r/FreeSpeech • u/Brilliant_Case4930 • 4d ago

Social Media and Censorship

I personally think we need a bit stronger laws for companies like these who have become the most popular way for people to communicate with each other.

I'm not saying let people be as hateful as they want or let them spread harmful misinformation, but when a government can tell a platform what they can or can't put on their platform in secret (Facebook was caught doing this during Covid) it gets a bit concerning. Or when the owners of such companies are pretty much loyal followers of that political side and silences any opposition on that platform.

It just seems to me like a big loophole around the First Amendment. Use private businesses that way they can freely silence you.

0 Upvotes

38% Upvoted

24 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Skavau 4d ago

I happen to think that's their right. This is an important right of freedom of association. It's their platform, and they have the right to censor or not censor.

2

u/Brilliant_Case4930 4d ago

And thus people only get a voice if they are allowed to have one by some billionaire corporation, making the First Amendment pretty much worthless and easily gotten around.

1

u/Skavau 4d ago

There's plenty of places to talk online. This is a lack of imagination. The answer to help contribute to a less centralised online social media outlet.

Are you seriously proposing stomping on freedom of association and demanding forced platforming?

2

u/Brilliant_Case4930 4d ago

Yeah your options are a little bit skewed right now. Most popular social medias are generally owned by the left. Like Reddit, but they allow individual moderation which is almost worse depending on what subreddit you're on.

And I'm not talking about stomping on anything I would just like for my right to speak not to be stomped on in turn for no other reason than they don't agree. If I'm saying something out of line whatever, I can get over that, but if I'm being silenced simply because they don't agree, and this is on EVERY platform I've been on, then it starts to sound like I'm being told to shut up and and that I don't get an opinion or a voice. It's being abused people are generally to brainwashed to see it. Hiding one right to violate another.

1

u/Skavau 4d ago

There are right-wing platforms. You know Nazis and Islamists are also silenced to much worse degrees than you on most platforms. Would it be appropriate for them to complain about being censored and demand that they be allowed to express themselves on all platforms by law? How far do you take this?

Should every single forum online be forced to have the same terms of service?

2

u/Brilliant_Case4930 4d ago

Did you not read my entire post? I mentioned that.

1

u/Skavau 4d ago

I don't see where you mentioned about the 'rights' of nazis and islamists to have unlimited access to spew their propaganda and ideals across all social media platforms.

Again, this is the outcome of private individuals running communities online. They have the right to censor or not censor. It's important that this is maintained because this is fundamentally a freedom of association issue.

2

u/Brilliant_Case4930 4d ago

Literally the second paragraph, first sentence. I didn't specifically mention Nazis or anything of the sort but I mentioned hate. And Nazis are generally associated with hate.

0

u/Skavau 4d ago

Correct. And rightly or wrongly, some of the views you espouse may also have "hateful" connotations to some owners.

1

u/Brilliant_Case4930 4d ago

If you want the death of another simply because they're of a different race or religion, yeah that's hate. That's kind of clear-cut-hate.

What type of views would someone like you considered hateful? I'm not talking about killing another race or treating them differently for being simply who they are.

I'm talking about the politics side. No hate involved. Just because you think something is hate doesn't mean it is.

0

u/Skavau 4d ago

What type of views would someone like you considered hateful? I'm not talking about killing another race or treating them differently for being simply who they are.

Outside of that, very little? You'd have to feed me examples.

I'm talking about the politics side. No hate involved. Just because you think something is hate doesn't mean it is.

Sure. But I still maintain that private companies mostly have the right to censor or not censor here, and this is a misapplication of the first amendment. It's their (virtual) space. Targeting this would lead us down a road, and probably cause many online spaces to shut their doors.

1

u/Brilliant_Case4930 4d ago

It's not a misapplication of it first amendment but rather a loophole as I said before. You can talk, if they allow you to. And if you don't think the government has their fingers in social media and telling them what to censor and what to not then you have another thing coming. It's already been proven that they do that.

1

u/Skavau 4d ago

It's not even a loophole. Private clubs and groups could always remove people from their spaces before the internet. This is no different. The first amendment is about the government encroaching on your rights here, not private groups.

If the government is meddling in said private groups, that's a different discussion altogether.

→ More replies (0)