Politics, Religion & Controversy Politics | Religion | Controversy (Non-Corvette)

We either have Freedom of the Press or we don't.

 
Old 05-15-2019, 03:52 PM
  #41  
Hoonose
CF Senior Member
 
Hoonose's Avatar
 
Member Since: Feb 2000
Location: Arizona
Posts: 42,404
Received 74 Likes on 65 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 63 340HP View Post
You see life through a 1970's lens of social utility.

Is telephone use content regulated from censure by the carrier, wired or cell phone content (yes)?

I have not had a wired phone for over a decade, and I dropped it because I never used it to make calls. Social norms for communication have evolved beyond that narrowly defined and protected usage limited to a landline (physical wiretap required) telephone.

My kids have cell phones, and have not placed a call recorded on our billing invoices for years. My kid's exclusively use these messaging applications. The kid's even skirt parents blocking their cell phone use, by using these messaging applications over WiFi (internet). These apps can also be configured to port the app voice communication to a traditional voice telephone number (for a fee or subscription).

Is your personal communications transmitted over internet 1st amendment protected content: voice, email, skype, medical records, etc.(yes)?
Is VOIP (voice over internet protocol) communications using a traditional telephone carrier 1st amendment protected content (Verizon, ATT, Sprint,etc. --- yes)?
Are these communications 1st amendment protected because the software and carrier medium are wires or internet, or because of who owns the application software and servers, or is it 1st amendment protected because of the carried content?

Tell me again, in our world with modern technology, why is Facebook VOIP & email/message services, and similar communication service traffic, is subject to arbitrary censure and not 1st amendment protected content?
You are way past me with involvement on this issue.

I've been texting on an internet since the early '70's. And came close to being maybe the first online sexual predator! And maybe one of the first online real time gaming champions.

https://ultimatehistoryvideogames.ji...irfight-plato/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLATO_(computer_system)
Hoonose is online now  
Old 05-15-2019, 04:06 PM
  #42  
Sifu-TZ
CF Senior Member
 
Sifu-TZ's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2014
Location: houston texas
Posts: 17,299
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 63 340HP View Post
You see life through a 1970's lens of social utility.

Is telephone use content regulated from censure by the carrier, wired or cell phone content (yes)?

I have not had a wired phone for over a decade, and I dropped it because I never used it to make calls. Social norms for communication have evolved beyond that narrowly defined and protected usage limited to a landline (physical wiretap required) telephone.

My kids have cell phones, and have not placed a call recorded on our billing invoices for years. My kid's exclusively use these messaging applications. The kid's even skirt parents blocking their cell phone use, by using these messaging applications over WiFi (internet). These apps can also be configured to port the app voice communication to a traditional voice telephone number (for a fee or subscription).

Is your personal communications transmitted over internet 1st amendment protected content: voice, email, skype, medical records, etc.(yes)?
Is VOIP (voice over internet protocol) communications using a traditional telephone carrier 1st amendment protected content (Verizon, ATT, Sprint,etc. --- yes)?
Are these communications 1st amendment protected because the software and carrier medium are wires or internet, or because of who owns the application software and servers, or is it 1st amendment protected because of the carried content?

Tell me again, in our world with modern technology, why is Facebook VOIP & email/message services, and similar communication service traffic, is subject to arbitrary censure and not 1st amendment protected content?

at no point is the use of FB, twitter, or any of those social meida necessary, they are private businesses and not public property.
Sifu-TZ is offline  
Old 05-15-2019, 04:34 PM
  #43  
Millenium Z06
CF Senior Member
 
Millenium Z06's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2004
Location: Frisco TX Pants Shitingly Fast
Posts: 6,934
Received 139 Likes on 122 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by GreyHawk View Post
The problem is that these internet sites advertise that they are not censoring political speech or content. Then they do. It is like your business saying you serve everyone but in reality you don't serve Asians. If they would say upfront that they only allow liberals or anyone that isn't Asian then no problem. There are federal and state laws about bait and switch. They want your information (saleable product) and then discriminate after getting it.

Technically they aren't, they are censoring language which happens to be in the context of political speech. Thats how they are getting around it. I disagree with the un-equal censorship but at the same time, its their property, their private network on their private server. People confuse Social Media being on the internet with connecting to the internet is the accurate term.
Millenium Z06 is offline  
Old 05-15-2019, 04:37 PM
  #44  
Millenium Z06
CF Senior Member
 
Millenium Z06's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2004
Location: Frisco TX Pants Shitingly Fast
Posts: 6,934
Received 139 Likes on 122 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Ragtop_Rob View Post
It can easily be argued that Facebook is now a utility (monopolistic IMHO) and can be compelled to be fair.
No its not, nowhere close. As was said in the other thread, a Monopoly requires a monetary component; there is none here in this context.
Millenium Z06 is offline  
Old 05-15-2019, 04:46 PM
  #45  
Jackie N
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Nov 2018
Posts: 845
Received 105 Likes on 73 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sifu-TZ View Post
at no point is the use of FB, twitter, or any of those social meida necessary, they are private businesses and not public property.
You kinda skirted all of his points, some of which are very valid.
Jackie N is offline  
Old 05-15-2019, 04:48 PM
  #46  
Millenium Z06
CF Senior Member
 
Millenium Z06's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2004
Location: Frisco TX Pants Shitingly Fast
Posts: 6,934
Received 139 Likes on 122 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 63 340HP View Post
You are stuck in an obsolete paradigm.

ATT, Bell Telephone, (etc.), were never government agencies, or entities, and they were prohibited from monitoring calls and censuring call content. The computing power of the era was not capable of detecting keywords to flag active censure and suppression like today, but switchboard operators could listen in to calls and were prohibited from disclosing or censuring intercepted call content.

FB/Instagram/Messenger and Google message applications, or FaceTime (Apple) and Skype (Microsoft), are all evolved mediums of telecommunication that much of the public now depends upon for necessary and customary communication, much like wired telephones of past decades. While these applications began as novelty social media platforms, people now use them as communication utilities just like we used telephones fifty years ago.

I don't expect older people to use these applications as communication mediums like young adults do, but I also caution that you need to recognize they are now used for much more than sharing photos of grandchildren.

These are people addicted to SM, there is no need for FB or any of the other services and on top of that, you're not charged for these services as a user.
Millenium Z06 is offline  
Old 05-15-2019, 04:50 PM
  #47  
Millenium Z06
CF Senior Member
 
Millenium Z06's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2004
Location: Frisco TX Pants Shitingly Fast
Posts: 6,934
Received 139 Likes on 122 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
Sure, one can always go camping. But modern life much more typically demands, water and electricity.

I would say that some communications are utilities. They vary with modern life. A computer program like Facebook does not meet my criteria for a utility, but of course that is just my opinion. If Facebook was somehow linked to the internet, which I would consider as a utility, so that one had no choice but to go through Facebook to access the internet, that to me would be close enough to a monopoly to be concerned.
Yes, like AOL in the 2000's. Good point
Millenium Z06 is offline  
Old 05-15-2019, 04:54 PM
  #48  
Millenium Z06
CF Senior Member
 
Millenium Z06's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2004
Location: Frisco TX Pants Shitingly Fast
Posts: 6,934
Received 139 Likes on 122 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 63 340HP View Post
You see life through a 1970's lens of social utility.

Is telephone use content regulated from censure by the carrier, wired or cell phone content (yes)?

I have not had a wired phone for over a decade, and I dropped it because I never used it to make calls. Social norms for communication have evolved beyond that narrowly defined and protected usage limited to a landline (physical wiretap required) telephone.

My kids have cell phones, and have not placed a call recorded on our billing invoices for years. My kid's exclusively use these messaging applications. The kid's even skirt parents blocking their cell phone use, by using these messaging applications over WiFi (internet). These apps can also be configured to port the app voice communication to a traditional voice telephone number (for a fee or subscription).

Is your personal communications transmitted over internet 1st amendment protected content: voice, email, skype, medical records, etc.(yes)?
Is VOIP (voice over internet protocol) communications using a traditional telephone carrier 1st amendment protected content (Verizon, ATT, Sprint,etc. --- yes)?
Are these communications 1st amendment protected because the software and carrier medium are wires or internet, or because of who owns the application software and servers, or is it 1st amendment protected because of the carried content?

Tell me again, in our world with modern technology, why is Facebook VOIP & email/message services, and similar communication service traffic, is subject to arbitrary censure and not 1st amendment protected content?
Because you do not need to use FB to get to the internet whereas with Verizon, ATT Sprint etc, you need to go thru them to use the service.
Millenium Z06 is offline  
Old 05-15-2019, 04:59 PM
  #49  
pdiddy972
CF Senior Member
 
pdiddy972's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2014
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 10,693
Received 354 Likes on 235 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Jackie N View Post
Facebook is definitely teetering on the line. They've taken the role of publisher, that's for sure. And they aggregate and disseminate news, and decide how that news is presented.
So does every news station/channel. They decide what stories, what slant and what guests to have on and how long they can speak. What's the difference and why should a social network be held to a higher standard?

It's not clear cut. I'm on the side against gov intervention, but just barely. Personally I think all of you who are complaining about this need to stop using these services. Social media is poisoning your mind and the way you live your life. Get off.
Agreed - don't like their slant don't use them.
pdiddy972 is online now  
Old 05-15-2019, 04:59 PM
  #50  
pdiddy972
CF Senior Member
 
pdiddy972's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2014
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 10,693
Received 354 Likes on 235 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 63 340HP View Post
The have also become the distributor with editorial license to not carry any product they oppose on political grounds, employing the same tactic as the Soviet's in the 1930's. The Soviet people had free speech, but the Communist Party regulated what content could be distributed. Publications opposing the Communists were created, but restricted at the distribution portal. Today we can read some of the published material opposing the left leaning Democratic Party platform, but much of the published content is regulated at the left-allied distributors.

We need full wild west freedom of speech across all platforms.
hell, we don't even have "wild west freedom of speech" in this forum
pdiddy972 is online now  
Old 05-15-2019, 05:05 PM
  #51  
63 340HP
CF Senior Member
 
63 340HP's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2005
Location: Beach & High Desert Southern California
Posts: 15,676
Received 483 Likes on 293 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sifu-TZ View Post
at no point is the use of FB, twitter, or any of those social meida necessary, they are private businesses and not public property.
No utility service or former monopoly is necessary?

No US Postal Service is needed (deliver it yourself, *** the USPS).
No phone is needed (write letters, *** ATT).
No electrical service is needed (use generators and solar PV, *** Edison).
No water service is needed (drill or dig your own well, *** the Water Dept).
No gasoline is needed (walk, *** Standard Oil).

No messaging services are needed (wait a minute):
use a phone... (no ATT),
or send a letter... (no USPS),
or email... (no ATT & Verizon, etc.),
or drive and hand deliver... (no oil companies)

Who are you to decide what modern technology services are not necessary to my well being (asking for a friend)?

...

Can we discuss what makes content communicated through telephone companies 1st amendment protected, but messages on Instagram not protected?

If all it takes is not opting out to preserve your 1st amendment right of transmitted content protection, what is stopping the telephone company from sending opt out notices and removing your expectation of privacy and free speech right during a phone call?

Software capable of identifying your voice and translating it in near real time exists, and the code can easily be designed to reconfigure your grammar and wording with AI to reformat the delivered message and censure or alter the context. Is that technology acceptable for phone calls or email (or social media platform messaging and communications)?
63 340HP is offline  
Old 05-15-2019, 05:11 PM
  #52  
63 340HP
CF Senior Member
 
63 340HP's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2005
Location: Beach & High Desert Southern California
Posts: 15,676
Received 483 Likes on 293 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Millenium Z06 View Post
Because you do not need to use FB to get to the internet whereas with Verizon, ATT Sprint etc, you need to go thru them to use the service.
FB needs to go through the same communication utilities, and the utility owned fiber, copper cable, and broadcast frequencies to use the service.

Why do we not allow telephone technology to censure our voice calls?

Is the transmission technology and physical pathway what determines if communication enjoys 1st amendment protection, or is it the nature and sensitivity of the content?
63 340HP is offline  
Old 05-15-2019, 05:18 PM
  #53  
theandies
CF Senior Member
 
theandies's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2001
Location: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Posts: 17,893
Received 306 Likes on 256 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BobG View Post
This may be an unpopular opinion, but I oppose the OP's idea. On the surface, it might seem like a good idea, but do we really want anti-American facists and liberals (one and the same) like zerobumma and his team of corrupt scum in charge of what is considered "bad speech"? These oppressive idiots already try and control you with speech, and you want to let them have "official" control, in violation of the Constitution?

The thing to do is to not use the liberal propaganda networks. There ARE alternatives to faceyuck, twattle, and the msm outlets. They aren't as popular or as glitzy and polished, or as celebrated by the domestic enemy, but they exist. Do you think ANY of them would if the OP proposal were implemented, at least the next time the domestic enemy liberals take power, with all of their oppression, perversion, and misery?

No, the proposal isn't just against the Constitution, it's just a bad idea that plays directly into the evil hands of those who want to destroy every iota of freedom they can.
I agree 100%. Once you allow any government to control just .000000001% of free speech you've lost free speech. If you don't like the stance that is held by these internet sites and TV "news" programs then change the channel, type in another URL etc.
I will say that these internet sites should be legislated in regards to YOUR personal information. The default should be ALL YOUR information is private unless you opt into their data sharing scheme. But that is as far as I'd like government to go.

Here is the solution if you don't like what your seeing/hearing on TV or the internet:


theandies is online now  
Old 05-15-2019, 05:19 PM
  #54  
63 340HP
CF Senior Member
 
63 340HP's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2005
Location: Beach & High Desert Southern California
Posts: 15,676
Received 483 Likes on 293 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by pdiddy972 View Post
hell, we don't even have "wild west freedom of speech" in this forum
Correct, but I can now type the word "****" and you can read it (even IB's forums evolve).

1st amendment speech protections were intended to be independent of technology and ownership (why USPS delivery of mail with prohibitions against mail fraud and tampering was favored over courier services that could open your mail and profit from the contained knowledge).
63 340HP is offline  
Old 05-15-2019, 05:22 PM
  #55  
KenHorse
AOC = All Out Communist
Support Corvetteforum!
 
KenHorse's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2007
Location: Aurora, OR by way of Maui, HI. I have the heart of a Progressive - I keep it in a jar on my desk
Posts: 104,390
Received 1,003 Likes on 666 Posts
St. Jude Donor '11-'12-'13, '16-'17-'18
Default

Originally Posted by Sifu-TZ View Post
at no point is the use of FB, twitter, or any of those social meida necessary, they are private businesses and not public property.
Like saying one doesn't have to advertise on TV or radio. They're private businesses too, not to mention NY Times, WaPo etc.

Seriously, THAT'S the point you're going to make?

Last edited by KenHorse; 05-15-2019 at 05:23 PM.
KenHorse is offline  
Old 05-15-2019, 05:26 PM
  #56  
63 340HP
CF Senior Member
 
63 340HP's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2005
Location: Beach & High Desert Southern California
Posts: 15,676
Received 483 Likes on 293 Posts
Default

Is removing 1st amendment protection from telephone and snail mail the solution we need to equalize our privacy on these modern communication platforms (if ya can't beat the modern platforms ease of use and lack of protections, join them, right)?
63 340HP is offline  
Old 05-15-2019, 05:43 PM
  #57  
pdiddy972
CF Senior Member
 
pdiddy972's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2014
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 10,693
Received 354 Likes on 235 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 63 340HP View Post
You are stuck in an obsolete paradigm.

ATT, Bell Telephone, (etc.), were never government agencies, or entities, and they were prohibited from monitoring calls and censuring call content. The computing power of the era was not capable of detecting keywords to flag active censure and suppression like today, but switchboard operators could listen in to calls and were prohibited from disclosing or censuring intercepted call content.

FB/Instagram/Messenger and Google message applications, or FaceTime (Apple) and Skype (Microsoft), are all evolved mediums of telecommunication that much of the public now depends upon for necessary and customary communication, much like wired telephones of past decades. While these applications began as novelty social media platforms, people now use them as communication utilities just like we used telephones fifty years ago.

I don't expect older people to use these applications as communication mediums like young adults do, but I also caution that you need to recognize they are now used for much more than sharing photos of grandchildren.
There are no barriers to entry for anyone who wants to create a competing platform.
pdiddy972 is online now  
Old 05-15-2019, 05:50 PM
  #58  
Millenium Z06
CF Senior Member
 
Millenium Z06's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2004
Location: Frisco TX Pants Shitingly Fast
Posts: 6,934
Received 139 Likes on 122 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 63 340HP View Post
FB needs to go through the same communication utilities, and the utility owned fiber, copper cable, and broadcast frequencies to use the service.

Why do we not allow telephone technology to censure our voice calls?

Is the transmission technology and physical pathway what determines if communication enjoys 1st amendment protection, or is it the nature and sensitivity of the content?
No, the user needs to go thru those communication utilities, and the utility owned fiber, copper cable, and broadcast frequencies to use the service.
What 1st A right is being violated by FB or SM as a whole?
Telephone technology is completely different from a private message forum where you need to abide by there rules to participate.
Millenium Z06 is offline  
Old 05-15-2019, 05:51 PM
  #59  
Millenium Z06
CF Senior Member
 
Millenium Z06's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2004
Location: Frisco TX Pants Shitingly Fast
Posts: 6,934
Received 139 Likes on 122 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by theandies View Post
I agree 100%. Once you allow any government to control just .000000001% of free speech you've lost free speech. If you don't like the stance that is held by these internet sites and TV "news" programs then change the channel, type in another URL etc.
I will say that these internet sites should be legislated in regards to YOUR personal information. The default should be ALL YOUR information is private unless you opt into their data sharing scheme. But that is as far as I'd like government to go.

Here is the solution if you don't like what your seeing/hearing on TV or the internet:


100% agree
Millenium Z06 is offline  
Old 05-15-2019, 05:52 PM
  #60  
63 340HP
CF Senior Member
 
63 340HP's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2005
Location: Beach & High Desert Southern California
Posts: 15,676
Received 483 Likes on 293 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by pdiddy972 View Post
There are no barriers to entry for anyone who wants to create a competing platform.
The competing platform has 1st amendment protections, your VOIP telephone carrier.

Why do you allow your VOIP content on Instagram or Facebook Messenger to be without 1st amendment protections, that that same VOIP content has on ATT?

Why is ATT and Verizon prohibited from monitoring and censuring the content of the calls you receive and store in voice mail, and Instagram and Messenger are allowed to monitor and censure that same stored content on their services?
63 340HP is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: We either have Freedom of the Press or we don't.


Sponsored Ads
Vendor Directory

Contact Us - About Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: