This power to censor must end

Received a note from a friend, but not a Facebook friend but a real friend since I am not on Facebook. He wrote, in part:

If you are my friend on Facebook, you won’t be seeing me for a month. I have been sin binned – again.

My reply:

Didn’t know you had been “sin binned” at all not to mention that this is well past the first time. Quite a mark of honour in its own way, although part of an extremely dangerous trend. The leaders of industries in the old days ran railroads and steel mills so their personal opinions about anything mattered not at all. Now these morons are at the centre of the information economy and their prejudices and ignorance affects everything. We are definitely in need of some means to fix this up.

Having seen the chap who runs twitter before Congress the other day and then the video of Google’s post-election mass meeting, and knowing what I know about Zuckerberg, it is depressing to see how utterly out of their depth they are on any political or philosophical issue. They really are ignorant to a fantastic extent. They have immense power over the messages that are able to reach us all, and act as gatekeepers to prevent the ones they don’t like from being received.

This should not be tolerated. If anyone any longer really does care about free speech, the ability of “social media” to censor what we say to each other should be stopped dead in its tracks. Google, Twitter, Facebook and others of their kind are supposedly designed to provide a platform for each of us to talk to each other or to learn from each other. The right to stop us from communicating among ourselves is intolerable and must end.

THE CREEPY LINE: It is all coming out as a movie. A big issue with growing momentum.

More at The Creepy Line | Film News. You can also google it here.

This entry was posted in Freedom of speech, Media. Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to This power to censor must end

  1. Fisky

    The big tech firms should be given a choice, either they assume full editorial responsibility, including for defamation, or they allow the publication of all viewpoints regardless (with exceptions for threatening or other criminal behaviour).

  2. Iampeter

    This should not be tolerated.

    What shouldn’t be tolerated? Free speech and property rights exercised by private enterprise?

    Facebook kicking you off their platform for any reason is not “censorship”.
    Only the government can censor you.

    This is politically illiterate drivel, typical of hopeless conservatives.

    You guys are the worst types of leftist. The kind that don’t understand enough about politics to realize you’re leftists.

  3. NB

    I have just put this on JoNova, but I think it is relevant here as well:

    Gavin Morris of the ABC has admitted to actively lobbying Google to defund competitors, on bases that include whether their competitors’ journalism is ‘trusted’. He admits that an algorithm that did this would have to make ‘value judgements’, but he is ok with that. Not only that, he has used the ABC to promulgate and promote his proposal for collusion and anti-competitive behaviour.

    Note the mixing up of the topics of reward for original journalism and ‘trusted journalism’.

    Navigating The News
    15 September, 2018
    46:15 mins
    Episode 1 What Is News?
    https://iview.abc.net.au/show/navigating-the-news

    Host: Patricia Karvelas, Radio National, ABC News.
    Guests quoted below:
    Gavin Morris, Director of ABC News, Analysis, and Investigations
    Louisa Graham, Chief Executive of Walkley Foundation
    Nicholas Gray, Chief Executive Officer, Australian News Corporation

    Other guests:
    Lisa Davies, Editor, Sydney Morning Herald Fairfax Media Limited
    Simon Crerar, General Manager, Australia, Buzzfeed

    Commences at 40.09
    (Context begins at around 36.30)

    Gavin Morris, ABC:
    I was in a conversation recently with Google and one of the ideas I think we should be actively encouraging is changes in the ad sales rates around trusted content versus non-trusted content. You put a piece of rubbish up on Google or Facebook it gets the same rate of return as if you put a great piece of journalism up. Well, how difficult would it be to change that algorithm slightly to say a piece of local journalism that the algorithm has identified as trusted, is local, is valuable, is all of those things, and sure there are value judgements in that, but the algorithm is already making value judgements, what would be wrong with turning the dial up a bit on those articles that they get a bigger rate of return and a piece of Daily Mail crap that they’ve ripped off from somebody else, turn that right down, and see how long that business model lasts. If the ad sales revenue that the Daily Mail is getting away with from stolen journalism doesn’t get a rate of return, we’ve solved the problem. So why can’t we do that? And why is the onus on us as an industry, when I think there is plenty of scope for us saying to Google, and Facebook, and all the other platforms, we can think about this in a different way if only you tweak the way you return value to the publishers.

    Nicholas Gray, News Corp:
    And they say, oh the algorithm is hard to change, and the engineers, you know, you’ve got to persuade them. Google can make cars drive by themselves.

    Patricia Karvelas, Host, ABC:
    Yeah, it’s so hard, isn’t it, it’s really hard for them. No it’s not hard for them, but it’s about a sense of unity. Actually I’ll get you on this Louise, as you’re kind of the umbrella, you’re friends with all of us, aren’t you. So, it is taking it to that kind of level isn’t it? A sense of a unified perspective on the future of what this topic is, on public interest journalism and on the importance in this country and in this democracy of enhancing that and growing that.

    Louisa Graham, Walkley Foundation:
    Yeah, look I think that’s right, and certainly the learnings that we’ve been receiving from people we’ve been talking to in the US is that there is a strong role for collaboration amongst media organisations, and we are seeing that a little bit now with the ABC and Fairfax but certainly that could work more broadly and really that is, I guess, with the interest of bringing us all together as an industry to establish some of these factors like what is good journalism, what is journalism, within that media landscape, and how we build that trust. But it is also about, again, the diversity of voices and sharing, so, and there is a role for the Walkleys to play, I guess, in bringing everyone together and working as an industry because that’s what is going to save us, rather than all being at loggerheads with each other. We are in crisis as an industry, disruption, like a lot of industries, so it is important that everyone works together.

  4. Jumpnmcar

    The laeotropic decline continues apace.

  5. Mark A

    Jumpnmcar
    #2818130, posted on September 17, 2018 at 5:29 am

    The laeotropic decline continues apace.

    You enjoy doing that don’t you?

  6. Tom

    A.F. Branco perfectly describes the backward anti-intellectual Antifa scum who run our social media monopolies.

  7. Jumpnmcar

    Mark A

    I was going to make reference to Guilds but no one would have looked them up 🙂

    ( OT, did you identify that motorcycle? )

  8. Mark A

    Jumpnmcar
    #2818133, posted on September 17, 2018 at 5:49 am

    Mark A

    I was going to make reference to Guilds but no one would have looked them up 🙂

    ( OT, did you identify that motorcycle? )

    not yet, only the front wheel is clear (partial as is) and there were too many of that period.
    Will find out, eventually, as Manuel was fond of saying.

    I like old machinery, mostly military gear, in my spare time I help out restoring some old WW2 stuff. (in reality I can turn up one or two days every 6 months)

  9. Jumpnmcar

    Check out Zündapp, the front suspension and headlamp assembly looks the same.

    Anyway, off to the salt mine for me.

  10. Sinc should ban the IMP, just to let a Leftist know what it feels like to be silenced by private enterprise.

    I’m fairly certain his rants wouldn’t be missed.

  11. Mark A

    bemused
    #2818140, posted on September 17, 2018 at 6:22 am

    Sinc should ban the IMP, just to let a Leftist know what it feels like to be silenced by private enterprise.

    I’m fairly certain his rants wouldn’t be missed.

    He simply doesn’t understand the difference betwixt restricting your freedom of speech and banning for misuse of the platform.

    Facebook is offered as an easy way to communicate and exchange ideas photos etc.
    There are rules regarding invasion of privacy and maintaining common decency and such but nowhere is it stated that you cannot express a political opinion.

    Nor is it stated what sort of opinions are allowed, therefor when someone is banned for promoting conservative ideas that is against the site owner’s political belief, then it’s clearly censorship.

  12. He simply doesn’t understand the difference betwixt restricting your freedom of speech and banning for misuse of the platform.

    I’m sure he’s more than aware of the differences, but he’s quite comfortable with the banning of conservative voices, as long as his voice can be heard. Imagine the squealing were Leftist voices treated in that manner? It would be a good lesson and an interesting exercise to see where the complaints would be heard.

  13. Dave of Reedy Creek, Qld

    The topic in this article is another strong indicator of the success of the communist manifesto. Their ideology has worked exceptionally well, taking over universities which became the conduit to school teachers, teachers then follow the same anti west rhetoric teaching blindly what is the dogmas of Marxism.
    Then as the web grew, leaders in business and politics carried the same blatant mindset, usually the ones infected are more and more pushing for greater influence and power. Remember the old quote, “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”. If it not the “Masters of the Universe” it’s self appointed movie people, not sure about stars any more, telling everyone, don’t do what we do, do what we say. To the young and vulnerable, Facebook, Twitter etc is the be all amd end all. Now every word of dissent against things like the vividly imagined climate change myth is greeted with ridicule and foul expletive laden bile and threats. One would only have to also look at the EU threat against Hungary to see where all this is going.

  14. I am bespoke

    No bemused the longer we engage Imp the less chance he turns into the next Ted Bundy.

  15. entropy

    Fisky
    #2818090, posted on September 17, 2018 at 12:48 am
    The big tech firms should be given a choice, either they assume full editorial responsibility, including for defamation, or they allow the publication of all viewpoints regardless (with exceptions for threatening or other criminal behaviour).

    quite so.

  16. Snoopy

    To demonstrate contrition for being complicit in the destruction of the creek, the NSW government should use the royalties it received from the Tahmoor mine to rehabilitate the creek.

  17. mh

    What shouldn’t be tolerated? Free speech and property rights exercised by private enterprise?

    The morning giggle, as reliable as Tom’s cartoons.

  18. Iampeter

    Sinc should ban the IMP, just to let a Leftist know what it feels like to be silenced by private enterprise.

    Let’s peel the levels of stupidity required to write a sentence like this.
    Firstly, according to you this would be “censorship”, but isn’t that what you’re fighting against?
    Secondly, is this meant to be sarcastic? In which case you’d be supporting my position not calling for me to be banned so it makes no sense.
    Thirdly, do you not see the irony in carrying on just like a triggered, melting snowflake leftie, calling for people you disagree with to be banned and calling said people “leftist” while doing it?

    I mean, how did you manage to cram so much total confusion, self contradiction and unintended irony into one short sentence?

    Only at The Cat, ladies and gentlemen.

  19. Iampeter

    The topic in this article is another strong indicator of the success of the communist manifesto.

    Big and successful private enterprise exercising their rights is not an example of the success of the communist manifesto.
    On the other hand, conservatives working to get tech companies under the thumb of government, which among other things, will result in actual censorship, while believing to be fighting censorship, demonstrates levels of confusion that are beyond parody. You can’t make this stuff up.
    At least communists weren’t this clueless.
    Heck, even confused teenage SJW’s aren’t this clueless.

    No one is doing more today, to destroy Western Civilization and all of its values, while being totally oblivious to it, than the hopeless conservative movement.

  20. mh

    Iampeter speaks to us as if the symbiotic relationship between Big Tech and Big Government has not been laid bare for all to see in the last few months.

    Peter, let the adults finish their discussion, you’re running late for school!

  21. DD

    NB #2818113 @ 0129hrs

    This broadcast records the opening conversation to the establishment of an international cartel of companies to use their market power to the direct detriment of identified competitors and to deny the general public the opportunity to use the services that the cartel provides on an equal basis.

    Is media different to eggs, bread, legal services or any other goods or service?

    Do ‘they’ operate under different laws?

  22. Crossie

    Patricia Karvelas, Host, ABC:

    I watched her show once on SkyNews and thought she was on the wrong channel and it seems so did the Sky management.

    It seems as if Sky is the place leftie journalists go to audition for the ABC and once they have insulted enough people’s intelligence they are snapped up by the taxpayers funded broadcaster. Laura Jayes is shaping up to be the next candidate.

  23. Roger

    I’m sure he’s more than aware of the differences, but he’s quite comfortable with the banning of conservative voices, as long as his voice can be heard.

    Let him start his own blog then.

  24. candy

    conservative movement.

    A very rare phrase. “Movement” means change. Conservative meaning averse to change.

  25. Tel

    Iampeter speaks to us as if the symbiotic relationship between Big Tech and Big Government has not been laid bare for all to see in the last few months.

    Strictly speaking that’s the corporatist state at work, not the communist manifesto, although both of these are manifestations of central planning. For people interested in studying the details:

    8. Conception of a Corporate State.

    No individuals nor groups (political parties, associations, labour unions, classes) outside the State. For this reason Fascism is opposed to Socialism, which clings rigidly to class war in the historic evolution and ignores the unity of the State which moulds the classes into a single, moral and economic reality. In the same way Fascism is opposed to the unions of the labouring classes. But within the orbit of the State with ordinative functions, the real needs, which give rise to the Socialist movement and to the forming of labour unions,
    are emphatically recognised by Fascism and are given their full expression in the Corporative System, which conciliates every interest in the unity of the State.

    The technique they used was to lean on key people inside each major corporation until they understood their duty to the state, and then utilize that corporation for state purposes where necessary. It’s still a violation of property rights, but the Communists FIRST went and violated everyone’s property rights by insisting on blanket state ownership (at the Maoist reference explains it: even the teeth in your head belong to the collective), in contrast the Fascists allowed everyone to feel like they still owned their property but AFTERWARDS would confiscate property on an as-needs basis, or simply use threats of violence to ensure compliance.

    To contrast with Google, etc, there might be some carrot and stick going on behind the scenes but also plenty of their anti-Conservative activity has been supported by google management (as proven by recent video release). This cooperation has been going on for some time:

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/social-media-is-a-tool-of-the-cia-seriously/

    Google and CIA: old friends
    Are you seeing a trend yet? Google (GOOG) has been a partner with the CIA since 2004 when the company bought Keyhole, a mapping technology business that eventually became Google Earth. In 2010, Google and In-Q-Tel made a joint investment on a company called Recorded Future, which has the Minority Report-style goal of creating a “temporal analytics engine” that scours the web and creates curves that predict where events may head.

    Google is already helping the government write, and rewrite, history. Here, from its transparency report, are some stats on the amount of information it has either given to the government or wiped from the web based on requests by U.S. agencies:

    4,601 requests from U.S. government agencies for “user data”
    Google complied with government requests for user data 94% of the time.
    1,421 requests for “content removal”
    Google complied with content removal requests 87% of the time.
    15 requests were from “executive, police etc.”
    1 was a national security request.

    To google’s credit, at least to start with they were making an effort to document and publish what’s been going on. I’m sure compliance with government “requests” cannot be avoided in most cases. When there’s genuine terrorism threats you want the government to be able to snoop around, although in Sydney concealed carry would have been a cheaper and better solution to our cafe terrorist plot.

  26. Crossie

    There is very little that can be done to stop the censorship drive of tech companies the only thing that will is another election result like Trump’ victory, and another and another.

    Conservative or minor party wins are a clear indication that the population is aware and not cooperating. Just shudder to think what outrage will be taken to the streets by the Left when they lose again. Pink pussy hats will be long gone and something far more sinister will take its place.

    Police departments should plan for rioting and have water cannons and teargas at the ready but then again I may be ascribing to police departments strategies they no longer use against preferred rioters.

  27. Louis Hissink

    Really no different to the Chinese social credit system.

    The amusement is that those who react to stimuli by messenger shooting or ad hominins are generally the political left or collectivists suffering from narcissism or over developed egos where me, me, me is the cry of social justice.

    The urge to centrally plan seems endemic in humans – collectivists base their actions on the guidance of authority, whether secular, ideological or theological. The religious in other words. The irreligious act on the basis of experience.

    As no one is totally free (try existing without food, air or water), then we are all enslaved to more or less a degree. Its the prisons our brains create which we carry around with us that’s The Matrix that’s reality.

    Freedom becomes possible once you start to learn how the human thinks. We stop thinking when in deep sleep, when the organism repairs itself to wake up refreshed. It’s being enthralled and captivated by our own thoughts that seems to be the problem. Being enslaved by one’s thinking habits is the real slavery, not the physical slavery we all are in by virtue of the need to consume food in order to remain alive.

    And we escape the mental slavery by fabricating utopias, whether physical if a socialist, or metaphysical if religious.

  28. Iampeter

    Iampeter speaks to us as if the symbiotic relationship between Big Tech and Big Government has not been laid bare for all to see in the last few months.

    But then the issue is Big Government NOT “Big Tech” and that in turn was a consequence of conservative policies that first brought regulations to silicon valley in the first place back in the 90’s.
    If you believed this then you’d phrase the issue something like, “big gov is passing legislation to force tech companies to de-platform users with opinions government doesn’t like”.
    That would be actual censorship but it still wouldn’t be Big Tech’s fault because private enterprise can’t censor you be definition. It would be the governments policies causing the censorship.
    But that’s not what’s happening here.
    That’s not how conservatives are approaching the issue even if it was.
    What conservatives are doing is claiming big tech is “too big”, that it is “censoring” them and then calling for big government to do something about it, because “free speech”. This is breathtaking ignorance of basic politics on their part and if they get their way and force tech companies to host content they don’t want to, would mean they implemented actual censorship in the name of free speech.

    Conservatives are doing the same thing as the same sex couple that went after the Christian baker.
    Conservatives are calling for a “fairness doctrine” in tech just like progressive did in radio.
    It’s hard to believe that this even needs explaining.

    Basically anyone who can suggest tech companies are “censoring” them, doesn’t know anything about politics and is a threat to our freedoms just like any leftist.

  29. Boambee John

    bemused at 0651

    It would be a good lesson and an interesting exercise to see where the complaints would be heard

    Mars? Jupiter?

  30. Behind Enemy Lines

    This should not be tolerated. If anyone any longer really does care about free speech, the ability of “social media” to censor what we say to each other should be stopped dead in its tracks.

    The honest posters on this site seem to acknowledge the problem. Most of us seem to lean the same direction about dealing with it. In terms of possible solutions, what steps could be taken under existing Australian law to tame the social media oligarchs?

  31. .

    Fisk and AH are right.

    I don’t know FB gets away with its shoddy advertising fraud and hosting terrorism shock videos and recruitment videos.

    Strictly speaking, Peter is right. The thing is, I suspect that FB does get a lucrative contract from the CIA.

    It is not as if this is a radical idea. The CIA had plenty of journalists on the payroll. Journalism has been part of the deep State since before then – when Hoover co-opted them.

  32. Megan

    Definition of bigot. : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance.

    IMP: too stupid to realise he is worse than what he accuses others of.

  33. mh

    But then the issue is Big Government NOT “Big Tech” and that in turn was a consequence of conservative policies that first brought regulations to silicon valley in the first place back in the 90’s.

    I knew conservatives would be at fault. Again.

  34. .

    But wait…didn’t Al Gore invent the internet?

  35. Sunni Bakchat

    It’s pretty obvious the creepy line has been moving toward the totalitarian and away from the libertarian.

    Interestingly members of both the left and right of politics have embraced this moving creepy line. It seems more generational than political to this writer.

    Advancing technology allows the creepy line to move toward the totalitarian. Because the technology gets into our private spaces.

    The paradox is that it’s the traditionally liberal left progressives that are the main champions of this technologically enabled totalitarianism.

    Nobody forces you to use Google, Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Linkedin, etc. Nobody forces you to give away your privacy. Plenty will tell you social isolation will result from not using social media. Reality is a post modern fashion in this regard.

    We might ask why conservatives or those who are genuinely libertarian in their viewpoint don’t invent their own social media. If you are anything like this writer, you’d start by asking what social utility comes from this new means of contact?

    These Social Media will be extinct in their current guise before they are ever politically determinative. This suggests their value in every respect is overestimated at this moment in time.

  36. LBLoveday

    bemused, Mark A, mh et al,

    I only read anything of Iampeter’s drivel indirectly in posts from other commenters. Why don’t you do what I do – simply skip to the next article as soon as you see Iampeter? Nothing wrong with not engaging with someone who has proven to not be worth listening to – would you go to a lecture by Hanson-Young just in case she may say something sensible? Long experience has shown me that such people cannot be re-educated by talking sense to them.

  37. .

    When I have free time (later this year), I am opting out of Goolag, Firefox, Telstra, Microsoft, Apple…both software and hardware. I’m sick of their nonsense, crappy customer service and creepy surveillance. Certainly no Way Way phones either.

    Very hard to do so when they own a lot of the platforms and tech.

    Not being a propellor head, I don’t know anything about open source mobile hardware and GMail has me by the balls (especially for work).

  38. Death Giraffe

    Strictly speaking, Peter is right.

    ..
    Probably.
    Not sure that is much consolation to those who have spent years building up conservative or libertarian media businesses on those platforms, only to have the rug pulled out from under them.
    ..

    These Social Media will be extinct in their current guise before they are ever politically determinative.

    ..
    An interesting thought.

  39. Death Giraffe

    These Social Media will be extinct in their current guise before they are ever politically determinative.

    ..
    What is the next phase, and who will build it?
    Or are these platforms the new newspapers and TV, to be dominant for decades to come?

  40. The BigBlueCat

    According to the one who has been “sin-binned” (Bill M unless I am mistaken) it wasn’t from something he’s posted, but from a post from someone else. It would appear that Bill M’s name was used to set up a FB page, and the post appeared there. But Bill M had nothing to do with it. But being “sin-binned” also means you can’t get a response from FB admin as to the reason why, or even mount a defence.

    FB is a commercial organisation who promotes itself as a public social media platform, albeit subject to membership (which is free, both commercially and ideologically). It has its own rules. But given its popularity, it doesn’t really conform to our expectations of the free market – where is the competition that provides the same reach? FB behaves more like a monopoly than anything else.

    The similarities with the ABC are clear – its popularity sees it doing things that in times past would have drawn the ire of a rational and moral society. But not anymore – indeed there are many who applaud FB and the ABC for ignoring conservative values in favour of promoting the progressive/regressive agenda.

  41. Death Giraffe

    If these platforms remain for decades to come the dominant arbiters of acceptable public opinion, something must be done.
    What and by whom, are the questions.

  42. JohnA

    The BigBlueCat #2818334, posted on September 17, 2018, at 11:59 am

    According to the one who has been “sin-binned” (Bill M unless I am mistaken) it wasn’t from something he’s posted, but from a post from someone else. It would appear that Bill M’s name was used to set up a FB page, and the post appeared there. But Bill M had nothing to do with it. But being “sin-binned” also means you can’t get a response from FB admin as to the reason why, or even mount a defence.

    FB is a commercial organisation who promotes itself as a public social media platform, albeit subject to membership (which is free, both commercially and ideologically). It has its own rules. But given its popularity, it doesn’t really conform to our expectations of the free market – where is the competition that provides the same reach? FB behaves more like a monopoly than anything else.

    Correct. Bill M is a personal friend and yes, you have identified the exact cause of his ire. He has thousands of followers and has already adapted his own postings to be pointers to his own blog. But because his views are not shared by Mark Z, he is an easy target for attackers who will complain to FB about posts being “against the unwritten rules of leftism” and thus suffers for it.

    The broader issue is that FB is abusing its position of market dominance by trying to be two incompatible things:
    a) the common carrier and therefore exempt from society’s rules of decency (expressed via the legal system: defamation, libel, truth as a defence, etc) for monitoring the content it carries BUT
    b) a private, commercial competitor in a balanced and free market so that it can control the content it delivers by “allowing” account holders to go to other social media if they don’t like FB.

    There are a couple of other places to go: offline and forget about FB (back to face to face social interaction – not to be sneezed at, mind you), Google Plus (not much different) or MeWe (www.mewe.com), but as others have commented, FB has the critical mass of account holders, so if you want a world-wide audience it’s hard to ignore them.

    I am scaling back my FB involvement and will drop out at some stage not too far into the future. I know I am the product, so I try not to give away anything about my self – no selfie pics, no personal data. It’s already bad enough that FB reads my cookies and puts ads up relevant to my most recent searches from elsewhere. I do not do FB on my mobile devices AT ALL.

  43. Howard Hill

    I agree with Iampeter. We have no right to demand government prevent them from controlling their private property.

    What I do have a problem with, is them stalking us when we leave the confines of their property. I thought stalking was against the law? If I were to follow you everywhere you went, recorded everything you did and said in private, obtained copies of any personal information you have without your consent, would that not make me a stalker? Would I not be subject to that law?

    Take away their ability to stalk you off their own property and you destroy their business model, problem solved?

  44. Iampeter

    Definition of bigot. : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance.

    IMP: too stupid to realise he is worse than what he accuses others of.

    Wow, talk about projection.
    Come into the thread, go straight to insulting me along with the rest of confused, triggered lefties here who have no arguments and then accuse me of being intolerant.

    Makes about as much sense as the rest of this thread.

  45. Richard Bender

    I absolutely support free speech. And that is why I will defend, against authoritarians such as Steve Kates, the right of private companies to use the platforms they developed to speak as they see fit.

  46. Tel

    I absolutely support free speech.

    Sure, free speech is “absolute” so I’ll sign a contract and after you’ve paid me you will be perfectly happy if I never deliver. After all, those words on paper are my free speech, I don’t need to ascribe any particular meaning to them, I could write any words and it would still be my free speech just the same.

  47. nb

    DD #2818174, posted on September 17, 2018 at 8:27 am says:

    This broadcast records the opening conversation to the establishment of an international cartel of companies to use their market power to the direct detriment of identified competitors and to deny the general public the opportunity to use the services that the cartel provides on an equal basis.
    Is media different to eggs, bread, legal services or any other goods or service?
    Do ‘they’ operate under different laws?

    My thoughts exactly. I am wondering what kind of a response I might get if I sent this transcript to ACCC. A tax audit? I should try it!

  48. NB

    What the heck. Just sent the transcript to the ACCC.

  49. Iampeter

    I absolutely support free speech. And that is why I will defend, against authoritarians such as Steve Kates, the right of private companies to use the platforms they developed to speak as they see fit.

    This is exactly correct and well stated. The entire issues addressed in two short sentences.

    To sum up the rest of this thread:
    We have confusion about the meaning of the term “censorship”.
    We have calls for actual censorship by people who think they are fighting for free speech but really don’t understand any of these terms.
    We have the usual emotional, triggered, ad hominem and calls for banning of peoples with different opinions.
    These are the same people that are simultaneously describing banning people as “censorship”.
    We have central planning musings because “something must be done” about tech companies exercising their rights.
    Economically illiterate arguments about private enterprise “abusing their position of market dominance” or not “conforming to our expectations of free markets”, etc.
    Conspiratorial beliefs about the evils of big business/big tech.
    And reporting to the ACCC of people exercising their rights because “cartels”.

    This is Australia’s leading centre-right blog, huh?

  50. Tom

    This is Australia’s leading centre-right blog, huh?

    Yes it is. To give it its full title, it is Australia’s leading libertarian and centre-right blog, which is why it allows unfettered access to lunatic leftists like you.

    Try dumping your gibberish at other media websites and you would be banned as a nuisance who drives away sane people.

  51. JohnA

    Tel #2818602, posted on September 17, 2018, at 7:11 pm

    I absolutely support free speech.

    Sure, free speech is “absolute” so I’ll sign a contract and after you’ve paid me you will be perfectly happy if I never deliver. After all, those words on paper are my free speech, I don’t need to ascribe any particular meaning to them, I could write any words and it would still be my free speech just the same.

    It’s not FB’s speech that is being abrogated but the speech of their account holders. These are people who signed on to a platform for transmitting their self-generated content – NOT FB’s content.

    So, other than speech which is illegal or defamatory, FB has breached its own “community standards” by failing to deliver account-holder speech which is legally permitted but with which the carrier disagrees.

    FB has held itself out to be a common carrier with advertising (so like commercial press/broadcasting media) but is not presenting its own content as the press do. It seeks to enjoy the privileges of that dominant, near monopoly, position by being exempt from scrutiny because it is supposedly acting impartially to all presenters of content (its account holders).

    However, it is actively restricting the speech of its account holders, and presenting its own editorial view, as the commercial press do in a competitive environment, by presenting itself as NOT the dominant player.

    It should, therefore, be estopped from so restricting content, either as a matter of equity or as a breach of contract.

  52. Kneel

    “I absolutely support free speech. And that is why I will defend, against authoritarians such as Steve Kates, the right of private companies to use the platforms they developed to speak as they see fit.”

    Hmmm…

    Facebook can use their own facebook account to say whatever they want, I don’t think anyone would argue too hard about that.

    Stopping other people saying what they want isn’t “free speech”. Allowing others to speak doesn’t infringe YOUR right to speak. Ah, you say “they are a private company, they can do what they want” – so is Telstra, yet they can’t cut your phone off because they don’t like who you vote for. They aren’t allowed to by law. Should FB come under the same rules? Dunno, but I can’t see why not.

  53. Iampeter

    Yes it is. To give it its full title, it is Australia’s leading libertarian and centre-right blog, which is why it allows unfettered access to lunatic leftists like you.

    I’ve just listed all the marxist-level arguments Steve Kates and other posters here are making to justify regulation of private enterprise and you think I’m the lunatic leftist? How does someone get this confused?
    Why are you even on a blog about politics?

    Stopping other people saying what they want isn’t “free speech”. Allowing others to speak doesn’t infringe YOUR right to speak.

    Facebook isn’t stopping anyone from speaking, they are just saying you can’t do it on their platform which is well within anyone’s rights.
    This entire issue is super simple: FB, tech companies and private enterprise in general can NEVER cause a “free speech” issue. You might have a breach of contract or something, for which you should take them to court, but it will never amount to censorship.
    Free speech/censorship are only issues in the context of the government getting involved in telling people what they can or can’t say.
    For example, if legislation is passed forcing tech companies to host content they don’t want to THEN you have a free speech issue.
    And this is what Steve K, most posters here and conservatives in general are advocating for.

    This is why I have to keep doing a double take and make sure I’m not on the Onion by mistake.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.