Michele Malkin censored

[dogmush]

You're playing a little fast and loose with the definition of censorship there, aren't you?  Assuming she is telling the truth then she was censored by multiple platforms colluding to suppress her content.  Whether that content is right and true is a separate discussion.  Whether that content is currently available via other sources is immaterial.  To claim that at least two of the largest social media platforms working together to restrict her content - even the sharing of links to alternate sources - is not censorship ... well, I guess newspeak goes right along with censorship, doesn't it?

Perhaps, but no faster or looser than claiming content that is freely available to anyone with an internet connection has been "censored".

On AOC, some days I really do wish social media would not make her rambling quite so easy to find for the echo chamber crowd. It gets old, fast hearing the same drivel regurgitated ad nauseam. If I owned a social media site or forum,  she would not be welcome there.

[cordex]

Perhaps, but no faster or looser than claiming content that is freely available to anyone with an internet connection has been "censored".

What exactly do you think "censored" means?

[DittoHead]

How about if a media platform wants that sweet government money in the form of contracts and partnerships they have to follow freedom of speech in spirit if not letter.

Would that really change anything? Seems to me like most of these companies would be just fine without any government work. Is that a major source of revenue for them?

[Ron]

Would that really change anything? Seems to me like most of these companies would be just fine without any government work. Is that a major source of revenue for them?

You're right, they should be required to have higher standards of allowing free speech on principle alone, regardless of any financial ties.

You cannot pick and choose who to provide service to in a retail environment and these leftist companies shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose who can express their opinions on their public platform.

[dogmush]

You cannot pick and choose who to provide service to in a retail environment and these leftist companies shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose who can express their opinions on their public platform.

Sure you can.  When I worked security at bars, I routinely threw people out for saying things I deemed unacceptable. Probably at least one per shift, if not more.

[Ron]

Sure you can.  When I worked security at bars, I routinely threw people out for saying things I deemed unacceptable. Probably at least one per shift, if not more.

It's unacceptable to have real conservative, traditional or rightest positions on social media if the content questions the leftist narrative these social media companies are driving.

They've hired a bunch of internet versions of bouncers and will just kick you off.

We have to let the communist/Marxist/insane leftists take over and program the masses through propaganda on principle.

It's a libertarian paradise.

[dogmush]

Libertarians didn't cause this mess.

Whomever gave social media companies immunity from consequences for the crap they publish did.

[Ron]

Libertarians didn't cause this mess.

Whomever gave social media companies immunity from consequences for the crap they publish did.

We always hear the argument that "they are a corporation", "they can make their own rules as to who they allow on their platform".

Do you honestly think that if it was Donald Trump who started and ran Facebook, if he started purging leftists and leftist thought, that he would get a pass from government regulators? From financial, media and other global institutions?

I'm not sure who is the dog and who is the tail between govmnt and the corporations. But in our fascist state, the financial institutions are deplatforming the right by eliminating most common forms of funding while social media employs bouncers to kick off the right for "saying things they deem unacceptable". The government supports and cheers them on.

Leftists are granted maximum liberty, freedom and support to institute their programs and systems from the government.

The right is hardly even allowed any representation, even in the one political party that purportedly is supposed to represent their interests.

Those of a rightward persuasion were shuttled into the dead end of libertarianism as a ideology years ago. Libertarian thought is at best a branch and not the trunk regarding freedom. Libertarianism always leads to leftism in the USA.

The left has used our attachment to libertarian thought, libertarian ideas severed from Christian morality and traditional nationalism, to usurp the whole system. Any movement from those on the right away from abstract libertarian ideas is labeled authoritarian and is used to make the right out as fascists ... by the fascist state/media controllers.

It's inverted clown world. 

"Americans will sell us the rope we'll use to hang them".

[Ben]

A relevant aside. The Youtube CEO just won a free speech award.

https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2021/04/28/we-are-being-trolled-youtube-ceo-wins-free-expression-award-ted-cruz-dave-rubin-and-others-have-thoughts/

[TommyGunn]

A relevant aside. The Youtube CEO just won a free speech award.

https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2021/04/28/we-are-being-trolled-youtube-ceo-wins-free-expression-award-ted-cruz-dave-rubin-and-others-have-thoughts/

Time for this again;

[DittoHead]

they should be required to have higher standards of allowing free speech on principle alone

We have to let the communist/Marxist/insane leftists take over and program the masses through propaganda on principle.

What principles are you talking about here? It sounds like more free speech, less free market? Free speech as a positive right?

[zxcvbob]

Time for this again;
https://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=64378.0;attach=3905;image

Is that the Mark Hamill Joker?  There have been so many interpretations I have trouble keeping them straight.

[Ron]

The operating principle is now that leftist speech is defined from spoken words, to written words all the way to violent protests and riots, it's all good and protected.

The right is increasingly silenced based on the idea that the right commits violence by the very act of verbalizing their philosophy and goals.

How about the principle of not bending over and being the lefts little bitch?

On the flip side, if segregation is what the leftists want we can do that also. The problem is that the left is increasingly refusing to tolerate the right even having its own spaces or institutions through financial deplatforming.

How about the principle of not hounding unapproved right wing voices out of every common media platform, nearly every government institution, nearly every educational institution, how about not tolerating bald faced lies and propaganda 24/7?

I understand the principle that the monopoly dominated "free" market in social media, in coordination with the leftist dominated educational system, judicial system and bureaucracy are free to set the rules.

Maybe we should rethink that if we are really of the right?

[TommyGunn]

Is that the Mark Hamill Joker?  There have been so many interpretations I have trouble keeping them straight.

I dunno.     I stole it off the 'net.

[DittoHead]

I have yet to see a good proposal to remedy the situation.
I don't think a straight repeal of sec. 230 would help, I don't think a new "fairness doctrine" would be a good idea, and I don't think the free market proposals are realistic.

The path forward then is to establish a parallel yet superior infrastructure—an independent backbone for the internet—and to bring onboard the modern pioneers and explorers.

We need a “second internet,” with apps and high-availability cloud hosting, that does not kowtow to woke politics. This infrastructure must be rooted in timeless and universal principles, especially freedom of expression. On a practical level, it also needs to be fully interoperable with the rest of the internet—and welcome users from all parts of the political spectrum who engage in the legal sharing of information.

It's a nice idea, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

[Ron]

I have yet to see a good proposal to remedy the situation.
I don't think a straight repeal of sec. 230 would help, I don't think a new "fairness doctrine" would be a good idea, and I don't think the free market proposals are realistic.It's a nice idea, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Parallel institutions are really our best hope. In reality it is just a different way of saying we need to be allowed to segregate.

What is the difference between segregation and freedom of association? The freedom to segregate is the freedom to associate with whom I want to and the freedom to NOT associate with others.

The left is segregating already by eliminating the right of free association from public and private institutions they control.

Instead of trying to reclaim lost institutions we need to fight for and protect the liberty to set up our own institutions. Unfortunately, the left has allies in the financial/banking world who deny financing or access to payment systems and allies in the tech industry who deplatform the right all the time. The right is being hindered if not outright denied a fundamental right under the cover of "market capitalism". It's not the market making decisions it is monopolies and globalists exercising political and financial muscle.

"Any organization or enterprise that is not expressly right wing will become left wing over time".

The leftists and their fellow travelers seem to be masters of taking over overtly right wing, nationalist/populist movements and bending them away from their founding purpose. We must police the ranks, sidelining the grifters and faux right (see destruction of Tea Party).

Most main stream "right" organizations are safe, converged organizations that offer zero threat to the dominant leftist system. They are ineffective at best and controlled opposition at worse.