Georgia run off today.................

Help Support CattleToday:

Caustic Burno said:
With all the censorship going on remember this. Dictators censor they don't get censored.
Click to expand...
Agree. Also, it may be somewhat easy to "admire" some peoples or groups actions when those tend to result in things we think we agree with. But sometimes those actions might be only a few steps away from an authoritarian/dictator approach. We all know of countries that don't put up with crap. They cut your hands off for stealing. Or maybe for disagreeing with their "master". Maybe 30 lashes for chewing tobacco. At some point you realize there is a slippery slope.
These new tech companies operate systems that now have tremendous influence. They are private companies. They can have their terms of service that you must agree to. Is it OK if they were to decide that they will only accept users of a particular political view and ban all others? OK if they only allow users who renounce a particular religion? OK if they require users to pledge allegiance to the United Nations or to the KKK or any other group? They are a private company with their terms and conditions that they can make say anything they want. Is that OK?

The TV networks can report any way they like. But, I believe there are rules that they must allow equal time for opposing views in some cases. I don't know the exact details.
The US postal service is somewhat separate from government. Is it OK if they decide that they won't deliver mail from or to certain people or groups? Because someone has decided that your actions or words conflict with their core beliefs or terms of service? Maybe UPS or FEDEX could decide they won't deliver your stuff because you don't fit their views. Or maybe your phone company or cable company or coffee shop decide that you don't fit their ideal of a good person and refuse you service. Is that OK? Who defines the limits?
Limits on freedom and free expression should be a concern even when they "seem" to be OK at the moment based on a single issue and your view of that single issue. I would rather decide good and bad for myself than to have someone else decide for me. It is a slippery slope. I don't have all the answers, but I do have a lot of questions and concerns.
 
simme said:
Agree. Also, it may be somewhat easy to "admire" some peoples or groups actions when those tend to result in things we think we agree with. But sometimes those actions might be only a few steps away from an authoritarian/dictator approach. We all know of countries that don't put up with crap. They cut your hands off for stealing. Or maybe for disagreeing with their "master". Maybe 30 lashes for chewing tobacco. At some point you realize there is a slippery slope.
These new tech companies operate systems that now have tremendous influence. They are private companies. They can have their terms of service that you must agree to. Is it OK if they were to decide that they will only accept users of a particular political view and ban all others? OK if they only allow users who renounce a particular religion? OK if they require users to pledge allegiance to the United Nations or to the KKK or any other group? They are a private company with their terms and conditions that they can make say anything they want. Is that OK?

The TV networks can report any way they like. But, I believe there are rules that they must allow equal time for opposing views in some cases. I don't know the exact details.
The US postal service is somewhat separate from government. Is it OK if they decide that they won't deliver mail from or to certain people or groups? Because someone has decided that your actions or words conflict with their core beliefs or terms of service? Maybe UPS or FEDEX could decide they won't deliver your stuff because you don't fit their views. Or maybe your phone company or cable company or coffee shop decide that you don't fit their ideal of a good person and refuse you service. Is that OK? Who defines the limits?
Limits on freedom and free expression should be a concern even when they "seem" to be OK at the moment based on a single issue and your view of that single issue. I would rather decide good and bad for myself than to have someone else decide for me. It is a slippery slope. I don't have all the answers, but I do have a lot of questions and concerns.
Click to expand...
The fairness doctrine used to require that tv broadcasters dedicate time to controversial issues and that they present alternate points of view, but it no longer exists. Reagan nixed it in the name of "free speech" and we've been spiraling into a more and more partisan news world since.

The slippery slope argument holds merit if you truly believe that platforms are censoring conservative thought. Of course, they aren't doing that. They are censoring dangerous propaganda, calls to violence, and insurrection. Trump didn't get banned from Twitter until he literally provoked an attack on the US government. All kinds of conservatives still have Twitter accounts. If you want to Tweet about pro-life causes or tax cuts or pictures of your day at the shooting range, go right ahead. You won't get banned or censored.

If we decide that the tech companies have to provide a platform for all, the tech companies will argue that they can't be held responsible for the content, as they've tried to do in the past. Ultimately, courts have ruled that sites like Facebook are responsible for moderating their communities and prohibiting illegal activity. A good recent example would be that many pornography sites had a policy that people who uploaded videos were responsible for them. If the video depicted a minor, sexual assault, abuse, etc., it wasn't the site's responsibility to identify and remove it. Even the victim contacted the site and asked for the video to be removed, they would say, "Sorry, we're just a platform. Ask the video uploader to take it down." Fortunately, legislation is in the works that would allow the victims to sue the platform for hosting these videos. Just the proposal led to a massive crackdown on illegal and controversial content on these sites, which I think is great. Notably, the legislative push is being led by Josh Hawley, so apparently he isn't in favor of absolute free speech without boundaries, either.

If you want to hold websites accountable for their content, that means they're going to censor some stuff in ways some people think is unfair. If you want them to be a free-for-all, that means they'll be allowing some stuff that we all agree is wrong. You can't have it both ways.
 
Buck Randall said:
The fairness doctrine used to require that tv broadcasters dedicate time to controversial issues and that they present alternate points of view, but it no longer exists. Reagan nixed it in the name of "free speech" and we've been spiraling into a more and more partisan news world since.

The slippery slope argument holds merit if you truly believe that platforms are censoring conservative thought. Of course, they aren't doing that. They are censoring dangerous propaganda, calls to violence, and insurrection. Trump didn't get banned from Twitter until he literally provoked an attack on the US government. All kinds of conservatives still have Twitter accounts. If you want to Tweet about pro-life causes or tax cuts or pictures of your day at the shooting range, go right ahead. You won't get banned or censored.

If we decide that the tech companies have to provide a platform for all, the tech companies will argue that they can't be held responsible for the content, as they've tried to do in the past. Ultimately, courts have ruled that sites like Facebook are responsible for moderating their communities and prohibiting illegal activity. A good recent example would be that many pornography sites had a policy that people who uploaded videos were responsible for them. If the video depicted a minor, sexual assault, abuse, etc., it wasn't the site's responsibility to identify and remove it. Even the victim contacted the site and asked for the video to be removed, they would say, "Sorry, we're just a platform. Ask the video uploader to take it down." Fortunately, legislation is in the works that would allow the victims to sue the platform for hosting these videos. Just the proposal led to a massive crackdown on illegal and controversial content on these sites, which I think is great. Notably, the legislative push is being led by Josh Hawley, so apparently he isn't in favor of absolute free speech without boundaries, either.

If you want to hold websites accountable for their content, that means they're going to censor some stuff in ways some people think is unfair. If you want them to be a free-for-all, that means they'll be allowing some stuff that we all agree is wrong. You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't have all the answers. Don't assume that my concern is about conservative views being censored. My concern applies to censoring at either end of the spectrum. What is conservative or liberal to some might be the opposite to others. Censoring at either end is no better or worse than the other. At some point, censorship might turn into persecution then dictatorship. Finding that balance is the hard part. Probably will be OK if we have free and fair elections and all stay mostly honest and not power hungry. Maybe that is the real issue and concern. Like I said, I would rather decide for myself what is good and what is bad than for someone else to do it for me.
 
TennesseeTuxedo said:
i was disappointed in the peaceful supporters of free and fair elections who took it upon themselves to visit the inside of the US Capitol last week, made us look like Democrats and as a rule we're better than that.
Click to expand...
Not better, just less organized
 
TennesseeTuxedo said:
Your little tag line is interesting old timer considering your party wants people judged by the color of their skin (or sexual orientation) rather than the content of their character. Or qualifications for that matter.
Click to expand...
I have been thinking about your statement here for a while and I would like to ask how I should judge you on your character.
 

Similar threads

Warren Allison
Georgia Market Bulletin ads. 100 years old!
Replies
3
Views
174
Warren Allison
Warren Allison
Warren Allison
Hog Auction today
Replies
8
Views
313
Logan52
L
ksmit454
Well this happened today…..
Replies
10
Views
765
TCRanch
TCRanch
jltrent
Walmart laying off people.........
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
greybeard
greybeard
Brute 23
Buying Milo Straight Off The Farm
Replies
6
Views
707
Brute 23
Brute 23

Latest posts

Top