I don't support it in some instances, but not across the board. And I think it's silly to think any person or other entity should expect to have unfettered right to post things on private property, so I don't believe the social media companies should lose this ability. But I do think they should have established and clear guidelines as to when they'll do this. If celebrity, politician, etc accounts will be treated differently, spell it out. Inform people of the rules and what actions might be taken if those rules are broken.
My point is there seems to be plenty of funding for the site so that isn't the issue on what is allowed.
None of us should be free to do that here because the owners of the site have applied rules against it. You would be free to publish anything you want on your own website though. That's the distinction the OP appears to be challenging.
Oh, so if they can afford it, they should host speech they don't want to. Ok - so the baker CAN bake a wedding cake for gay people and the KKK can take out an ad in the black Baptist Church newsletter. Cool.
While I do respect the prerogatives of people who own things, I am nonetheless proud to recall that I have never complained to an officiator about what other people have said regarding me. In my own estimation, doing that would be an exercise in 'closet' self-loathing, and the de facto admission of defeat. Parenthetically, it follows that I never put people on "ignore", either.... But, hey, I'm not a native of the 21st-century... I grew up in a very different time.
If it's a matter of principal then the question that started this as to would one be willing to pay for the server space doesn't seem to apply.
If you are one whose method of debate is to miscast, misquote, & purposefully misinterpret the words of others, then you're not worth my time. There are too many with that M.O. of making phony arguments because they can't, for whatever pathetic psychological reasons, face a disagreement head-on & honestly. I never said an owner had no interest in profits. I said news companies don't promote news, or are not supposed to, the way a cafe owner may decide to headline its new scones, on the menu, or have all its counter workers ask all customers if they'd like an extra shot of espresso in their coffee drinks. With regard to Elizabeth Warren, I'd thought the case you were making was about her online presence. This relates to my earlier comment that you are not very clear about what, in particular, you are trying to say. I've noticed that a number of others of us have received the wrong message from you, on various points (I noticed one such confusion over your feelings about Citizens United, for example). When people continually misunderstand you, it's not that we're all stupid, it's that you are doing a poor job expressing your ideas. It's too bad, in a way, that this is the case, because the new allegation (at least to me) that WAPO, specifically, shut out Liz Warren after she proposed higher taxation or more regulation of particular businesses is an interesting one; one would have thought it would not have been too difficult to CLEARLY highlight it, in one's OP. If it had been, it is a wonder that none of your other respondents have focused on this. Maybe it got lost amongst the wild allegations of it being, "to his benefit," for a, "Mexican mega billionaire," stockholder of the New York Times to allow, "(no) editorials against illegal immigration," & digressions into old, Rolling Stones' songs. Naturally, though, being barred from WAPO would not make someone disappear from the news-- there are quite a few other papers, & outlets, out there. Also, you fail to provide evidence of this. As I said, coming from another poster, this would be an angle I would, nevertheless, be interested in asking about, in an attempt to examine some proof. But as it is one of a long line of unsupported allegations from a poster who consistently shows his disregard for the truth, even in the restating of the arguments of the preceding poster, this cry of, "wolf!" is going to fall on my ears that have finally been bludgeoned, by your falsehoods, to deafness. I hope I've not been too vague in giving my point of view for you to grasp my meaning. Adios.
Lol. Okay. I'll spoon feed you. I don't support the government telling me I have to host any signs on my lawn, simply because it doesn't cost me any money. Better?
Free speech does not grant you the right to force people to publish something on their privately owned platform that they do not wish to publish, anymore than it grants me the "right" to plant signs in your yard.
They won't answer any of my questions. Do they support forcing t-shirt shop owners, cake bakers, sign makers; anyone who does customization anything, to print anything that anyone asks them to?
Me, neither... I'm an 'undeclared' citizen anywhere near my home.... And I don't put political bumper stickers on any of my vehicles, either. Who wants to get his tires punctured or be a victim of 'road rage'?
Pretty sure the baker has to sell the cake to anyone who wants to buy it, but isn't required to write messages that they don't want to write. Last I checked, anyway.
I don't think the cake story involved censorship it was a question of whose rights took precedence. People on forums get timeouts all the time, I'm ok with that. The propaganda allowed on a site, or not, defines what the site actually is.
Sigh. This is a thread about censorship, which I think is the wrong word to use when a business sets policy. A black baker shouldn't be forced to write: BLACK PEOPLE SUCK on a cake. A Jewish T-Shirt maker shouldn't be forced to put a "Hitler rocks!" emblem on a shirt I shouldn't be forced to put signs on my lawn FB and Twitter shouldn't be forced to host content they don't want to host. Twitter banned Trump, permanently. Also, perfectly fine.
We all saw the news. We all know where the putch originated, who was leading it, and who supported it. Lying about it now won't work. We got all your buddies on tape. Not to worry. You can still hide in Argentina, right?
I understand federal law allows Big Tech allow or even feature 100 ongoing troll totally false made-up-out-of-thin air attacks at you calling you an HIV positive pedophile without liability or having to remove it, but can delete and ban you and anyone else who says its not true - for which there is no way to communicate with over nearly 90% of people you've been chatting with including long term but anonymous internet friends, distance past friends and relatives you still stay in touch with - plus you advertise you business online and have with the company for years - for which you also permanently lose 90% of your customer base - with no alternative other than trying to dig out the other 10% at best. And, claiming that isn't a monopoly - when exactly is what it is - and their claim they should have the exemption is because they don't monitor or edit - which they do - this was decided due to a small group of trolls you decided to complaint against you, triggering a computer algorithm resulting in your instantly being banned. You may be allowed to write out 1 appeal. This will be decided by a 23 year old computer geek grad in Mumbia, India allowed 17 seconds to click 1 of 3 buttons (perma ban, temporary ban with points, or appeal granted. You may not appeal that decision. The person will be fired if they do not average 1 appeal every 17 seconds. All on the Internet the government made, pays astronomically to keep safe and gave legal protect to for promising not to do exactly what they are doing - nor is control of 90% of the world market not a monopoly to you - so all that's ok. Don't like? Go suck an egg. And you're a-ok with that. BTW, do you know that Google specifically urges people to file complaints thru a WOT program. You can even file up to 50 complaints at the same time - as fast as you can do so. In return, you get points. They provide the software and people can buy lists to use. Our company got a pile complaints - all out of Germany - that we stole their credit cards when they purchased, our products are dangerous and illegal, and our customer service is rude and obscene. All basically said that, so we had a bad WOT warning put up before anyone could see our website - warning our website was DANGEROUS urging not to look at the website. We do not sell anywhere outside of the USA, never ship outside of the USA, no shipping company would take our products for overseas shipping being HAZMAT, and we never got anyone's credit card any - instead thru Paypal and the largest credit card processing via Bank of America. It was all a lie, just some trolls in Germany competing over who can get more complaint points. BUT WAIT! We could BUY our way out of these accusations including accusations of crimes. First, we would have to sign up for WOT. Second, we would have to file at least so many WOT complaints. Third, Google wanted a lot of money to review the complaints - non-refundable. Regardless of what they decide. Anyone - just a group of trolls using software for your Twitter, Google, Facebook, YouTube etc account could do this to you and others for points or just the hell of it bad luck for you, or any adversary - continuously doing so merely by clicking "enter" one time. Permanently cutting you off from 80 to 90% of people in the world. I oppose that. You support it. See it as not only wrong, but an illegal monopoly and criminal behavior.
