Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
"Sacha Baron Cohen has made a very good living by trolling people. His most famous character, Borat Sagdiyev, is an incestuous anti-Semitic moron who once sang a tune called "Throw the Jew Down the Well" and was afraid to fly because he thought the Jews did 9/11. Cohen has been sued numerous times, and his movies have been banned throughout the Arab world. He enjoys pissing people off, and it's made him rich and famous.
"Are there anti-Semites online? Yes. Is anti-Semitism bad? Yes. Are some of the people who appear to be anti-Semites actually mocking anti-Semitism? I can think of at least one: Sacha Baron Cohen. Well, who decides which is which? Who determines which hate speech is real and which hate speech is a joke? Shouldn't people be allowed to figure it out for themselves? Isn't that the basis of Cohen's entire career?
The price of free speech is that you're going to hear things you don't like. The solution isn't to silence those people. The solution is to talk back. Cohen used to know that. What happened?
Congratulations to Sacha Baron Cohen on completing his journey. Now the guy who plays Borat sounds exactly like people who want to ban Borat."
https://pjmedia.com/trending/borat-has- ... peech-cop/
I wonder how that fits into Cohen's "greatest speech."
Also the guy was good for a few yuks sometimes.
Cohen makes some good points there. Why should the biggest publishers in human history, like Facebook, Google and Twitter, not be responsible for their content? TV companies and newspapers are strictly regulated - meanwhile, Facebook�s algorithms are designed to inflame opinions with fake news.
Funny too, that the people who's intolerance will be the speech most edited, are the ones loudest against any such move.
Why should the biggest publishers in human history, like Facebook, Google and Twitter, not be responsible for their content?
Because the world belongs entirely to the lunatics and assholes now. The rest of us are just living in the wreckage they leave behind them.
Why should the biggest publishers in human history, like Facebook, Google and Twitter, not be responsible for their content?
I get the feeling you mean that rhetorically but there is a specific answer to that question.
It has to do with the question is social media a "publisher" or "a platform. Generally they're not responsible for their content but they can choose to be and that creates problems of bias.
Facebook is having a difficult time deciding what they are. They refer to themselves as both a platform and a publisher. So are Facebook users employees or customers? If Facebook is a publisher, then the people on the site are contributors. But this goes against Facebook�s stance of not being accountable for what�s on their site. Section 230 of the communications decency act immunizes social media companies from unlawful material posted on their site. But this section operates under the assumption these sites are neutral public forums and not private publishers. If Facebook is a private publisher like Alex Jones�s Infowars, then we can hold them accountable as a business for what users post on their site.
With legislation on their side, will these social media giants ever choose which role they play? If Facebook and Twitter play editor, they�re responsible for the content. They will pay the cost in the long run.
The Beginning
Before the internet, bookstores and libraries weren�t legally responsible for offensive content. At the inception of the internet, this is the law of the digital world. However, in 1995, Prodigy, an early online service, is found to be liable for content posted on its message boards. The courts reason that �utilizing technology and the manpower to delete� objectionable content makes Prodigy more like a publisher than a bookstore or library.
Congress responds to this finding by enacting Section 230. This establishes that platforms cannot be accountable as publishers of user-generated content. They will also not be accountable for removing lewd or violent content. Nevertheless, this provision does not allow platforms to remove whatever they wish. The courts also ruled that what is deemed to be objectional material is not whatever the social media sites want. It must be violent, threatening, or harassing in nature. Unfortunately for these social media sites, political views do not fall under any of those categories and censoring them is a violation of free speech.
Social Media in the Future
Given that sites such as Facebook and Twitter are currently immune to any legal repercussions that come from user-generated content, should they be allowed to censor conservatives? Businesses should be allowed to operate as they wish. But when these companies already have legislation protecting them as a platform, but choose to act as a publisher, it�s time for things to change.
Whatever happens going forward, one thing is for certain: we all have a part in ensuring everyone around us has a voice. We may not like what our neighbors have to say, but we should defend their right to say it.
https://71republic.com/2019/05/10/socia ... publisher/
Cohen makes some good points there.
Does he? Then he needs to be ready to have this censorship he's wishing for apply to himself. If offense needs to be censored then he's first in line for it.
That's basic. I'm not sure how many times it has to be said.
First, Zuckerberg tried to portray this whole issue as �choices � around free expression�. That is ludicrous. This is not about limiting anyone�s free speech. This is about giving people, including some of the most reprehensible people on earth, the biggest platform in history to reach a third of the planet. Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach...
...Second, Zuckerberg claimed that new limits on what�s posted on social media would be to �pull back on free expression�. This is utter nonsense. The first amendment says that �Congress shall make no law� abridging freedom of speech, however, this does not apply to private businesses like Facebook. We�re not asking these companies to determine the boundaries of free speech across society. We just want them to be responsible on their platforms...
...It�s time to finally call these companies what they really are � the largest publishers in history. And here�s an idea for them: abide by basic standards and practices just like newspapers, magazines and TV news do every day...If there are standards and practices for what cinemas and television channels can show, then surely companies that publish material to billions of people should have to abide by basic standards and practices too...
... In every other industry, you can be sued for the harm you cause. Publishers can be sued for libel, people can be sued for defamation. I�ve been sued many times! I�m being sued right now by someone whose name I won�t mention because he might sue me again! But social media companies are largely protected from liability for the content their users post � no matter how indecent it is � by Section 230 of, get ready for it, the Communications Decency Act. Absurd!
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... propaganda
But if that's what he means he should get off his moral high horse suggesting he's the champion of no mean words or that he knows what sort of speech needs to be controlled and say specifically he only wants social media to be defined in law as publishers.
Also, he should be careful what he wishes for. Any control he's wishing for against Alex Jones is just as likely to be used against him if Social media loses it's protection as a platform. More likely would be my guess. It isn't Alex Jones who got to slide under the current system, but you can click on "Throw the Jews down the well" easy enough.
And what does he even mean by "Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach." Catchy little platitude but what does he want? Does he mean people shouldn't find it so easy to just click on that above mentioned clip of his? I doubt it but I bet he'd like better access to cash if they do. Like he could pressure from a publisher as opposed to a platform. A platform finds it easier to just shrug and say I can't control what they post but if you have your lawyers fill out forms A through Z we can get you a few bucks of any ad money that might have got to that 500 post comment.
And what does he even mean by "Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach." Catchy little platitude but what does he want?.
He explains what he wants. This whole notion of a �platform� is just a legal dodge. Facebook is a publisher of content written by other people, the largest ever, and, like any publisher, should be held accountable for what it publishes.
But ultimately I don't mind them having platform status providing they stop acting like a publisher when it suits their political agenda.