LinuxQuestions.org
Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 10-11-2021, 12:23 AM   #76
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: ...uncanny valley... infinity\1975; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US( + travel,) Earth( I wish,) END BORDER$!◣◢┌∩┐ Fe26-E,e...
Distribution: any GPL that works well on freest; has been KDE, CLI, Novena but open... http://goo.gl/NqgqJx &c ;-)
Posts: 4,452

Original Poster
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449

If you were taught wrong, would you know it?

More and more we can understand concepts behind the movie Lucy...

...we (specially wolves*) die sooner than needed because fuoking ignorance! (Not ignored, all, even if you're too stupid to realize it!!!)

Last edited by jamison20000e; 10-11-2021 at 12:31 AM.
 
Old 10-11-2021, 12:28 AM   #77
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: ...uncanny valley... infinity\1975; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US( + travel,) Earth( I wish,) END BORDER$!◣◢┌∩┐ Fe26-E,e...
Distribution: any GPL that works well on freest; has been KDE, CLI, Novena but open... http://goo.gl/NqgqJx &c ;-)
Posts: 4,452

Original Poster
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449
Freedum of ignorance superproceeds we! ll

Last edited by jamison20000e; 10-11-2021 at 12:32 AM.
 
Old 10-11-2021, 12:35 AM   #78
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: ...uncanny valley... infinity\1975; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US( + travel,) Earth( I wish,) END BORDER$!◣◢┌∩┐ Fe26-E,e...
Distribution: any GPL that works well on freest; has been KDE, CLI, Novena but open... http://goo.gl/NqgqJx &c ;-)
Posts: 4,452

Original Poster
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449
You're slowing down the traffic of the world, rubber necking? I don't want your hickeys, yippies!
 
Old 10-11-2021, 12:43 AM   #79
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: ...uncanny valley... infinity\1975; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US( + travel,) Earth( I wish,) END BORDER$!◣◢┌∩┐ Fe26-E,e...
Distribution: any GPL that works well on freest; has been KDE, CLI, Novena but open... http://goo.gl/NqgqJx &c ;-)
Posts: 4,452

Original Poster
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449Reputation: 1449
Question

How about the weather?🙄$udo.riot$
 
Old 10-12-2021, 07:05 PM   #80
rkelsen
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Distribution: slackware
Posts: 3,118
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
why don't we address the main issue?
Sure.

The justices in the case of Manhattan Community Access Corp v Halleck [2019] examined the issue in detail. The points I've been trying to make in this thread are best summarised by Justice Kavanaugh below:

MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. v. HALLECK [2019]

KAVANAUGH, J:

"The Hudgens decision reflects a commonsense principle: Providing some kind of forum for speech is not an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed. Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor. After all, private property owners and private lessees often open their property for speech. Grocery stores put up community bulletin boards. Comedy clubs host open mic nights. As Judge Jacobs persuasively explained, it “is not at all a near-exclusive function of the state to provide the forums for public expression, politics, information, or entertainment.” 882 F. 3d, at 311 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part).

In short, merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.

If the rule were otherwise, all private property owners and private lessees who open their property for speech would be subject to First Amendment constraints and would lose the ability to exercise what they deem to be appropriate editorial discretion within that open forum. Private property owners and private lessees would face the unappetizing choice of allowing all comers or closing the platform altogether. “The Constitution by no means requires such an attenuated doctrine of dedication of private property to public use.” Hudgens, 424 U. S., at 519 (internal quotation marks omitted). Benjamin Franklin did not have to operate his newspaper as “a stagecoach, with seats for everyone.” F. Mott, American Journalism 55 (3d ed. 1962). That principle still holds true.

As the Court said in Hudgens, to hold that private property owners providing a forum for speech are constrained by the First Amendment would be “to create a court-made law wholly disregarding the constitutional basis on which private ownership of property rests in this country.” 424 U. S., at 517 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Constitution does not disable private property owners and private lessees from exercising editorial discretion over speech and speakers on their property."


Emphasis mine.

In the same case, from Justice Sotomayor:

SOTOMAYOR,J:

"The majority acknowledges that the First Amendment could apply when a local government either (1) has a property interest in public-access channels or (2) is more directly involved in administration of those channels than the City is here."

To the best of my knowledge the US Government neither owns nor controls any of the social media platforms. They are private property. I can't understand why anyone who prefers to live in a democracy would have it any other way.

Last edited by rkelsen; 10-12-2021 at 07:09 PM.
 
Old 10-12-2021, 07:38 PM   #81
Ser Olmy
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 3,123

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkelsen View Post
merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.
I don't think anyone has argued that it does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkelsen View Post
To the best of my knowledge the US Government neither owns nor controls any of the social media platforms.
You know they do. They've openly threatened with legislation if Facebook does not censor certain legal speech. And it's not an empty threat when it comes directly from the lawmakers.
 
Old 10-12-2021, 08:10 PM   #82
rkelsen
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Distribution: slackware
Posts: 3,118
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
You know they do. They've openly threatened with legislation if Facebook does not censor certain legal speech. And it's not an empty threat when it comes directly from the lawmakers.
Do you have any support for this claim?

State controlled media is generally a feature of, shall we say, "less than democratic," societies.
 
Old 10-12-2021, 08:31 PM   #83
michaelk
Moderator
 
Registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,920

Rep: Reputation: 4305Reputation: 4305Reputation: 4305Reputation: 4305Reputation: 4305Reputation: 4305Reputation: 4305Reputation: 4305Reputation: 4305Reputation: 4305Reputation: 4305
The basic law is section 230 of the communications decency act. Its not that Facebook can not censor content its just that they do not do it evenly or fairly and certain Congressman(people?) complain of them being biased with respect to conservative "perspectives". The previous president did sign an Executive Order in 2020 to essentially eliminate this but it was never enforced and eventually rescinded by the current administration.

Florida tried their own social media law but that was blocked in Federal court.

Last edited by michaelk; 10-12-2021 at 08:46 PM.
 
Old 10-12-2021, 09:21 PM   #84
Ser Olmy
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 3,123

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkelsen View Post
Do you have any support for this claim?
Are you telling me you haven't seen the videos of the Speaker of the House threatening Facebook with regulations or with being broken up? She's done it more than once, and many of her colleagues in Congress have openly voiced their support.

I thought this was common knowledge. It's been widely reported in the press.

Here's from back in 2019, when someone had the audacity to post an obvious fake video mocking Nancy Pelosi. She received massive support from her party.

In early 2020, she accused the company of misleading the public, and suggested they could possibly be found guilty of antitrust violations.

In November 2020, she claimed Facebook was participating in "election-related interference."

Note how there are no concrete accusations of laws being violated, and how there's absolutely no relation between the supposedly "harmful" (and clearly legal) actions by the company (allowing mockery, misleading information, "misinformation") and the threat of legal action (antitrust violations).

Surely, a company guilty of antitrust violations should be investigated regardless? Why hasn't that happened?

"Nice social media company you've got there. Would be a shame if something was to happen to it."
 
Old 10-12-2021, 09:47 PM   #85
michaelk
Moderator
 
Registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,920

Rep: Reputation: 4305Reputation: 4305Reputation: 4305Reputation: 4305Reputation: 4305Reputation: 4305Reputation: 4305Reputation: 4305Reputation: 4305Reputation: 4305Reputation: 4305
Senator Josh Hawley has been after big tech and Facebook long before Nancy Pelosi. While both sides complain, censorship is a right and antitrust more of a left issue. The left wants more political misinformation censored the right less or none.
 
Old 10-12-2021, 10:43 PM   #86
rkelsen
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Distribution: slackware
Posts: 3,118
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355Reputation: 1355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
Are you telling me you haven't seen the videos of the Speaker of the House threatening Facebook with regulations or with being broken up? She's done it more than once, and many of her colleagues in Congress have openly voiced their support.
I don't see evidence of any form of government control in any of that. Just hot air from Pelosi... and so what? How does that even hint toward any evidence of the government controlling Facebook?

Have you got anything better than that? Preferably some concrete evidence which shows that the government is somehow controlling social media, or that it has a 'property interest' in any social media platforms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
"Nice social media company you've got there. Would be a shame if something was to happen to it."
Funny.

But no one individual has the power to do any of that, let alone the speaker. In my country (also a Western Democracy with a bi-cameral Parliament), the speaker has no voting power. I'd be highly surprised if that wasn't also true in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelk View Post
The basic law is section 230 of the communications decency act. Its not that Facebook can not censor content its just that they do not do it evenly or fairly and certain Congressman(people?) complain of them being biased with respect to conservative "perspectives". The previous president did sign an Executive Order in 2020 to essentially eliminate this but it was never enforced and eventually rescinded by the current administration.
Irony.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelk View Post
Senator Josh Hawley has been after big tech and Facebook long before Nancy Pelosi.
More irony.
 
Old Yesterday, 09:58 AM   #87
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,351
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3334Reputation: 3334Reputation: 3334Reputation: 3334Reputation: 3334Reputation: 3334Reputation: 3334Reputation: 3334Reputation: 3334Reputation: 3334Reputation: 3334
I guess I've never understood "what all the fuss is about" concerning Facebook. I've never used any of these services and I never plan to. Even when it was "IRC = Internet Relay Chat" chatting endlessly with other people never really interested me.

I do think that the owners of these sites, including particularly "TikTok," should bear legal responsibility for what they allow to be on their sites. They are, indeed, "content producers" and "editors." Other people can "be damaged" by what is placed there. TikTok is being used to "challenge" people to perform illegal acts, and teenagers are stupid enough to do them. Google is purposely making information that it doesn't like harder to find. I don't think that property owners should be able to do things like that with impunity. The old "Section 230" rules are no longer descriptive of what these services now are and how they are now being used and managed.

If someone posts a challenge on TikTok to destroy the sinks in a bathroom, then both TikTok, Inc. and the person who posted it should be subject to legal and quite possibly criminal liability for their acts. If someone posts a Facebook page calling for and organizing jihad, then both Facebook, Inc. and the author of the post should bear direct liability for their acts. You don't get a "get out of jail free" card.

Last edited by sundialsvcs; Yesterday at 10:01 AM.
 
Old Today, 06:07 AM   #88
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 3,887

Rep: Reputation: 3674Reputation: 3674Reputation: 3674Reputation: 3674Reputation: 3674Reputation: 3674Reputation: 3674Reputation: 3674Reputation: 3674Reputation: 3674Reputation: 3674
Here's a radical concept for you. I strongly suspect that a civilization having at it's most basic fundamental laws, boiled down to essences, that 100% Free Speech (even including an assumed right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater) would have less and fewer problems than one of of 100% censorship.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Text to Speech - Speech to Text in Linux & C/C++ aarsh Linux - Newbie 2 05-15-2012 11:46 AM
Text to speech to speech package in OpenSUSE 11.2 aarsh Linux - Newbie 2 05-25-2011 08:13 PM
Question regarding this line "Free taken as in free speech, not free beer" SHENGTON Linux - Newbie 11 01-12-2009 07:40 AM
LXer: When Free Speech is not Free Speech LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 03-29-2007 11:33 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:55 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration