Should Social Media Giant's Keep Their Immunity To US Libel Laws?

[Mktavish]

Free speech is not the same as diarrhea of the mouth. The first speaks the truth, while the later spouts nonsense. The first seeks to teach and learn, the latter seeks to indoctrinate. The first seeks to provide information, the latter seeks to coerce. The first seeks new facts, the latter regurgitates the same old lies. The first seeks to spread enlightenment, the latter spreads hatred.

 

Free speech is fine, and removing it is censorship. Diarrhea of the mouth is just so much crap, and it's removal is a public service, much like washing horse crap off the street after a parade.

 

But alas, those with diarrhea of the mouth complain the loudest about censorship. I wonder why that is?

 

Is that humor that you would use 5 examples / facets of explanation after the label of "Diarrhea of the mouth" ?

I choose to call it "Verboseness" Because taking the sharp edges off of your words usually yields better results ... if discourse is the goal ?

 

But I suspect this is angst at Perraine , and the notion of free speech at any cost ?

Which I would return a query to do a thought experiment for 10-20 years down the road after technological advancements , and free speech is the top priority for human discourse.

 

Can you imagine walking into a store , or some other hub sniffing your data ... to them be accosted by someones free speech right ... about whatever they want to yell at you for. Could even end up in your home getting yelled at by someone just looking for your profile to yell at.

Which is all it is about already ... people don't really care about the free speech aspect ... just pawning some one ... at least imo .

[Mktavish]

No worries. Not agreeing with everything I think or say, does NOT make you my enemy. :D It makes you more fun to chat with.

 

 

Ahh ... so has the forums become so dead you are willing to slum with me ? Hehe ... do you remember me from year err 2 ago ?

But actually I have spent most my debate time with opposite leaning people ... I guess maybe that is a norm . Cuz all the agreement and people saying 100% is just sickening. So me personally likes to figure out what motivates some ones opinion , then maybe come to some kind of consensus no matter how small it may be. That is what I feel is winning a debate ;)

By the way ... you seem a lot more chill than I remember you ... have we been sliding toward center / mutually ?

 

On that news channel ... was that a local chanel ? Which yep they can have their small community built that sorta rules the day ... kinda what I was mentioning to Perraine about community banning ... and whether that would be considered evil censorship ???

[ScytheBearer]

 

< snip >

 

I choose to call it "Verboseness"

 

< snip >

 

 

My choice of words was deliberate and was not meant to be humorous. "Diarrhea of the mouth" is not dissimilar from Diarrhea from the anus. A flow of uncontrollable crap, with no other reason for existence than as a symptom of a greater problem. Those who spout such nonsense have no desire to exchange ideas in civil discourse, but are determined to coerce others into adherence to their hateful dogma.

 

But, the topic under discussion is whether or not "social media" should be exempt from the laws governing libel. My sole purpose was to illustrate the distinction between censorship, and cleaning the airways. As I stated in my previous posts, "social media" has an obligation to clean up the material presented on its sites if it wishes to remain immune to prosecution for libel. It has been represented that what I proposed was censorship. But, what I proposed was a simple sweeping of the elephant scat from the the roadways after the circus passes.

Edited March 5, 2022 by ScytheBearer

[HeyYou]

 

No worries. Not agreeing with everything I think or say, does NOT make you my enemy. :D It makes you more fun to chat with.

 

 

Ahh ... so has the forums become so dead you are willing to slum with me ? Hehe ... do you remember me from year err 2 ago ?

But actually I have spent most my debate time with opposite leaning people ... I guess maybe that is a norm . Cuz all the agreement and people saying 100% is just sickening. So me personally likes to figure out what motivates some ones opinion , then maybe come to some kind of consensus no matter how small it may be. That is what I feel is winning a debate :wink:

By the way ... you seem a lot more chill than I remember you ... have we been sliding toward center / mutually ?

 

On that news channel ... was that a local chanel ? Which yep they can have their small community built that sorta rules the day ... kinda what I was mentioning to Perraine about community banning ... and whether that would be considered evil censorship ???

 

Slumming? Nah. I just kinda like this section, for the most part..... And yes, I remember you. Vaguely.... Of course, that was before lunch yesterday..... so things aren't precisely clear. :D No worries. What happens here really isn't all that important in the overall scheme of things, that, and holding grudges is too much work. :D

 

Am I more chill? It's possible...... I really don't know. But then, maybe I am not in the best position to judge either. :)

 

If I remember right, it was the main abc news website...... It's been a while ago, and the memory ain't what it once was. (maybe I am mellowing with age. :) )

[Perraine]

 

Free speech is not the same as diarrhea of the mouth. The first speaks the truth, while the later spouts nonsense. The first seeks to teach and learn, the latter seeks to indoctrinate. The first seeks to provide information, the latter seeks to coerce. The first seeks new facts, the latter regurgitates the same old lies. The first seeks to spread enlightenment, the latter spreads hatred.

 

Free speech is fine, and removing it is censorship. Diarrhea of the mouth is just so much crap, and it's removal is a public service, much like washing horse crap off the street after a parade.

 

But alas, those with diarrhea of the mouth complain the loudest about censorship. I wonder why that is?

 

Is that humor that you would use 5 examples / facets of explanation after the label of "Diarrhea of the mouth" ?

I choose to call it "Verboseness" Because taking the sharp edges off of your words usually yields better results ... if discourse is the goal ?

 

But I suspect this is angst at Perraine , and the notion of free speech at any cost ?

Which I would return a query to do a thought experiment for 10-20 years down the road after technological advancements , and free speech is the top priority for human discourse.

 

Can you imagine walking into a store , or some other hub sniffing your data ... to them be accosted by someones free speech right ... about whatever they want to yell at you for. Could even end up in your home getting yelled at by someone just looking for your profile to yell at.

Which is all it is about already ... people don't really care about the free speech aspect ... just pawning some one ... at least imo .

 

There are several problems with ... certain peoples responses.

 

First they don't actually seem to understand the subject of this thread. "Social Media" platforms already have immunity from prosecution/persecution from what is posted because they are "supposed" to be open and free (as in free speech) hosting services, with no control over what is posted on these "digital public squares".

 

Trouble is, that's not how these companies are behaving. They are censoring and editorialising, which they are NOT meant to do, lest they be deemed a "publisher", in which case they are then liable - But that won't ever do, because then they can't favour one group or narrative over another without showing their clear bias.

 

Second is the strange, and arbitrary redefining of the term "censorship" to solely benefit their arguments/agenda (hmmm, where have we seen that kind of behaviour before?).

 

Finally, they will never give you a definitive description of what they believe to be misinformation/disinformation (I won't use their colourful phrasing) Because they can't! Simply because their "narrative" changes like a child's alibi (with about the same amount of actual critical thought involved) It used to be called "wrong think" and in literature (and increasingly in real life) we have "thought police" to silence, re-educate, remove or control those having the "wrong" thoughts.

 

...

 

As to your earlier questions - Granted, there is no physical "burning at the stake" involved (although that has actually been requested/demanded by certain people/groups) But being censored or "silenced" or "cancelled" (to use modern parlance) is very nearly as devastating for some, due to being essentially ostracised from society because of the seemingly all encompassing nature (and virtual monopoly) of today's "social media" companies.

 

As for the "block" feature, I think it's an essential tool ... if used * wisely.

We have the option to "block" opinions we don't agree with, and if enough people use the function, then those opinions lose value, and eventually fade from memory.

 

* The issue arises when people don't, can't or won't think critically, logically and intelligently before using the block function, or worse still, when the feature is "imposed" by another, simply to "go with the flow" and follow whatever thoughts or narrative is currently in fashion like a mindless lemming.

[Mktavish]

 

* The issue arises when people don't, can't or won't think critically, logically and intelligently before using the block function, or worse still, when the feature is "imposed" by another, simply to "go with the flow" and follow whatever thoughts or narrative is currently in fashion like a mindless lemming.

Is the block function not for personal use ? Freiedo of speech mush 0verrIde ?

 

How bout we start with what do you have to say ? Then we can decide if is freedom of speech worth the RIGHT !

Cuz the right aint willy nilly ... and never should be brought so low .

What we say that should be protected ... should be of worth to the society that protects it ... not corrosive .

 

In essence with how our new paradigm is with the internet ... speech should be regulated like road traffic .

Not freely drive down the road as feel free as want ? ... plus those road ways do get clogged .

Hence courteous driving is in order to make it function .

[ScytheBearer]

 

 

< snip >

 

I choose to call it "Verboseness"

 

< snip >

 

 

My choice of words was deliberate and was not meant to be humorous. "Diarrhea of the mouth" is not dissimilar from Diarrhea from the anus. A flow of uncontrollable crap, with no other reason for existence than as a symptom of a greater problem. Those who spout such nonsense have no desire to exchange ideas in civil discourse, but are determined to coerce others into adherence to their hateful dogma.

 

But, the topic under discussion is whether or not "social media" should be exempt from the laws governing libel. My sole purpose was to illustrate the distinction between censorship, and cleaning the airways. As I stated in my previous posts, "social media" has an obligation to clean up the material presented on its sites if it wishes to remain immune to prosecution for libel. It has been represented that what I proposed was censorship. But, what I proposed was a simple sweeping of the elephant scat from the the roadways after the circus passes.

 

 

 

 

 

Free speech is not the same as diarrhea of the mouth. The first speaks the truth, while the later spouts nonsense. The first seeks to teach and learn, the latter seeks to indoctrinate. The first seeks to provide information, the latter seeks to coerce. The first seeks new facts, the latter regurgitates the same old lies. The first seeks to spread enlightenment, the latter spreads hatred.

 

Free speech is fine, and removing it is censorship. Diarrhea of the mouth is just so much crap, and it's removal is a public service, much like washing horse crap off the street after a parade.

 

But alas, those with diarrhea of the mouth complain the loudest about censorship. I wonder why that is?

 

Is that humor that you would use 5 examples / facets of explanation after the label of "Diarrhea of the mouth" ?

I choose to call it "Verboseness" Because taking the sharp edges off of your words usually yields better results ... if discourse is the goal ?

 

But I suspect this is angst at Perraine , and the notion of free speech at any cost ?

Which I would return a query to do a thought experiment for 10-20 years down the road after technological advancements , and free speech is the top priority for human discourse.

 

Can you imagine walking into a store , or some other hub sniffing your data ... to them be accosted by someones free speech right ... about whatever they want to yell at you for. Could even end up in your home getting yelled at by someone just looking for your profile to yell at.

Which is all it is about already ... people don't really care about the free speech aspect ... just pawning some one ... at least imo .

 

There are several problems with ... certain peoples responses.

 

First they don't actually seem to understand the subject of this thread. "Social Media" platforms already have immunity from prosecution/persecution from what is posted because they are "supposed" to be open and free (as in free speech) hosting services, with no control over what is posted on these "digital public squares".

 

Trouble is, that's not how these companies are behaving. They are censoring and editorialising, which they are NOT meant to do, lest they be deemed a "publisher", in which case they are then liable - But that won't ever do, because then they can't favour one group or narrative over another without showing their clear bias.

 

Second is the strange, and arbitrary redefining of the term "censorship" to solely benefit their arguments/agenda (hmmm, where have we seen that kind of behaviour before?).

 

Finally, they will never give you a definitive description of what they believe to be misinformation/disinformation (I won't use their colourful phrasing) Because they can't! Simply because their "narrative" changes like a child's alibi (with about the same amount of actual critical thought involved) It used to be called "wrong think" and in literature (and increasingly in real life) we have "thought police" to silence, re-educate, remove or control those having the "wrong" thoughts.

 

...

 

As to your earlier questions - Granted, there is no physical "burning at the stake" involved (although that has actually been requested/demanded by certain people/groups) But being censored or "silenced" or "cancelled" (to use modern parlance) is very nearly as devastating for some, due to being essentially ostracised from society because of the seemingly all encompassing nature (and virtual monopoly) of today's "social media" companies.

 

As for the "block" feature, I think it's an essential tool ... if used * wisely.

We have the option to "block" opinions we don't agree with, and if enough people use the function, then those opinions lose value, and eventually fade from memory.

 

* The issue arises when people don't, can't or won't think critically, logically and intelligently before using the block function, or worse still, when the feature is "imposed" by another, simply to "go with the flow" and follow whatever thoughts or narrative is currently in fashion like a mindless lemming.

 

 

 

What I said. The clause "remain immune to prosecution for libel" pretty much says I did know what the topic was and the current state of "social medias" liability.

 

An example of twisting the truth to fit an agenda.

 

And with that, we have examples of a falsehood, misinformation, a deliberate distortion and conscious omissions of fact. Further, in the overall comment, we have an example of an ad hominem, character assassination, and flame baiting.

 

Such content should be removed as it contributes nothing to the discussion, but serves only to bully, coerce and precipitate a flame war. Is removing such abusive content censorship, or simple hygiene?

Edited March 5, 2022 by ScytheBearer

[Perraine]

 

 

* The issue arises when people don't, can't or won't think critically, logically and intelligently before using the block function, or worse still, when the feature is "imposed" by another, simply to "go with the flow" and follow whatever thoughts or narrative is currently in fashion like a mindless lemming.

Is the block function not for personal use ? Freiedo of speech mush 0verrIde ?

 

How bout we start with what do you have to say ? Then we can decide if is freedom of speech worth the RIGHT !

Cuz the right aint willy nilly ... and never should be brought so low .

What we say that should be protected ... should be of worth to the society that protects it ... not corrosive .

 

In essence with how our new paradigm is with the internet ... speech should be regulated like road traffic .

Not freely drive down the road as feel free as want ? ... plus those road ways do get clogged .

Hence courteous driving is in order to make it function .

 

In most cases, yes, the "block" function is a personal choice, however some social media platforms put "virtual blocks" in place with things like content warnings, age restrictions (which I'm in agreement with for certain subjects) or geographic restrictions. Those would be examples of an "imposed" block, rather than a personal choice from the individual user. (not counting of course the outright removal of some posts deemed to be misinformation/disinformation according to the ever changing and arbitrary ideology of those in control)

...

 

Again we run into the problem of who (or Whom) decides what is "right" and what is "corrosive"?

Once upon a time, in human history, the Church decided all "truths" ... for the good of their followers. And for the most part those "truths" weren't detrimental for most ordinary, everyday people, and "society" functioned just fine.(if somewhat barbarously by today's standards)

 

But then those damn Scientists started all their hateful lies and misinformation, leading the "good folk" astray with disgusting and disgraceful notions such as that the Earth was NOT the centre of the Universe, or that the Earth was in fact a Sphere (or globe if you prefer) ... How dare they!!!

 

So do you believe that "society" is now better off or worse?

Granted arguing over whether the Earth is flat or a Sphere doesn't really harm anyone I guess, but what about things such as "witch hunts" or certain medical procedures that can easily save lives that are still, to this day, banned by certain religions? Or the technological breakthroughs and improvements to human "lives" brought about by things like space exploration, none of which would have been possible if we still believed what was once the "truth" about our place in the universe or how the World was created.

 

Personally I think that the world and it's people (for the most part) have benefited from Science and the unrestricted freedom to espouse new ideas, regardless of how ludicrous they may seem at first glance. And even those that turn out to remain ludicrous are educational if nothing else, because they show us what NOT to believe or accept.

 

Einstein wasn't automatically believed when he first put forth his Special Relativity Theory, after all "Newtonian" physics described how things worked quite well, so what was all this poppycock Einstein was on about? It took several years, and in hindsight, some shady experiments before Einstein's view was more widely accepted.

Or what about the LASER (or MASER which actually came first)? That piece of technology was outright ridiculed and called "impossible" even as it was being demonstrated because the "consensus" decided that it violated the Uncertainty Principal of Quantum Mechanics (which Einstein didn't actually believe BTW)

 

Or how about Silicon Semi-Conductors? The first "integrated circuits" were actually made from Germanium, because Silicon was thought to be to difficult to purify ... Until some "renegade" figured out how to purify it cheaply and easily.

Or the fact that Aluminium was once the most precious metal on earth. Because it almost never appears in pure form naturally, pure nuggets and <gasp> actual ingots were worth entire Kingdoms! ... Until some "renegades" figured out how to purify it cheaply and easily.

 

Freedom of speech is essential, even if we don't always like what we hear (or read), And censorship in any form (with a very few notable and already discussed exceptions) is NEVER a tool for "good", it is now, and always will be the purist of evils.

...

 

Rules are necessary for "society" to function, I agree, but those rules need to be very carefully and thoughtfully written, very tightly constrained, and be easily amenable to update and/or improvement.

[HeyYou]

But not all social media platforms are created equal..... At least, as far as 'protections' go. Craigslist.org is a flavor of 'social media', yet the government decided they needed to be held responsible for what folks were offering on their site. (to wit, sex, either for free, or for money.) It was decided that they were going to become responsible for other people offering up illegal activities on their site..... The consequence was, that entire section went away. There was no reasonable way for craigslist to police that section, so, they simply nuked it. A tiny, tiny, minuscule percentage of users tanked the section for EVERYONE.

[Perraine]

But not all social media platforms are created equal..... At least, as far as 'protections' go. Craigslist.org is a flavor of 'social media', yet the government decided they needed to be held responsible for what folks were offering on their site. (to wit, sex, either for free, or for money.) It was decided that they were going to become responsible for other people offering up illegal activities on their site..... The consequence was, that entire section went away. There was no reasonable way for craigslist to police that section, so, they simply nuked it. A tiny, tiny, minuscule percentage of users tanked the section for EVERYONE.

Well, Craigslist is an unusual case and not really what would generally be classified colloquially under the heading "Social Media", as it's ostensibly a public "classifieds" site primarily for the selling and buying of goods and/or services. So in their case they would (and should) be somewhat responsible for ensuring that *illegal activities weren't being exchanged, such as certain sexual acts, child pornography or explicit murder/bodily harm for hire.

 

However they certainly should be given the same freedoms and protections from prosecution/persecution as any other "Social Media" site. The same would be true for a company that has a Facebook Page which promotes their products/services, Provided their products/services aren't *illegal.

 

(* depending of course on the laws and statutes in whatever jurisdiction the website and/or it's "users" were in)