Author Topic: Free speech  (Read 2871 times)

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #100 on: June 03, 2020, 01:35:55 PM »
...When I was in the military I became aware of how 'group think/action' was influencing my actions. When your with 'the boys' stupid doesn't always look like stupid and how your perspective can get skewed.

I imagine this happening in the police culture and understand how easy its to get caught in it, however training should address that and cops held accountable when they fail in that regard or nothing is going to change. The cops targeting media should be disciplined no matter how much I understand why the might go after them.

In all situations there are pressures that affect how you react. The pressure you put on yourself, peer pressure, family pressure, and pressure from authority. Training can help how a person reacts to that pressure - but those applying the pressure should also realize how to mitigate pressure they put on others.

"Going after media" is not an order given - nor not likely a pre-conceived strategy. However, it is easy to be convinced there are false-flag tricksters out there, so not assuming anyone is what they seem can be understandable. That guy who dressed up like National Guard, with firearms is a case in point.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #101 on: June 03, 2020, 01:52:22 PM »
When I was in the military I became aware of how 'group think/action' was influencing my actions. When your with 'the boys' stupid doesn't always look like stupid and how your perspective can get skewed.

I imagine this happening in the police culture and understand how easy its to get caught in it, however training should address that and cops held accountable when they fail in that regard or nothing is going to change. The cops targeting media should be disciplined no matter how much I understand why the might go after them.
I find this point interesting, because it affects all sides in the current environment - the police, the demonstrators, the "organically-violent" mob, heck even the journalists and onlookers, to certain degrees.  An additional problem arrises when people don't recognize this dynamic, or only selectively acknowledge it.

Sure. The military paradigm is to follow orders, because the pointy end of the stick is not aware of all the info that went into making those orders. However; the earlier posts about the Nuremberg Trials are also pertinent. No soldier is allowed to follow orders they know to be illegal. One of the oldest rules is that no officer should give orders he knows will not be followed.

Well, some of the "you follow orders, and don't get to question them" is part legacy of the older military forces where your rank and file often could be the dregs of society.

In the modern military "you follow orders, and don't get to questions them(right now)" is part of the reality that in a combat situation, you don't have time to debate over what the best options are, you have to trust that the people in charge know what they're doing(until they demonstrate otherwise).

But back to:
Quote
When I was in the military I became aware of how 'group think/action' was influencing my actions. When your with 'the boys' stupid doesn't always look like stupid and how your perspective can get skewed.

For the military in particular, part of this is a deliberate outcome of training. They want unit cohesion, so in that respect group psychology has special relevance for a military unit that probably only really sees anything comparable in FireFights, SWAT teams, and paramedics by and large. Regular law enforcement trails behind the rest of them on list by a wide margin, especially those operating in situations where they're running solo most of the time.

It also is why a lot of the feedback from Iraq and Afghanistan vets about how they think a police officer should behave "based on their experience" turns into a "does not translate" scenario. Dealing with an Afghani with a squad and combat medic often backing you up that you've been working side-by-side with for months is a very different situation from a lone officer confronting an unknown person by their lonesome self.

Sure they can wait for backup, then do it, and now you may have 2, 3, 4, or half-a-dozen guys there now, but they're not a squad in anything resembling the context most Grunts would tend to understand it. Sure "ad-hoc" groups of Grunts often do happen in war-time, but operating as a squad is something they're trained for, it's natural for them. For that solo cop? It's abnormal.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #102 on: June 03, 2020, 02:06:14 PM »
Wait, so your argument is that there's more pressure on the police than on soldiers in war?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #103 on: June 03, 2020, 02:52:26 PM »
Wait, so your argument is that there's more pressure on the police than on soldiers in war?

Not more, different.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #104 on: June 03, 2020, 02:58:56 PM »
Is it only set when the president shouts, "I am setting a policy!"?
Most president's wouldn't shout to do so, but yes, wondering about sending in troops, or threatening to send in troops, or tweeting about thinking about troops, does not policy make.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #105 on: June 03, 2020, 03:59:38 PM »
Is it only set when the president shouts, "I am setting a policy!"?
Most president's wouldn't shout to do so, but yes, wondering about sending in troops, or threatening to send in troops, or tweeting about thinking about troops, does not policy make.

To an extent, but the President does make policy by what he orders done. In the Ukraine kerfuffle, Bureaucrats were pretending that the way they had done something in the past was policy and not what the President wanted done.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #106 on: June 03, 2020, 04:28:05 PM »
Is it only set when the president shouts, "I am setting a policy!"?
Most president's wouldn't shout to do so, but yes, wondering about sending in troops, or threatening to send in troops, or tweeting about thinking about troops, does not policy make.

That is true. I would argue that the tweets about such "wondering" is poor leadership especially as sometimes it does reflect policy -  kind of a 'truthful hyperbole policy' type of communication which contains truths but also doesn't.  And you never get to know when. The communication method confuses things which may be the intent.

I don't know of many other leaders that use this medium in quite the same way as Trump does, nor any that could get away with it if they tried.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #107 on: June 03, 2020, 04:30:53 PM »
That is true. I would argue that the tweets about such "wondering" is poor leadership especially as sometimes it does reflect policy -  kind of a 'truthful hyperbole policy' type of communication which contains truths but also doesn't.  And you never get to know when. The communication method confuses things which may be the intent.

I don't know of many other leaders that use this medium in quite the same way as Trump does, nor any that could get away with it if they tried.

I'd lay odds it happens more than you'd think behind closed doors. Trump is unique only in the regard that he does it in public, which means it drives everyone batty, rather than just the small groups of people who normally would hear such things in diplomatic meetings or upper-tier decision making levels.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #108 on: June 03, 2020, 04:55:41 PM »
That is true. I would argue that the tweets about such "wondering" is poor leadership especially as sometimes it does reflect policy -  kind of a 'truthful hyperbole policy' type of communication which contains truths but also doesn't.  And you never get to know when. The communication method confuses things which may be the intent.

I don't know of many other leaders that use this medium in quite the same way as Trump does, nor any that could get away with it if they tried.

I'd lay odds it happens more than you'd think behind closed doors. Trump is unique only in the regard that he does it in public, which means it drives everyone batty, rather than just the small groups of people who normally would hear such things in diplomatic meetings or upper-tier decision making levels.

But isn't that the problem - he does his wondering publicly.

I don't know any CEO that would get away with doing that publicly (at that level). Elon Musk comes to mind but its hurt how he is perceived as a leader and person. (I think) 

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #109 on: June 03, 2020, 05:09:57 PM »
That is true. I would argue that the tweets about such "wondering" is poor leadership especially as sometimes it does reflect policy -  kind of a 'truthful hyperbole policy' type of communication which contains truths but also doesn't.  And you never get to know when. The communication method confuses things which may be the intent.

I don't know of many other leaders that use this medium in quite the same way as Trump does, nor any that could get away with it if they tried.

I'd lay odds it happens more than you'd think behind closed doors. Trump is unique only in the regard that he does it in public, which means it drives everyone batty, rather than just the small groups of people who normally would hear such things in diplomatic meetings or upper-tier decision making levels.

But isn't that the problem - he does his wondering publicly.

I don't know any CEO that would get away with doing that publicly (at that level). Elon Musk comes to mind but its hurt how he is perceived as a leader and person. (I think)
And of course, getting back to the point - Crunch was suggesting that such wondering actually counts as setting policy.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #110 on: June 04, 2020, 07:58:53 AM »
You’re suggesting that every single thing Trump says is official US policy. That’s just dumb. Trump says he likes ice cream, you would insist that means it’s official US policy to require ice cream at all meals.


Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #111 on: June 04, 2020, 08:23:33 AM »
You’re suggesting that every single thing Trump says is official US policy. That’s just dumb. Trump says he likes ice cream, you would insist that means it’s official US policy to require ice cream at all meals.

Watch all of his FOX News fundies run out to buy ice cream cones at 7AM if he said that on FOX and Friends.  It's not policy, but he is telling them what to think and do. 

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #112 on: June 04, 2020, 08:48:01 AM »
You’re suggesting that every single thing Trump says is official US policy. That’s just dumb. Trump says he likes ice cream, you would insist that means it’s official US policy to require ice cream at all meals.
No, you were the one that outright stated that Trump talking or tweeting about sending in troops was literally setting policy that the "SecDef" should publicly support, or if not, resign.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #113 on: June 04, 2020, 09:54:03 AM »
You’re suggesting that every single thing Trump says is official US policy. That’s just dumb. Trump says he likes ice cream, you would insist that means it’s official US policy to require ice cream at all meals.
No, you were the one that outright stated that Trump talking or tweeting about sending in troops was literally setting policy that the "SecDef" should publicly support, or if not, resign.

You really don't follow along. It's gotta be intentional.

SecDef can disagree all he wants, he can get into shouting matches with Trump over the policy, scream and rage if he likes. That's ok as long as he does it behind closed doors. Once the policy is set by the President, SecDef should support it to the best of his ability or he should resign. That's the way it works in the big leagues when the adults are running things.

I said the SecDef should argue in private about what the policy should be. Not publicly. And when that policy is set, SecDef can get behind it or resign.

Dude, you really gotta stop just making things up. It is almost insane how much you create strawman arguments. You're the king of the strawmen.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #114 on: June 04, 2020, 10:12:08 AM »
You just literally repeated the point I made, while suggesting that somehow, my characterization was incorrect.

Read it again.

Trump publicly threatened to use the military domestically, against civilians.  He did not order it to be done.  He floated a trial balloon, for all intents and purposes.  As such, it was NOT policy that has been "set".

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #115 on: June 04, 2020, 10:36:04 AM »
That's a major problem with 'Tweet leadership' is discerning the difference between 'set policy' and 'trial balloon' which tends to be left to the eye of the beholder. That 'pig don't fly = that wasn't meant to imply policy.

'Tweet leadership' is in its infancy. As such does the SecDef or any other public official have the right to comment publicly on 'trial balloon' tweets?

If Trump doesn't engage in honest discussion in a formal setting and their is no other communication channel open to be heard, and everyone has to resign if they disagree publicly because they have no other way to be heard.. we are left with a 'strong man' dictator surrounded by yes men?

This is truly dangerous ground.
   

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #116 on: June 04, 2020, 11:07:24 AM »
That's a major problem with 'Tweet leadership' is discerning the difference between 'set policy' and 'trial balloon' which tends to be left to the eye of the beholder. That 'pig don't fly = that wasn't meant to imply policy.

'Tweet leadership' is in its infancy. As such does the SecDef or any other public official have the right to comment publicly on 'trial balloon' tweets?

If Trump doesn't engage in honest discussion in a formal setting and their is no other communication channel open to be heard, and everyone has to resign if they disagree publicly because they have no other way to be heard.. we are left with a 'strong man' dictator surrounded by yes men?

This is truly dangerous ground.

Agreed.  When it suits him, Trump says a given tweet is just his personal opinion (free speech), a retweet just to share someone else's opinion, a joke, a statement of intent regarding policy, or an official pronouncement.  It usually depends on how severe the pushback is.  He's addicted, so he won't stop, so maybe he should start using labels.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #117 on: June 04, 2020, 11:30:11 AM »
You just literally repeated the point I made, while suggesting that somehow, my characterization was incorrect.

Read it again.

Trump publicly threatened to use the military domestically, against civilians.  He did not order it to be done.  He floated a trial balloon, for all intents and purposes.  As such, it was NOT policy that has been "set".

To be fair I think Crunch's post had a minor typo which is causing confusion. He wrote that the SecDef shouldn't be arguing "over the policy" in public, but I think what he meant to write was that he shouldn't be arguing "over policy" in public, meaning, arguing in public about what policy should be.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #118 on: June 04, 2020, 11:38:22 AM »
You just literally repeated the point I made, while suggesting that somehow, my characterization was incorrect.

Read it again.

Trump publicly threatened to use the military domestically, against civilians.  He did not order it to be done.  He floated a trial balloon, for all intents and purposes.  As such, it was NOT policy that has been "set".

To be fair I think Crunch's post had a minor typo which is causing confusion. He wrote that the SecDef shouldn't be arguing "over the policy" in public, but I think what he meant to write was that he shouldn't be arguing "over policy" in public, meaning, arguing in public about what policy should be.

Crunch can't parse his own words?  "Policy" and "the policy" when stated mean the same thing when talking about a specific statement from the President about how He wants the government to respond to civil disobedience.  Unless Trump wasn't stating his policy and was just offering an opinion, in which case Esper wasn't challenging policy but just offering his own opinion.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #119 on: June 04, 2020, 11:50:01 AM »
You just literally repeated the point I made, while suggesting that somehow, my characterization was incorrect.

Read it again.

Trump publicly threatened to use the military domestically, against civilians.  He did not order it to be done.  He floated a trial balloon, for all intents and purposes.  As such, it was NOT policy that has been "set".

To be fair I think Crunch's post had a minor typo which is causing confusion. He wrote that the SecDef shouldn't be arguing "over the policy" in public, but I think what he meant to write was that he shouldn't be arguing "over policy" in public, meaning, arguing in public about what policy should be.
No.  He was very specific: "Once the policy is set by the President, SecDef should support it to the best of his ability or he should resign. "  Since he used this statement to support his position that the SecDef should no longer be SecDef, he was pretty clearly stating that he thought the policy had been set, and that they were not just debating policy in private.  Interestingly, he doesn't actually discuss the discussion of policy in public, or what the SecDef's responsibility should be public suggestions about how the military might be used... 

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #120 on: June 04, 2020, 12:00:46 PM »
How is this not a statement of policy?

Quote
If a city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #121 on: June 04, 2020, 01:00:39 PM »
It is even more strange to suggest that a cabinet level official shouldn't speak about future policy for their department. Or is it just when they disagree with the non-policy musings of the Orange God?

Do you apply this to former cabinet officials also, like Mattis? He did resign, so it must be fine right?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #122 on: June 04, 2020, 01:02:06 PM »
No.  He was very specific: "Once the policy is set by the President, SecDef should support it to the best of his ability or he should resign. "  Since he used this statement to support his position that the SecDef should no longer be SecDef, he was pretty clearly stating that he thought the policy had been set, and that they were not just debating policy in private.  Interestingly, he doesn't actually discuss the discussion of policy in public, or what the SecDef's responsibility should be public suggestions about how the military might be used...

In case there was doubt about the intent of his post, Crunch posted this to clarify:

Quote
You’re suggesting that every single thing Trump says is official US policy. That’s just dumb. Trump says he likes ice cream, you would insist that means it’s official US policy to require ice cream at all meals.

I suppose we can conclude from this that it wasn't an effective clarification, but it means that Crunch was asserting that the SecDef was arguing in public about a proposal, not about a set policy. You can disagree about whether Trump's post reflected an actual policy (e.g. "I will do this under X condition") but Crunch seems to be basing his post on the assumption that Trump's post is technically informal yet stating his current belief. So it's his intention, but not U.S. policy. The difference between those has been shown to be significant thus far. For example it was Trump's personal intention to put up the wall, but U.S. policy was harder to make happen.

I'm not even arguing about what the SecDef should or shouldn't do, or whether Crunch's posts are reasonable or not. But I believe that people are arguing against something other than what he said. I'm sure there's plenty of hay to go around even if you stick to the intent of his posts  ;D

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #123 on: June 04, 2020, 01:31:21 PM »
Yes, Crunch was (likely) "asserting that the SecDef was arguing in public about a proposal, not about a set policy."  He also asserted that, specifically in light of that, that the SecDef should no longer be the SecDef, and that he should resign. That is what I observed.

From this, it is clear that Crunch believes that SecDef publicly disagreeing with the president about a publicly floated proposal in the area of the military, one which had not been formalized, which had not previously been discussed with the SecDef, and one of questionable constitutionality, is not just a rationale for him to be fired, but reason enough that Crunch thinks he should be fired.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #124 on: June 04, 2020, 01:36:01 PM »
Quote from: Crunch"
...SecDef can disagree all he wants, he can get into shouting matches with Trump over the policy, scream and rage if he likes. That's ok as long as he does it behind closed doors. Once the policy is set by the President, SecDef should support it to the best of his ability or he should resign. That's the way it works in the big leagues when the adults are running things.

...I said the SecDef should argue in private about what the policy should be. Not publicly. And when that policy is set, SecDef can get behind it or resign.

Pretty clear. I was upset during the Ukraine hearings when so many holdovers from Obama were citing that what they wanted was official policy, whereas Trump was off-base. After eight years of Obama and Biden, no one knows what his policies were.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #125 on: June 04, 2020, 02:20:12 PM »
Quote from: Crunch"
...SecDef can disagree all he wants, he can get into shouting matches with Trump over the policy, scream and rage if he likes. That's ok as long as he does it behind closed doors. Once the policy is set by the President, SecDef should support it to the best of his ability or he should resign. That's the way it works in the big leagues when the adults are running things.

...I said the SecDef should argue in private about what the policy should be. Not publicly. And when that policy is set, SecDef can get behind it or resign.

Pretty clear. I was upset during the Ukraine hearings when so many holdovers from Obama were citing that what they wanted was official policy, whereas Trump was off-base. After eight years of Obama and Biden, no one knows what his policies were.

Do you think part of that was not going through usual channels? Normally, there's President -> Sec State -> Dep Sec State -> Ambassador -> Embassy personnel

I get why Trump doesn't do that, he would consider such a process ponderous and a waste of his time. I get why others hate bureaucracy.  But I wonder if a Policy trail actually existed in any formal way via memos, directives, talking points, etc.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #126 on: June 04, 2020, 03:15:59 PM »
From this, it is clear that Crunch believes that SecDef publicly disagreeing with the president about a publicly floated proposal in the area of the military, one which had not been formalized, which had not previously been discussed with the SecDef, and one of questionable constitutionality, is not just a rationale for him to be fired, but reason enough that Crunch thinks he should be fired.

I think his point is that any discussion should be done behind closed doors and not in public. Putting aside whether that's a fireable offense, I can tell you that it's perfectly clear to me that someone working in my company and posting on social media about disagreeing with an idea I have would be a serious breach of decorum. Now you can argue that Trump has no decorum in the first place, but nevertheless if the 'CEO' wants to muse in public, for better or worse, that doesn't open up the forum to have those working for him (or at any rate, with him, but at a lower level) to chime in and start having a debate. That's really bad form. Whether it's fireable I don't really know; that seems like an overreaction to me, but we would definitely be having a talk. In fact, I've had occasion where someone starts challenging an idea in a group chat in a way that I think is unprofessional, and in such cases I tell them to PM me privately or have a meeting to hash out disagreements.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #127 on: June 04, 2020, 03:20:20 PM »
...Normally, there's President -> Sec State -> Dep Sec State -> Ambassador -> Embassy personnel

No. That ended when Bush 43 reorganized the office of the President and brought long-needed professionalism to the White House. Too few have ever mentioned how important that change has been.

Trump is a communication-focused president, just like Reagan was. If he can make one statement go to 17 intel agencies at one go - then that is how he will proceed. Information chains is something out of a party game, to see who can guess what the original message was when it was first given.

Trump recognized the noise in the system from day one. There are swamp monsters who will undercut anything they disagree with. Worse than just that, they leak to a complicit media to drive disinformation.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #128 on: June 04, 2020, 03:32:03 PM »
Trump recognized the noise in the system from day one. There are swamp monsters who will undercut anything they disagree with. Worse than just that, they leak to a complicit media to drive disinformation.

Wow, you sure know a lot about about Trump's inner thoughts and motives.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #129 on: June 04, 2020, 04:10:08 PM »
Wow, you sure know a lot about about Trump's inner thoughts and motives.

I guess after you read Obama's autobiographies that you went on to read Trump's autobiographies? No inner thoughts when they're all spelled out. Of course, sometimes one needs to look at footnotes and bibliographies for clarity. Once that is done, it is easier to understand. Do you know how far I had to dive down to find out the often misquoted Access Hollywood quote of Trump was from a Matt Lauer Roast? Locker room talk that was not what it seemed. Yet most hatred of Trump starts from there.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #130 on: June 04, 2020, 04:50:46 PM »
Yes, Crunch was (likely) "asserting that the SecDef was arguing in public about a proposal, not about a set policy."  He also asserted that, specifically in light of that, that the SecDef should no longer be the SecDef, and that he should resign. That is what I observed.

From this, it is clear that Crunch believes that SecDef publicly disagreeing with the president about a publicly floated proposal in the area of the military, one which had not been formalized, which had not previously been discussed with the SecDef, and one of questionable constitutionality, is not just a rationale for him to be fired, but reason enough that Crunch thinks he should be fired.

As a public, and political, official, SecDef has every right to make public comments on his views of a (political) policy decision, proposed or otherwise. Now the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would be a slightly different matter, but that depends on the context of the situation.

But also as SecDef, he does work at the pleasure of the President, so it is literally up to Trump on if he remains in the post or not. Although Trump does need to be mindful of Nixon and what happened when he wound up needing to fire multiple people before getting someone who would issue the desired order(and promptly resign themselves).

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #131 on: June 17, 2020, 05:40:27 PM »
Related to section 530 protections. Google wants to claim shelter under it... But when it comes to others:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/16/tech/google-federalist-zerohedge-advertising-ban/index.html
Quote
Google has taken action against two news websites over what it says are offensive remarks in their comment sections, banning one site from making money off its advertising platforms and threatening to ban the other.

"We can't be held responsible for user generated content. But when it comes to companies that use our advertising platform, if we don't agree with their politics, or the politics of people commenting on their content. No mercy."

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #132 on: June 17, 2020, 05:44:40 PM »
I guess you're quoting yourself there?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #133 on: June 17, 2020, 05:59:40 PM »
And correction to the previous post, section 230, not 530.
I guess you're quoting yourself there?

The Quote block is CNN reporting on it.

The other quote is a sarcastic paraphrase, but if you want a more direct one:

Quote
"We have strict publisher policies that govern the content ads can run on, which includes comments on the site," a Google spokesperson said in a statement. "If the site remedies the issues with derogatory or offensive comments, they can be reinstated."
« Last Edit: June 17, 2020, 06:03:30 PM by TheDeamon »

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #134 on: June 17, 2020, 06:18:48 PM »
Except that isn't at all equivalent, and you know it. 530 means Google can't sue zerohedge for their content. Zerohedge can have thousands of comments making libelous statements against Google executives, and there's not a damn thing they can do about it. 530 also protects selective bans and comment removal. Like when Twitter pulled the plug on ZeroHedge earlier this year.

Google clearly has a duty to its advertisers to keep their ads from showing up next to content that they might find objectionable. Just like an ad agency might pull a media buy on behalf of their client if a show host said something objectionable.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #135 on: July 02, 2020, 09:42:54 PM »
Looks like Facebook grew a spine. Or caved in, I guess. Depending on which side of the political divide you're on.

https://www.businessinsider.com/zuckerberg-facebook-not-gonna-change-due-to-advertising-boycott-report-2020-7

Quote
"We're not gonna change our policies or approach on anything because of a threat to a small percent of our revenue, or to any percent of our revenue," Zuckerberg said during a virtual town hall on Friday, according to The Information.

...

"If someone goes out there and threatens you to do something, that actually kind of puts you in a box where in some ways it's even harder to do what they want because now it looks like you're capitulating, and that sets up bad long-term incentives for others to do that [to you] as well," Zuckerberg told employees, according to The Information.

In an email to Business Insider, a Facebook representative said: "We take these matters very seriously and respect the feedback from our partners. We're making real progress keeping hate speech off our platform, and we don't benefit from this kind of content. But as we've said, we make policy changes based on principles, not revenue pressures."

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Free speech
« Reply #136 on: July 03, 2020, 03:48:58 AM »
The money quote:

Quote
"But as we've said, we make policy changes based on principles, not revenue pressures."

In translation, "As long as we're making a *censored*load of money, we'll do whatever the *censored* we want."