP is not allowed to censor content neither should a public social media network be allowed to censor content.
Censor in this context would mean to eject someone or ther content from the network or to make it so others on the network can view their content, even if they wanted to.
I do however think it should be perfectly legal for individuals to block whoever they wish from their own personal feed.
@bnys Ahh yes I follow you now. Yea as it currently stands facebook and twitter certainly have the legal authority to censor whoever they wish. but I feel the interpritation and writing of the law should change to vie public social media networks as shared communication media and thus protected under freedom of speech laws in the US.
Even though I dont live in the US I feel that structure of free speech makes the most ethical sense.
@js290 @bnys I dont agree with the whole breaking them up and redistributing their wealth part. I think it should be legally fine for a facebook to own a monopoly on providing access to their social media network. It is just that in doing so the speech within the network must be protected.
Its a bit like sidewalk in front of a house in most cities. Its public property, but you still have to maintain it if you want to put your house next to it.
As it applies to social media, people just have to move off of these big centralized behemoth & demand more ISP competition. Distributed is inherently good. https://quitter.im/url/1273363
@freemo I don't think I was making a strawman argument, I was simply analyzing the state of things the way they are, not as they might be. As you say, we have these privately held "public" networks. Rights guaranteed by the gov't might not apply if the owners don't want you on the platform.