SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Monday October 29 2018, @08:15AM
from the social-commentary-on-social-media dept.
from the social-commentary-on-social-media dept.
The social network gab.com is apparently going down on Monday, October 29th at 09:00 ET. Their ISP has terminated their services, ostensibly because Robert Bowers, the Pittsburgh mass shooting suspect, had made offensive posts on Gab.
To get this out of the way: I have mixed feelings about Gab, more specifically, about the founders. However, the idea that some social network somewhere should refuse to censor anything that is not outright illegal? This is good. Social media has become the modern "market square", and free speech should be guaranteed, even if the platforms are technically private.
If you want free speech, you apparently don't want to be in the U.S.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Social Media and the Pittsburgh Shooter: Gab.com Going Down
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 116 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
In Tulsa, Oklahoma, it is against the law to open a soda bottle without
the supervision of a licensed engineer.
(Score: 2) by termigator on Monday October 29 2018, @07:51PM (4 children)
The difference here it is a corporate issue and not a governmental one wrt organizations like the ACLU. I.e. It is a matter of contract law between businesses and not between citizens and the government.
This does highlight the modern day problem that speech is now more governed by corporations and not the government, so the First Ammendment is not applicable. The challenge of the day is how do we promote free speech, including speech we may not agree with, vis-a-vis the ever increasing power corporations have on what gets heard?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by curunir_wolf on Monday October 29 2018, @08:07PM (2 children)
That's the narrative, but not the full reality. For instance, Facebook is looking to the Atlantic Council to help them censor content [fortune.com]. What's wrong with that? A private entity involved with a corporation? Well, the Atlantic Council receives a lot of funding from a lot of US Government agencies and divisions. So who is really doing the censorship? The argument can certainly be made that it IS the US Government censoring voices.
Still, don't expect the ACLU or the EFF or the SPLC to make that point. Their own funding sources like the censorship that's happening.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday October 29 2018, @08:13PM (1 child)
Correct. The whole "private company v. government agency" thing is just a convenient excuse when corporate control of the levers of government is so widespread.
In A Corporatist System Of Government, Corporate Censorship Is State Censorship [caitlinjohnstone.com]
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Monday October 29 2018, @08:58PM
Another Caitlin fan! There's a lot I disagree with her about, but we're very in sync on the establishment media.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Monday October 29 2018, @08:13PM
Don't try that crap on me, we all know it is a lie. Antifa is a terror organization. This is not debatable. The definition of terrorism is violence directed at civilian populations to induce them to vote in a certain way. That is the stated purpose of Antifa, therefore it is a terrorist organization. But it has a website, imagine a similar attempt to deplatform them. YOU would be defending them, EFF and ACLU would be defending their quantum Right to hosting that would spring into existence for that one argument only and disappear just as quickly back into corporate freedom to be SJWs when you returned to a discussion of deplatforming the Right.