There's No Free Speech In Social Media

Especially since we are talking about people starring at words and images on a screen and not real life, if one wishes to be coddled from hurty words, then they should have to pay extra for a company or daddy government to work and coddle you from those words. But, let everyone else have free speech (if the owner of the website allows it). Why in the free world, would gov entities ever step in regarding something like speach? Get the F outta here with that

a reply to: Salamandy

Reminds me of the 90s with the ratings systems on musical albums and in theaters. Who the F asked the government for that nonsense?

a reply to: Degradation33

so all I got from that is you actually do think your laws and corps govern the world, I'm sorry but they don't.

this is a monetisation issue for the platforms.. everything stems from that including the legal concepts being applied.

I've worked with us corps deploying hr system and your legal concepts simply don't gel with most of the world, its not helped that a large chunk of the world still uses English contract law and its interpretations. thus the places these issues are decided that is the arbitration hubs are in London, Singapore, Hong Kong, Paris and Geneva..

its why your corporates don't push certain things into the me as they'd run foul of local laws/contracts in the same way all your theories run foul of more open societies than your own..

why on earth do you think those cultures more feminist than yours are pushing back at antiquated Victorian pseudoscientific views on sex, gender and race.. its also why they fall foul of laws outside the usa and are seen as being discriminatory especially to left wing women.. my twitter feed has 2 groups the first is Cats i like cats and as a csa survivor the the second is left wing women.. nothing is going to stop them speaking out against modern pseudoscience.

your corporates know this hence they treat different jurisdictions differently.. In terms of social media there are 3 clear groupings these appear to be north America, UK and EU, the UK gov can get upset at rumble but in the same vein the USA can't do much about bitchute or only-fans. what they are all trying to do is stop groups they don't like masking money hence this is a contract law issue first and foremast..

there is no one of court/jurisdiction authority or culture in play so no one legal premise or ring to rule them all..

a reply to: Degradation33

Yes...tho we fail to understand: the very platforms we need to use....are always...always, owned by somebody. No free speech if the "owners" don't allow it. Their rules, not ours..."free speech".

Start your own damn platform....and you STILL cannot utilize 100% free...speech.

a reply to: mysterioustranger

Right, but I thought this was about government meddling in private social media platforms

a reply to: Salamandy

No. They aren't "private", right? Owned, corporate, rules. As a "business" w licensing by Gov to even operate...social media isn't "free". Where did you think that?

a reply to: mysterioustranger

Start your own damn platform....and you STILL cannot utilize 100% free...speech.

And then meta took Azov from the list of blocked content because terrorists aint terrorists no more. Who cannot utilize 100% free speech now, you or meta?

No idea in which universe you're having this debate, but it clearly hasn't anything to do with ours.

a reply to: Insurrectile
Apparently

a reply to: Michael44

with you example of academic either free expression exists or it doesn't there is no worktable in-between except killing off all the dissenters..

all they can put in is a very high bar.. as you used a uk linky academic censorship risks becoming not only illegal and discriminatory but financially costly.

that is the issue all govs and social media face, the courts, as the bar is set at different hights by different courts not by private companies, ideologies or individuals..

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: Degradation33

Yes...tho we fail to understand: the very platforms we need to use....are always...always, owned by somebody. No free speech if the "owners" don't allow it. Their rules, not ours..."free speech".

Start your own damn platform....and you STILL cannot utilize 100% free...speech.

I would argue the bar is set by courts in various legal jurisdictions rather than govs or owners..

a reply to: nickyw

Exactly. You proved my point. Someone else's stuff, their rule(s). You have no real freedom of speech....unless you own the platform, the twrs, satellites in space ..we don't, never will. And the courts continue...

See...only Elon ..who owns the media, equip, towers, satellites, and media platforms...can have his "freedom to speak-freely". It's all his stuff....still? See, he catches crap too from the court(s) and court of public opinion worldwide.

As hippies, we learned a valuable insight in freedom. "Freedom"...many times, can be most restrictive. Its when 1 walks it everyday...that it becomes obvious. There are rules for freedom. And sacrifices to have it...

Best

a reply to: mysterioustranger

not even if you own the platform, maybe if you had a platform at home with 1 user, speaking to yourself aside from that it defaults to the courts to test the bar as to what can reasonably be said.

we've seen in the uk even the regulators misinterpret the laws and are held as they get tested in court.

in the uk the bar is set in terms of causing harm and/or intruding on the rights of others..