By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Do you believe that sites who build platforms for others should allow free speech.

 

I think...

Free speech laws should be upheld by region 2 9.52%
 
Free speech laws the site... 0 0%
 
Speech should be as free as the sites rules 11 52.38%
 
Speech should be up allow... 4 19.05%
 
There should be no speech... 3 14.29%
 
Comments/indifferent.... 1 4.76%
 
Total:21
VGPolyglot on 26 February 2018
John2290 said:
Ka-pi96 said:

The point still stands. He wants laws to protect people doing those things on websites, but they don't exist for shops so why should they for websites? A shop could kick you out for the t shirt you're wearing if they wanted to.

I don't want laws, I just see that as the only way it can head without sites taking matters into their own hands and getting their houses in order before the government does interviene. 

Oh and yes businesses can kick you out for any reason but you can sue the fuck out of them for it which prevents them from doing so. That is the reality social media sites will face if they don't fix there shit and regulate, hence the thread. As someone already mentioned lawmakers are looking on with hungry eyes as it is. 

So, how far are we going with? Should websites be forced to allow the proliferation of Nazism in the name of free speech?



Around the Network
LiquorandGunFun on 26 February 2018

I say no censorship. But people are too weak for words and melt on impact.

But at the same time, if you own and run the site, you should be able to dictate what is allowed, and if people don't like it to start their own or find another site.

But in a time of I am a Victim mentality most cant take other views, so they want to silence them so they can "feel better". sigh..



 

VGPolyglot on 26 February 2018
John2290 said:
VGPolyglot said:

So, how far are we going with? Should websites be forced to allow the proliferation of Nazism in the name of free speech?

I'm not saying that, please stop putting words in my mouth. I'm saying things should be on an even keel, not up in the air, I don't support government intervention into social media but it is looking like it will happen and in many parts of the world it has. Like I said, self regulation of set rules would be the best approach and I would hope there is still time for it. Twitter removing people with opinions that counter management, deplatforming who they please might as well scream of abuse and a need for intervention. 

Let me ask you, if you weren't able to talk about socialism on the platforms you use, what would you do? If every platform you choose to use kept proactively shutting you down, where would you stand on the matter?

I didn't really put words in your mouth, I was asking a question that you skirted around. I'll ask that again, should Nazism be counted in what websites have to allow as free speech?

In regards to that question, I don't equate socialism with Nazism, because Nazism is an ideology based around extreme racism. However, while I would not be happy if websites stopped allowing the spread of socialist speech, it would not be surprising considering the threats that it would pose to the establishment if it were successful (and indeed when it does have a higher chance of succeeding it is more heavily suppressed, whereas in times such as now where the possibility of a socialist movement is lower it is generally allowed), and I guess I would just have to find other ways to spread it.



Teeqoz on 26 February 2018
RolStoppable said:
John2290 said:

Then why create a platform you are going to profit from if you want that platform to be restricted, do site operators not owe it to users who crwte their revneue and keep their site alive to allow them to speck regardless wether they dislike what is being said?

Site owners owe nothing to users. Besides, restrictions do not only drive away users, they can also bring them in. There are plenty of people who seek echo chambers.

Userbase is also not the only thing driving revenue - the ones advertising are ultimately the ones paying, and oftentimes they don't want their image associated with certain things said on a platform (this is one of the reasons behind YouTube's ad policy change). Hence those providing the platform have to walk a balance between giving freedom to users, while restricting them enough to stay within the boundaries of what their actual, paying customers want.