MSNBC: “Elon is trying to control how people think. That’s our job.”

[progressive hunter]

So here's a question. Who's job is it to tell you how to think then? Is it Musk's? It's looking more like he wants the job,

its no ones job to tell anyone what to think and elon isnt doing it anyway,,

hes just giving people the ability to say what they think without interference,,

 

[Ringel05]

Individuals are seldom informed enough or educated enough to sift through a bewildering jungle of conflicting "facts" and always hit upon the single accurate reporting of reality. Lies meant to strike at the heart of our ability to distinguish reality from fantasy should be battled with every resource at our disposal. The liars just don't like it.

That's one of the prices we pay for living in a free society, the Constitution guarantees us the right to an open and free exchange of ideas whether we like those ideas or not. You can speak out against that which you see as lies but censoring that speech you disagree with is anathema in a free and open society.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Individuals are seldom informed enough or educated enough to sift through a bewildering jungle of conflicting "facts" and always hit upon the single accurate reporting of reality. Lies meant to strike at the heart of our ability to distinguish reality from fantasy should be battled with every resource at our disposal. The liars just don't like it.

A lazy and fatuous argument for censorship. Who determines in their God-like way the "Truth" from the "Lies."

Are you the truth police? Or your pals in the Media? Go fuck yourself.

People can make up their own minds without your assistance. Your views are Fasict and deeply unAmerican. But that is the Dim way, and as of now you are losing the argument.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Individuals are seldom informed enough or educated enough to sift through a bewildering jungle of conflicting "facts" and always hit upon the single accurate reporting of reality. Lies meant to strike at the heart of our ability to distinguish reality from fantasy should be battled with every resource at our disposal. The liars just don't like it.

Ah - you support the notion of a Ministry of Truth, I see.


You should have one of the older children at the facility explain to you that 1984 was intended as a cautionary tale, not an operating manual.

 

[occupied]

That's one of the prices we pay for living in a free society, the Constitution guarantees us the right to an open and free exchange of ideas whether we like those ideas or not. You can speak out against that which you see as lies but censoring that speech you disagree with is anathema in a free and open society.

So you don't agree with the concept of a dangerous lie then?

 

[occupied]

Ah - you support the notion of a Ministry of Truth, I see.


You should have one of the older children at the facility explain to you that 1984 was intended as a cautionary tale, not an operating manual.

Another knee-jerk reaction to put alongside the rest.

 

[progressive hunter]

So you don't agree with the concept of a dangerous lie then?

when you can prove its a lie we can talk,, until then free speech remains,,

 

[WelfareQueen]

So you don't agree with the concept of a dangerous lie then?

You completely missed the point of his post. Completely.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Another knee-jerk reaction to put alongside the rest.

Not at all.

You are merely too stupid to understand principles.

 

[occupied]

You completely missed the point of his post. Completely.

Well maybe you should butt the fuck out and let him answer first.

 

[Ringel05]

So you don't agree with the concept of a dangerous lie then?

Dangerous lies are still protected by the Constitution. If indeed they do cause provable harm then we have the courts as a recourse to potentially punish those who caused the harm. That is how our system of government is set up. I can yell fire in a crowded theater but if it causes harm then I will be subject to the law both criminal and civil, cause and effect. Censorship is censorship and when we have that we no longer have a free and open society.

 

[WelfareQueen]

when you can prove its a lie we can talk,, until then free speech remains,,

Too bad we didn't have the Truth Police operating when the fake Russian Collusion lie was foisted on the American people for three years. But I guess the Truth Police needs time off occasionally.

 

[occupied]

Dangerous lies are still protected by the Constitution. If indeed they do cause provable harm then we have the courts as a recourse to potentially punish those who caused the harm. That is how our system of government is set up. I can yell fire in a crowded theater but if it causes harm then I will be subject to the law both criminal and civil, cause and effect. Censorship is censorship and when we have that we no longer have a free and open society.

This censorship the right is complaining about has nothing to do with the government and everything to do with how these social media platforms choose to conduct their business. Do you think they are bound by the constitution to carry dangerous content that they would be legally responsible for?

 

[progressive hunter]

This censorship the right is complaining about has nothing to do with the government and everything to do with how these social media platforms choose to conduct their business. Do you think they are bound by the constitution to carry dangerous content that they would be legally responsible for?

they arent legally responsible for any speech on the platform,,

so far youre the only one telling lies,,

 

[WelfareQueen]

This censorship the right is complaining about has nothing to do with the government and everything to do with how these social media platforms choose to conduct their business. Do you think they are bound by the constitution to carry dangerous content that they would be legally responsible for?They

They claim they are open forums for people of differing views and life experiences to share their thoughts.

In reality, they openly censor content that they do not like. And the views they don't like are rarely "dangerous" except in the eyes of people who hate our Constitutionally protected freedoms.

And social media platforms have a legal waiver of liabilty. Either you are lying or you are an idiot. My guess is both depending on the situation.

 

[KoolKolt]

This one might be the most dangerous one to put your trust in.

What is any more dangerous about him than Bill Gates?

 

[Mac-7]

LOL, talk about having a “honest moment”:

Mika has always been all tits and no brains

she used to think Abraham Lincoln was a founding father

 

[Dogmaphobe]

So you don't agree with the concept of a dangerous lie then?

A dangerous lie is promoting the fallacious notion that promoting free speech is in any way inimical to the actual principle involved.

You should stop promoting these dangerous lies, but that is only a suggestion. Were I to suggest you be silenced, that would make me every bit the totalitarian fascist as you.

 

[Ringel05]

This censorship the right is complaining about has nothing to do with the government and everything to do with how these social media platforms choose to conduct their business. Do you think they are bound by the constitution to carry content that they would be legally responsible for?

By law those privately held entities have every right to censor or not censor whatever they want. However when we talk about the "public square" it used to refer to the open exchange of ideas in an open venue. The argument can be made that now social media sites have now become the de-facto "public square" and should be treated as such especially the big three as they have the largest membership by a huge margin. Now do I think that should happen? I'm kinda split on that one, I'm not sure how it can be done or if it could be done. That would depend on the Congress passing laws and the Supreme Court determining if those laws were Constitutional.
As for legally responsibility, that is a potential double edged sword in this day and age of MASSIVE litigation at the drop of a hat. I do not think they should be legally liable for the content of their members, they are providing a space to exchange ideas, chat informally, etc and nothing more. But because they have such deep pocket plaintiffs and their lawyers go after them instead of the person posting on the site. I believe a stop should be put to that in the form of the case being tossed out of court as soon as it's filed as long as it can be shown the venue wasn't knowingly complicit.

 

[Turtlesoup]

LOL, talk about having a “honest moment”:

They mean that they are the professional propagandists and don't want their power usurped by FREE SPEECH.