Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Every Thing Else Board
Georgia run off today.................
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Buck Randall" data-source="post: 1658542" data-attributes="member: 38590"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Buck Randall, post: 1658542, member: 38590"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Every Thing Else Board
Georgia run off today.................
Top